Below is the text of the signed letter whose imaged pages (including the exhibits) can be found at http://scofacts.org/Merkey-other-2005-10-30-letter.pdf
For more information, see http://scofacts.org/merkey.


Alan P. Petrofsky
3618 Alameda Apt 5
Menlo Park CA 94025

October 30, 2005

BY CERTIFIED MAIL, ARTICLE NUMBER 7005 1160 0004 0082 1092

Markus B. Zimmer, Clerk
United States District Court, District of Utah
350 S Main St
Salt Lake City UT 84101

Re: Merkey v. Perens et al., 2:05CV521DAK-SA,
      and the "United States District Court DISTRICT OF".

Dear Mr. Zimmer:

      Enclosed please find a copy of a document dated August 23, 2005.
It was included with a "Request For Waiver of Service For Summons"
that I received by certified mail, from Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, on
August 30.
      At the top of the document is written "United States District
Court DISTRICT OF".  It later states that I am required to perform two
actions:
   (1) serve an answer upon "name and address";
   (2) file the answer with "the Clerk of this Court".
None of the names of the ninety-four United States District Courts are
written anywhere on the document, nor is the address of any clerk.
The only state that even has its abbreviation written anywhere on the
document is California.
      This document is clearly not a summons in the form prescribed by
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(a), most notably because it does not "identify
the court" that would be doing the summoning.  It also does not "state
the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney or, if unrepresented,
of the plaintiff".
      By this letter, I am not requesting any action or response.  I
am merely bringing the document to your attention, because I recently
learned that Merkey may believe that my receipt of the document
constituted service of a summons for a case in your district: Merkey
v. Perens et al., 2:05CV521DAK-SA.  (In Merkey's last communication to
me about process, an email dated September 13, he was still inquiring
about his waiver request; and on September 27, he dismissed the
action, without ever having filed an affidavit that a summons had been
served.  However, I have now received a copy of a memorandum dated
October 20, in which Merkey claims, for the first time, that a summons
was served on August 30.)
      I will continue to assume that if the District of Utah should
ever wish to summon me, then I will be served with a summons that
identifies itself as having been issued by the District of Utah.

Yours truly,


Alan P Petrofsky

enclosures: copies of: a document from "United States District Court
      DISTRICT OF", dated August 23, 2005; my letter to Merkey dated
      September 6; and an email from Merkey dated September 13.
cc: Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, 1058 E 50 S, Lindon UT 84042,
      by Certified Mail, article number 7005 1160 0004 0082 1108.


$Id: Merkey-other-2005-10-30-letter.html,v 1.3 2006/01/04 18:16:25 al Exp $