in writing * * (Emphasis added.) In an email from an accounting manager for the Ramsey County District Court to the district court, the accounting manager stated, “In my opinion, it does not seem efficient that the clerk’s office needs to send a forfeiture notice to an agent after it has already been reinstated.” Whether efficient or not, the rule makes no exception allowing court administrators to ignore the requirement of notice of forfeiture merely because the bond was quickly reinstated. The rule clearly states that the court administrator “shall” notify the surety and the bondsman. This court has already made clear that use of the word “shall” in another subsection of Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 702 is a mandatory instruction. See State v. Williams, 568 N.W.2d 885, 888 (Minn.App.1997) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 1997); see also
recognizing that shall will and must are all mandatory terms holding that mandatory language such as will pay or shall pay creates the necessary moneymandate for tucker act purposes holding that language almost identical to the language in the policy at issue in this case ie due proof conveys discretionary authority holding that shall language in rule 702h conveys a mandatory act holding that a states use of the word shall is mandatory language