You’re copy/pasting generic Rule 4 text and still missing the only part that actually matters here.
Rule 4(i) governs service when the United States or a federal agency is involved.
That requires service on:
– U.S. Attorney
– Attorney General
The docket explicitly states both were NOT served.
So no, this isn’t “pointless.” It’s required when applicable, and AABB didn’t do it.
And your “mail vs process server” rant misses again.
The filing doesn’t say “they chose the wrong method.”
It says:
– No return receipt attached
– No due diligence declaration attached
That’s incomplete service and missing proof. Basic stuff.
Also, this idea that it “buys them time” is flat wrong.
Improper service causes delays, re-service, or dismissal risk. It’s not some strategy.
You’re lecturing on rules while ignoring what actually happened in this case. That’s the problem. This is a pattern with you.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
