mailing, without proof of delivery, is conspicuously absent in both N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(E) and 4(d)(2)(F). [¶ 18] Sanderson’s assertion the word “delivering” in N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(E) and 4(d)(2)(F) includes certified mail would render the inclusion of the specific mailing requirements under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(A)(v) and 4(d)(2)(D)(iii) redundant and largely meaningless. See Bickel, 530 N.W.2d at 320 (stating a presumption the legislature acts with purpose and does not perform idle acts); cf. Helmets v. Sortino, 545 N.W.2d 796, 799 (N.D.1996) (hold ing, prior to the 1999 amendment of N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(A)(v) . and 4(d)(2)(D)(iii) to allow third-party commercial delivery, .that Federal Express delivery is not mail delivery); Gabriel v. United States, 30 F.3d 75, 77 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, this Court stated nearly a
holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail holding rules of civil procedure are appropriate in determining what constitutes proper service by certified mail holding that delivery of subpoena via federal express was sufficient because effective service under rule 45 is not limited to personal service holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that because alternative service by means of certified mail reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness the delivery requirement of rule 45 will be met