Hi all -

Scott Silverman phoned the other day. Dave! he said, we haven't seen you on Skyscript lately. I replied, I swore it off for Lent! It's not Lent, he said, helpfully. Dang, I said, that was one Mardi Grass hangover. Wonder what else I've missed.

The Department of Justice is taking me to court over very old, very defaulted student loans. I know they do this from time to time & I know they don't waste a lot of time or bother with a lot of details, but when I got the papers & looked at them, the case seemed weak. Since it isn't often I get large envelopes from the US Department of Justice, I knew what was inside & so set up the first chart immediately:

Wednesday, October 3, 2007, 1:18 pm EDT, Bel Air MD. The chart has 24 Sag & change for the ascendant, 16 Libra MC. My ruler is a strong 12th house Jupiter, the DOJ's is a weak 10th house Mercury. My natal Dsc is Sag. The MC is half a degree off my natal Saturn. Pluto on the horary ASC means nasty (I hate psychic attacks), the moon, if we don't use Uranus (I don't) is void, but the chart, overall, says I win. Yes?

So the next day at 5:45 pm I sent off a reply. The moon was now really, really void, but then I remembered that Lilly said a moon void in Cancer was not all that bad. For my part I wanted the reply out of my hands & on its way.

I thought it would take them longer to reply, but on Saturday I got an even more strange reply. The amount they wanted had decreased by $3700, and they now grudgingly supplied copies of the original contracts, since I had mentioned I had them in my possession. This time I had to open the envelope to see what was going on. The chart for that:

October 13, 2007, 4:17 pm EDT, Bel Air, MD. In this chart, the MC is within a degree of my natal ascendant, the ASC, Aquarius, is the same sign as my natal MC. In the horary, I am ruled by Saturn, which is firmly in the clutches of the 7th house. 7th house ruler is the Sun, debilitated in Libra, disposed by Venus in Virgo, enroute to a conjunction with Saturn. Since I am Saturn, I presume this is favorable. The eventual dispositor of Sun, Venus & Saturn is Mercury, retrograde in Scorpio, which, in its turn is disposed by Mars in Cancer & Moon in Scorpio, as mutual dispositors, from 5 to 9. Which looks like creative jurisprudence to me. Merc retro thrown in means they cut too many corners. If I throw out Neptune - which I usually do - I find the moon again void. Neither she nor Mars are terribly strong. 10th house is Sag, with Jupiter tucked inside, which looks like true justice, whatever that may be.

I know, I know, I myself edited the edition of Lilly which is now standard, yet my sense of dispositors still overwhelms my feeble attempts at horary.

The case is scheduled to be heard by Judge Catherine C. Blake. She was born July 27, 1950, in Boston Mass (no time available). She graduated Magna Cum Laude from Radcliffe in 1972, and Cum Laude from Harvard Law School in 1975. From this I gather her Saturn - Moon trine, from Virgo to Capricorn, to be a major factor in her chart. Her Moon is somewhere in the neighborhood of my Venus, which is at 17 Cap. Her debilitated Mars is conjunct my Neptune. Her Mercury is conjunct my Pluto, opposite my Sun. For all that, she seems to have made better use of her chart than I have of mine.

The head of the Baltimore Department of Justice is Rod J. Rosenstein. He was born January 13, 1965, in Philadelphia, PA. Time is again unavailable. His moon is Taurus or Gemini. As he does not seem to have published, I will guess it to be Taurus, which means an AM birth. His sun is widely conjunct my Venus, which means in favorable aspect to the judge's moon.

I know after all that I should give my own data, but I've been beat up too many times in my life to want to do that.

What puzzles me is that when I read the contracts critically, the government's case is weak. Which seems to be confirmed by the charts. I pointed this out in my initial reply (without the astrology, of course), thinking they would not need much of a nudge to throw the case back to the Department of Education, so was surprised to read the mangle of papers they sent for their second try. I am supposed to sign a waiver of service to start this all off, but until the details make sense, I have no intention of signing anything.

So what intelligent prosecutor goes to court with a weak hand?

As I post this, the moon is again void. My thumb hurts. I smashed it with a hammer this afternoon.

David R. Roell

Hi Dave

People tend to think that things ?don?t matter? when the Moon is void of course, but I think a bigger problem is that it tends to show that things don?t happen - not that they go away, but that they don?t get easily resolved. So they drag on ? and on ? If this is something that you are trying to avoid that might work in your favour.

Pluto on the horary ASC means nasty (I hate psychic attacks), the moon, if we don't use Uranus (I don't) is void

I find it curious that you ignore Uranus but recognise Pluto. I wouldn?t have taken the Moon in the 1st chart as VOC and I think Uranus is begging for attention by the fact that Jupiter, which rules the 3rd as well as the 1st, also applies immediately to the square of Uranus. With both of your significators applying directly to Uranus in the 3rd, and the 3rd-ruler in the 12th house of self-undoing, I think the warning was that it was not in your interest to give a quick response in writing. This could also have been forewarning of the further disturbance still to come, in the form of the 2nd letter that came in response to yours.

In both charts your opponents don?t look strong, but your signification doesn?t look too great either. I suppose that makes sense because even if you win you could still have a lot to lose in terms of hassle, inconvenience and fees. Whether or not you consider Neptune on the ascendant of the 2nd chart as preventing the Moon from being VOC, it only adds to the profile of obscurity on your part, and the Moon applies by trine to Neptune and the ascendant, suggesting this might be your best ploy. Maybe it will be in your interest to act out your signification of Saturn and cause delays in all your answers ? I definitely agree that you shouldn?t sign anything until you understand this situation better.

Dear Deb,

This was most helpful. I will study it and may have more later.

Dave

Hello Deb,

You're helping me to understand horaries as dynamic events.

DOJ sent their first mail to someone unknown to them, symbolized by my ruler in the 12th.

I sent back a 9 page bombast (where's the Victorian 19th century when you need it?) and instantly became a fussy seventh house Saturn in Virgo. Which, given the close conjunction with an approaching Venus, they actually liked, at least grudgingly (dispositor of a weak 7th house ruler, itself disposed by another weak ruler: Retro Mercury). Your reply helped clarify that critical point. My next response will become the 7th house of their next reply. Wonder what it looks like on their end?

Can I be a fussy Saturn? You bet! But, like as not, the situation will continue to develop in ways of its own. My reply to the second note should be three brief paragraphs, I will write it later today.

Re: Uranus, Neptune & Pluto. I confess I don't have a clear understanding of any of them. The most surprising thing about Uranus is that it sometimes doesn't seem to do anything at all. Neptune is best if firmly tied down, and a strong Saturn is about the only thing that can do that. Pluto is nasty & if not angular is best left alone (there actually is that option).

For example, I have Uranus in the 2nd. I have yet to read a delineation that made any sense to me (erratic finances?). Disposed by the moon in 3, it is swept along in the moon's own system & is otherwise clobbered by the Jupiter/Saturn opposition (11 to 5), which it squares. Instead of erratic finances & possessions, I am possessive of my ideas (2 into 3) & have spent my life destitute or near destitute (Jupiter opp Saturn: bankruptcy: Sakoian & Acker). Financially, I've done better the last ten years, but that's not the definition erratic by any means. So I think the outer planets are subordinate to the traditional planets, and are open to reinterpretation in general.

Aspects from these planets to the rest of the chart are things they bring to the other planets, in my view, and not the other way around. This is because the traditional planets rule signs (and through that, the houses, but you're the expert here), whereas the trans-Saturnians rule nothing. Uranus's ability to destabilize Jupiter depends on Jupiter's placement by house & sign. A strong Jupiter, which we have now, can take that in stride, or so I presume.

Time to get back to work on the walls.

Dave

Hi Deb,

With your help this is becoming clearer. The DOJ's initial mail to me was the opening shot. I replied, and the chart for their reply shows both parties now fully engaged. I don't know what's coming down the road, but it may be the second chart, not the first, is the primary chart for the engagement.

And that chart has Aquarius rising, Leo on the descendant. I have a strong Leo/Aquarius axis in my chart (4 to 10, with four planets between them). I have traditionally found Leos all bark & no bite.

Leo is disposed by the Sun in Libra, which means the DOJ has a partner, which it does: The Department of Education. The DOE, not the DOJ, is then the ruler of my fussy Saturn in Virgo, as well as the very closely conjuncting Venus. The DOE likes this kind of fuss, but is that good news or bad?

Bad news, since Venus/Saturn is disposed by a retrograde Mercury in Scorpio, which happens to be, by my rules, in the 9th, which is law itself. That it is retrograde means bad law, that it is moving away from the 9th house cusp means the DOE is trying to hide from scrutiny.

Mercury Rx is in its turn disposed by Mars in 5, which is in mutual reception with the Moon in Scorpio. In Placidus, it's in the 9th. In Regio, it's in the 8th, but I still read it as 9. This means a creative legal solution to the matter at hand.

I am trying to find a timer. This all started one fine August day in 1973. Yes: 34 years ago! So would not be unexpected if it dragged on for a year or more. (This current phase, in fact, started when I filed my 2005 income tax in April, 2006.) I note Mercury is retrograde & I have traditionally noted affairs begun under Mercury Rx seem to evaporate on their own when it next goes direct. It goes direct at 23 Libra. As that doesn't quite hit the 7th house dispositor - the Sun at 20 Libra - I would presume the matter then carries on in less overt fashion. I think both the DOJ & the DOE are checkmated, so a strategic withdrawal - which sounds a lot like Mercury changing directions - may enable them to fight another day.

If I sound a lot like Lilly trying to re-engage a thrice-spurned suitor by working his materials, well, that's the way I think, too.

Dave

Dave,

Horary aside call the law firm of Calo Agostino. They deal with the Dept. of Justice DAILY. They are based in NYC and NJ, but have offices or other solicitors in your area. They are one of the few firms in the USA that wins when pitted against the Dept. Just google and you should find the number.

Phone even if just for a consultation. When Justice gets involved it's much bigger than you realize. I was D.C. based once and I know the horrors they inflict upon people even other solicitors and other departments of the government.

moonwise wrote:Dave,

Horary aside call the law firm of Calo Agostino. They deal with the Dept. of Justice DAILY. They are based in NYC and NJ, but have offices or other solicitors in your area. They are one of the few firms in the USA that wins when pitted against the Dept. Just google and you should find the number.

Phone even if just for a consultation. When Justice gets involved it's much bigger than you realize. I was D.C. based once and I know the horrors they inflict upon people even other solicitors and other departments of the government.

My thanks for the suggestion. So far, they've been doing just plain sloppy work on my behalf - failure to tell me the date they filed, filing for two different amounts of money, etc. Easy to tie them down with procedural mistakes like that. To my amazement they want to go to court & suppress the contracts at issue: They were not presented in the filing. This is their usual ploy with student loan defaulters, and it always works when the defaulter does not actually have the contracts himself & simply feels guilty. Since these filings are usually ten or twenty or thirty years after the loans were given, defendants rarely have the paperwork to defend themselves, even if they wanted. Since I graduated to homelessness, unemployment & food stamps, and as that was some time ago, I eventually got over the guilt part. My defense starts with, "No contract, no case," but the contracts themselves are so weak that it's understandable the DOJ doesn't want the judge to see them. Both the DOJ & I have the contracts. When I proved to them that I had them, they sent me their copies. So it's the judge who's being played.

The amount of money at issue - $5000 plus court costs - is not significant. Good legal representation is not cheap, and I fear that a win on that level may inspire retaliation in the form of IRS audits. I'm clean so far as taxes go, but if the Department of Education is dirty, and the Department of Justice is dirty, then it's unrealistic to think the IRS is clean, since everyone thinks they're dirty anyway.

The world of student loan defaulters qualifies as one of Dante's pits of hell itself, as any casual Google will confirm. I have long known the DOE were made up of third rate bullies. I am taking my measure of the DOJ & finding the same. The judge assigned is an interesting case. Top of her class in two of the most demanding schools in the world, reduced to hearing third rate default cases, where the prosecutors are so contemptuous they do not even feel the need to put on a proper show. GW Bush has it right. The educational elite can be bought & on the cheap as well. I have friends who have been down this road (nos. 1 & 2 from USC in 1979, the year OJ graduated), I know what's in her head. I've also got the rump of her chart.

Dave

Dave of Maryland wrote:
To my amazement they want to go to court & suppress the contracts at issue: They were not presented in the filing. This is their usual ploy with student loan defaulters, and it always works when the defaulter does not actually have the contracts himself & simply feels guilty. Since these filings are usually ten or twenty or thirty years after the loans were given, defendants rarely have the paperwork to defend themselves,
Dave

That is worrisome. If one did pay off their student loan, is there no way to get a copy of that proof if they themselves did not keep it?

RC

RC wrote:

Dave of Maryland wrote:
To my amazement they want to go to court & suppress the contracts at issue: They were not presented in the filing. This is their usual ploy with student loan defaulters, and it always works when the defaulter does not actually have the contracts himself & simply feels guilty. Since these filings are usually ten or twenty or thirty years after the loans were given, defendants rarely have the paperwork to defend themselves,
Dave

That is worrisome. If one did pay off their student loan, is there no way to get a copy of that proof if they themselves did not keep it?

RC

The Department of Education keeps all records. They're just happy to misrepresent them if they can get away with it.

My understanding is if you paid off your loans without incident, that is, without ever defaulting, then you're safe. Your loan never got to the collection department. Also, if you struggled from one default to another, with a long paper trail, you're safe, or should be.

The guys in danger are the guys like me. Worked hard, got their degree & found they'd been screwed. Big time. They got angry & decided they wouldn't pay unless & until they actually got the prize they went to school for. Which, for the most part, they never actually do, since these hopeless idealists don't know how to get a good job or make money anyway.

They get harassed every year. Every. single. year. Their parents get harassed, even if they signed nothing. Year after year. If they get married (and who would want them? They're bust & the feds are after them) & their spouse has an income tax refund, their refund is seized.

This goes on until, on some income tax return or another, there is some evidence of actual money. At which point, you get sued. I knew this was the case ten years ago, but I blundered. I knew I would never have any real money & so was judgment-proof, but I forgot about my wife.

Her mother passed away two years ago (her father passed in the early '90's) & left her three children a sizable inheritance. It was in trust so there was no probate & little tax, but we filed jointly & that was all they needed to sue. And they did, exactly on the schedule I had otherwise foreseen.

Long story short, go to school if you want to, but DO NOT, under any circumstances, take loans to do it. You will regret it for the rest of your life. Ten thousand will buy you a better education on the streets of Paris than it will at State U. I've done both.

As matters stand, four years of unlimited admission to Disneyland now costs The Rest of Your Life, as student loans now run up to 30 years. No education is worth that. There is also increasingly little difference between this, and indentured servitude, ie, outright slavery.

Just as no one is born to suffer the fate of starvation, no one goes to school to be rendered destitute. Yet it happens far more often than is generally realized. Is poverty a defense against student loans? No. There is no mercy. There is no forgiveness. There is only a jackal's endless patience. If you think I exaggerate, and if you are of a cheerful disposition, Google "defaulted student loans" for more.

Apologies to Deb. This is far off any astrological topic, but my mind always wanders.

Dave

Do not worry about IRS retaliation, it is already in the works whether you think so or not. That seems to be procedure. You may have state aid and food stamps now, but they can stop that from coming (in many but not all cases), You may somewhere down the line get some tangible money and THEY NEVER FORGET. Cases are usually as yours 20, 30 years down the line, paperwork missing and such. BUT and here is the BUT in court THEY, THE DOJ is correct. YOU (the DEFENDANT) ARE GUILTY unless THE DEFENDANT PROVES THEM WRONG.

Funny how when it comes to the government, the basic American right of innocent until proven guilty does not apply. The revolutionary fathers fought for what I am beginning to wonder, cause their present government counter-parts need to go back to a basic secondary history class.

I am certainly glad I paid off my student loans-all of it. I received a letter from the government (fannie mae) that congratulations were in order. Thanks for paying your loan etc. etc., I keep that and after hearing your story I'm making copies, because you never know, unless you use Horary of which I am only still learning.

Good Luck with everything. Legal aid is expensive, but please get someone to at least look at it or consult. Consultations are not that expensive. They can make inquireries and if there is nothing other than the standard to worry about let you know that. It's happened to 4 people I knew and worked with, this is why I'm urging you to at least speak with someone. THEN use Horary to pick a good day for any proceedings.

Best of luck.

The judge is weak, that's why it's in her courtroom. DOJ knows they can rely on her not to make a fuss. This is about contract law, not student loan debt. Framed in that fashion, suppression of contract cannot be permitted, because if the judge rules in favor of the DOJ when the defendant is jumping up & down shouting appeal (which I intend to do), she knows she will be overturned on appeal.

That's a judge to judge thing, a peer to peer thing. Judges hate being overturned worse than anything. No way she's going to let the DOJ set her up for that. From what I read, she used to be on the appeals court but lost her standing & now has to hear junk like this. She's also approaching retirement & presumably wants to get back to a higher court so she can retire with more money. Playing along with the DOJ is a way to do that, but not getting overturned on appeal is way more important.

An appeals court cannot let such a judgment stand, because it means that anyone can go to a notary public, swear that so-and-so owes them money & go to court & get it. Contract law would collapse. Do you know about case law?

The DOJ has a client, which is the Department of Education. DOE came up with this pseudo-legal charade in an effort to squeeze money from contracts that were otherwise void. Maybe they write harsher contracts now, or maybe they don't because they're afraid no one will sign them if they do. The last contract I saw was mine, dated 1977, so I don't know. If the DOJ/DOE can razzle-dazzle themselves through a court & get the judgments they seek, then everything's fine, so far as they're concerned. The very last thing they want is for someone to take their case apart & expose it as phony, as they stand to loose the ability to collect on hundreds or thousands of similar contracts. At $5000 or $10,000 or $20,000 a shot, that's a lot of money. To date, they've relied on defendants being both poor & guilt riddled: Easy targets, and they know it.

If you look closely at DOE rules & regulations for loans, you will find a lot of very curious language. You owe on your loan unless you were standing on the corner of Hollywood & Vine at 3:17 on the morning of April 22, 1983. Stuff like that. Those are the results of cases they have lost, and otherwise suppressed all knowledge of. They cannot afford to loose, and they know it. But on the other hand, I am not sure the sub-sub-sub assistant attorneys in Baltimore, who are in charge of my prosecution, exactly understand that.

So as this goes back to DOE, and as DOE replies to the DOJ, I am expecting the winds to shift. The problem then becomes how they put the genie back in the bottle. They cannot let this case go to trial, but if they withdraw it, how will they persuade me to pay the loan, presuming I ever have the money or the inclination?

The solution may be for me to pay some sort of honorarium, some token for which they will write it off. Originally I was going to propose $1000, but I'm pissed. $500 is more than enough.

In court, if it gets there, the mantra will be, "No contract - No case!" Repeat that a few times. I like the sound of it.

My thanks to Deb & Skyscript for helping me think this through.

Dave