| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 27 May 2004 : 03:26:06
Dear Readers;
There has been mention how lengthy the "'saving to suitors' clause of 1789" thread was getting at http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306. So that topic has been locked for reading only but the last posting is re-stated here to kick this thread off.
Now if you found the 'saving to suitors' clause thread amusing and maybe even edifying, then some of the nuts and bolts of how trusts (constructive and express) function, in fact how commercial contract law as dynamic international law between vessels (ships as legal names and vice versa) should be a gas. But the real gist, why I named this "Schedule A: "Cracking the Code" instead of ""saving to suitors" II", is removing oneself effectively from the assets list of the public trust operating in bankruptcy and national debt. [Without blowing the gaskets.]
In the mid-seventies a document surfaced announcing the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Harvard Economics Research Project. The document itself was supposedly Top Secret but the contents were quite believable. Of all the places Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars are available I prefer "The Lawful Path" site because it is the only one that just presents the document as found but specially because it contains the schematics and other graphics that I saw in my first reading of the paper over a decade ago.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml
Quoting from that paper:quote:
Energy
Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.
All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?
So much in the same style as the man who butchered "The Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace" - not by changing the document, by spinning it through his introduction (which I must admit I still have to read [I have read the report, just skipped the introduction]) something strikes me as authentic about Silent Weapons. For one thing, I got it from the investigative journalist, Al Carter who claimed to have gotten it from its original finder. The man allegedly bought a surplus Army copier and the document had been hidden inside.
But what really strikes me is the paranoid assumption that the authors believe they are the beneficiaries. It is obvious that the authors feel a lot of discretionary authority as appointed trustees. But it is also obvious that they are questioning externally to themselves about who will be the beneficiaries (of the general public trust).
Again, this is the last Reply on the 'saving to suitors' thread:quote:
Dear Readers;
The highly compressed infrastructure of stellionation, fractional reserve banking is best described as such in terms of parable. Parabola is first derivative of the original condition – the tangent line is the two-dimensional representation of a first derivative.
In 1916 Somerfeld formulated what was assumed to be the perfect number; 137 or the Fine Structure Constant. However Somerfeld had not the sensitive capacitive/inductive fluctuation sensing and transduction of a simple oscilloscope probe with a few millivolts/division sensitivity.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Signet.jpg
By “perfect number” Somerfeld predicted that the permeability of vacuum and the permittivity of vacuum would cancel the elemental force in the numerator. Thus there would be no units of measure remaining – a perfect numerical quantity. Symptomatic of Somerfeld’s miscalculation is that everything contains a complex waveform; the summation of its natural and harmonic frequencies, minute fluctuations in the inductive properties of various matter itself. But this is further integrated into absolute memory – genome and genetic signature.
Cracking the Code graphic
Some additional reading; New York Times article by George Johnson, Suddenly the Cosmos Looks More Fickle: But since you need a subscription/registration to read the article, I will just tell you that the number of the Qabbalah is 137. KOPH = 100, BETH = 2, LAMED = 30, HEY = 5. But the important thing to notice is the tangent line as parabola/parable.
To get from the first derivative (tangential parable) to the original state, one needs to integrate. Integration is to make whole. This ‘healing’ comes from proper application of remedy; the cure.
RLC theory equations (page 1)
RLC theory equations (page 2)
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. The above two-page RLC theory equations are cited as "Zionism Cancellation Algorithm" on the bill of exchange. Both and more, as you read on are available certified copy from Cecilia at (719) 520-6200. Just give her the Reception #s and a few bucks.
The bill of exchange; I quote myself again, "Cecilia will mail a certified copy to you for a few bucks. (719) 520-6200; ask for Reception Numbers 201099293 7/16/2001 (the bill demands release of claim on August 13, 2001 - exactly thirty days to cure) and 201101604 7/19/2001 (Affidavit of Mailing by a professional process server). Please be informed before you make any acute responses or judgments.
And in addition you may find the Credit River Money Decision; here quoting a "suitors" open-faced group email:quote:
Dear courts of competent jurisdiction;
I hope [name] went forward in establishing a group area. The Ecclesia folks might find that a useful liaison away from my idealistic notions. That seems to be the real obstacle between good people and remedy; this "How do I make them..." and "What do I do when they..."
You know I just keep my interest limited to drafting remedy. But others may find real life experiences quite edifying. Especially people in the real world of buying and selling property and real estate.
My thinking is that the forum, moderated by suitors, may be a place to hash out real worldly problems. You would get the experience I already have - mainly that almost every question these folks ask is pregnant with erroneous assumptions and conditioning that creates colors of authority. It is amazing how easy it is to get duped by an innocently asked question. But you would learn from the mistakes and hopefully get helpful quickly.
Speaking of which a coffee acquaintance outlined his MLM mortgaging plans based on a coordination of interest rates and managing Income Tax breaks. Sounds good but it is based on MORTGAGE (death bond). And the energy-based currency is taking hold with confidence and security building measures in the bill of exchange backing our judgments. He was heeding my warnings to subscribe to the FRB site etc. to monitor expert concerns in risk management but when I brought up the Achilles' Heel of the entire Tontine, the Credit River Money Decision, he glazed over in denial.
I think he prefers to just say since it undermines Capitalism in general it cannot be true.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. New suitors. You can acquire a certified copy of the CRMD (719) 520-6200 from Cecilia at Reception #203290555; four pages. Enjoyable reading at least. Properly used it may save your home.
Credit River Money Decision Page 1
Credit River Money Decision Page 2
Credit River Money Decision Page 3
Credit River Money Decision Page 4
District Court Seal
Miscellaneous Receipt
Notice the filing stickers on the Credit River Money Decision. Colorado City/El Paso county is the territorial capital (now tourist trap "Old Colorado City" on the West Side of Colorado Springs. Denver is of course the de facto meeting place of the General Assembly and thus considered the State Capital. But notice the document is also available from the district court clerk in Denver. Also noteworthy is the intrepid suitor grabbed the first "Article III" (quoting deputy clerks in Texas on an Internet rumor; a/k/a/ $39 miscellaneaous case jacket) case jacket of the year - "04-X-01". |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 24 Jun 2006 : 20:57:53
The deadline came and went without any real evidence as far as I could see. However there are some economists that feel the Bretton Woods Agreements was sunset with the '76 Amendments. Obviously Ron Paul felt it was in place to strike a bill to sunset it in '02.
More people are using the BOE these days and of course there are no reports of indictments. Every suitor utilizes the BOE for backing default judgment of a Libel of Review published in common law.
Instead of reaffirming release of feudalist claims, the bankers tried to thwart the BOE with the final rule. I really liked seeing that in the Federal Register. I refused it for cause and since then the Board of Governors and IMF have been hoping to implement the [i]Basel II Accord[i] instead. Since the Basel II Accord allows for conveyances of original estate to transfer wealth without required oversight I am allowing it to go into place. But they are of course having a much more difficult time of getting the verbiage to make that attempt while staying within the law.
http://www.occ.treas.gov/fr/fedregister/69fr50293.pdf
final rule
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_final_rule_R4C.jpg
Refusal for cause in the federal register
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1894.htm
Departure of John D. Hawke, Jr Comptroller of the Currency
I looked a little for dramatic events around April 4 and also thirty days after. I have some theories but nothing jumped out like the BOE curing on September 11, 2001.
I got some interesting commentary (literally) on the 2006 Government Budget Report today.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_2006_Budget_Commentator.wmv
[Give my archiver some time to activate the link.]
My first instinct was to squash the little hatchling starling. But I warmed it in my hand and could feel that it was taking comfort in it. It calmed down and slept while I carried it to the federal repository. I figured I could find some college girls to keep it company in its final hours but the few I approached were somehow "good" (That's okay; I'm good) is how to say, "No, the little birdie is your problem, not mine."
I went into a mountaineering shop to buy a raincoat and the sales girl noticed my little friend and knew of a firm called Wildlife Forever. She was going to run it over quickly and even had experience bringing up a hatchling sparrow. So it was quite energetic last I saw and the sad story turned out happy. [Actually I think starlings and I have been at war for twenty years judging by the scoldings I get for simply being near them.]
I wanted it to act up, move around and all for the camera. After a few attempts when I would set it down, it seemed to think I was commanding it to stay still. Finally I got the shot linked.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
| IanAnd |
Posted - 24 Jun 2006 : 13:40:11
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Dear Readers;
I made inference to carefully orchestrated release valve systems to a highly compressed information infrastructure best called “fractional reserve banking”. Confidence and security building measures on the energy based (decrypted) bill of exchange is an integral part of the release valve system but the other operations work in conjunction as well.
Maybe one should accept that every time you buy a doughnut or gasoline for your car, you are building the standard confidence game, convincing the recipient that the debt backing the bill of exchange (dollar bill) has any value. Wealth, in truth is being able to control energy. Truth as I have quoted a respected macroeconomist, is experience. All else is hearsay and information. So now please ponder why I will not provide an image of the bill of exchange. I want you to experience acquiring a certified copy from Cecilia. I snapped a photo the other day of the proof of service of the bill as it was on Cecilia’s computer screen when I walked into the office after another document.
Cecilia’s computer screen
Well she got a little freaked out when she came back with my order and I said, “I will have three certified copies of the affidavit on your screen and likewise three of the accompanying bill of exchange.” while showing her the image of the bill’s Reception # on my Pocket PC. She probably thought I was hacking the computer system there at the clerk’s office.
So I will describe another instance of pressure release in a controlled manner. Study the Warrant below.
Warrant “FILED UNDER SEAL” Page 1
Warrant “FILED UNDER SEAL” Page 2
Something amusing is that Robert Garcia, a deputy clerk in Denver actually called up one of the suitors curing remedy and tried to convince the man that, “Admiralty is antiquated. Nobody does suits in admiralty anymore.” - within two days of Joe O’Hare signing this warrant; “FILED UNDER SEAL”.
Filed under seal means that nobody is supposed to see the warrant but the U.S. Marshal. But imagine trying to make a withdrawal one day and finding your life savings cleaned out of all three bank accounts. That had happened to Ronald Dean of the Joling family. Now I have cleared sharing these documents* with you here on the Ecclesia. Ron is a Christian (non-501(C)(3)) preacher up on the Oregon seaboard. So he calmly (under the circumstances) told the bank president that if he could not produce documentation of authority upon which he had made the seizures, Ron would hold him personally liable for grand larceny. The bank president and security team at US Bank contacted the U.S. Attorney office in Denver and apparently before anyone knew what was happening (rumors of panic and shredding careers by the afternoon) rattled loose the Warrant even though FILED UNDER SEAL. Through reverberation (advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics [at least that is a nice physics term for “leading of the Holy Spirit”]) the Warrant was on my fax machine within forty minutes of Ronald Dean acquiring it – and through at least five intermediaries of only the last one known to me. I called Ron and introduced myself.
Quickly it was revealed that the IRS had been hounding Ron with presentments to the tune of $1.5m. This is ridiculous for a small hotel owner/country pastor but proportionate to the offense of preaching not to tithe under “Christianity” to the Bank and Fund. So it was easy to convince Ron that if he chose conventional attorney representation he would only see what remained of his life savings after the IRS had recovered the $1.5m in alleged taxes due. Well you can guess that while a healthy nest egg, the alleged amount due far exceeded the nest egg. So Ron was quickly convinced he needed to fire the trustee of the three seized trust accounts.
Now we will call the trustee “John”. John was a professional trustee and had just had over twenty accounts, all with US Bank (I think) seized. This is good for scientific rigor because we can get back to John who was fired by Ron and kept to attorney representation for the rest of his accounts. We can see the difference in recovery success between methods. I will get back to John.
Now what was going down I believe about scared the pants off John. Ron wanted me to talk with John and explain how to successfully recover the funds (for all the seizures). John called me from a Denver area code phone number but later denied being in Denver. Well, Ron hired me to draft remedy so I did not share the concerns for the other accounts that Ron did. So John and I never took to the air.
I went straight to work drafting the papers here. You see by the signature line the county clerk in Coos county had not the decency to even file these good people’s cause so Ron sent them for filing at the El Paso county clerk. That worked because the Warrant was federal and also supplemented by being originated by the State of Colorado U.S. Attorney in Denver.
Verified Statement of Right Page 1
Verified Statement of Right Page 2
Verified Statement of Right Page 3
Verified Statement of Right Page 4
Verified Statement of Right Page 5
Verified Statement of Right - Affidavit of Service
You may not know that the bonding avoids arrest of the party deemed liable in admiralty. This is explained in the Statement. So notice that the three year deadline start-date is April 4, 2003 meaning the Bretton Woods Agreements are to be sunset by the same day in 2006.
Enjoy,
David Merrill
Just curious. Whatever happened to this eventuality (emphasized in bold here at the end of this quote)?
Did it occur? If so, what is its significance? Was anything erected in its place to carry on status quo? |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 00:13:12
Writ of Privilege:
In lieu of a territory the bill of exchange becomes the writ of privilege.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 1
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 2
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leroy_on_bills.wmv
The appropriation of birthright, of Biblical promises.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
| source |
Posted - 25 Dec 2004 : 03:04:03
Publicans and heathen were despised and rejected from the ecclesia and often stoned if caught alone and no Hebrew was advised to go to caesars courts for retribution but rather to the Rabbi!Eg. Leviticus 6:2 If they would not redress the situation they were shunned or punished! |
| source |
Posted - 25 Dec 2004 : 02:57:12
Blessings brother Robert James and praise to Jah for your response...
No doubt about that, the oath was even alterd from it's 1689 version with no parliament convened to make it legal,, No matter she promised to uphold the laws of God and you need no law to do that..contract is still contract in God's eyes.
She is styled defender of the faith on Justice Canada's website under "the Royal Style and Titles Act"
1. This Act may be cited as the Royal Style and Titles Act.
Assent to Royal Style and Titles
2. The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
R.S., c. R-12, s. 1.
and the King James Bible sits in all of the court rooms no matter of the opinions of men. The preamble to the Candian constitution entitled the "Charter of rights and freedom"s says, "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognise the Supremacy of God and the rule of law"
Which rule of law do you think logic dictates they are referring to? Read the Coronation Act of 1689 or the Westminster confession of faith from 1646 to decide for your self.
Section 22 is especially illuminating as it tells us the lawful meaning of an oath!
This the reason the state in Canada has published that the laws of Canada do not apply to the people..
Honor the King 1 Peter 2:17 also in Exodus 19:6 God ordains the isrealites as preists and in the 30th chapter with anointing and all subsequent Kings as well..
Blessings on our research in YHWH's sacred name |
| Robert-James |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 17:42:29
Along time ago, puritan's and pilgrim's detested each other, yet came into agreement against POPES and KINGS. A long time ago was in the 1760's. Let's do it again. Turn the world right side up, or as THEY said, "Turned the World Upside Down"...the song played when the KING surrendered to Washington.
source...who gave the King of England the title, "Defender of the Faith"? I'll spare you the homework, the Pope did, to Henry the 8th. Henry issued orders to kill the man who was publishing the Scripture in the common man's language. Henry was defending the FAITH. William Tyndale was the culprit.
Careful please, unless one can push the issue to its final course.
Queen Elizabeth the Second, is the De-Facto Queen-King, of the Realm. Defacto. She is heavily involved in commerce, and now has the status of a commoner...unless one BELIEVES otherwise? |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 23 Dec 2004 : 23:52:15
If I can make sense of what you are saying, then you think charters are equivalent to the legislation that comes out of the Parliament formed under the charter.
The excerpt above looks like something from the Canadian equivalent of our Constitution or METRO's Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions Granted to Patroons on Manhattan Island by the British East Indies Trading Company.
P.S. I think the subject matter belongs on the "Proof Christians aren't subject" Topic. The only reason I brought the Post above here is that is has to do with removing oneself from the assets schedule of the public trust.
P.P.S. The links in the above Dec. 21 Post are there now. Take a look. |
| source |
Posted - 23 Dec 2004 : 22:47:32
Praise Jah and Yeshua for the opportunity to expose a deception within these forums.
Some men are in clear denial of the proof right in front of their eyes but since that proof is in a another forum I will repost it here to make all aware they are being decieved.. Yes I get to think things to and I think from reading your numerous posts that you are a deciever quite infatuated with your own intelligense...
No insult just a warning to all the brethren and a factual observation no matter how many posts you have made.. The Canadian government posted the proof on their own government websites and the treasury Board of Canada is in agreement...Your huffing and puffing of mans law is evidense of your lack of faith in Christ and you are as a wolf among the sheep... I must warn them of your deceptive words as is my duty to God. Ezekiel 33:6
The laws of man when in question always fall behind the laws of God. Acts 5:29. Those in this forum who are Christian take note of God's word first and mans second. The great prophet Jeremiah forwarned us in Chapter 9 about men and their lies and Paul as well in Romans 16:17-20
If you make use of the word of God for edification you will be speaking from a light based source. If you use the laws of men to advise you are a deciever!! Mens courts and laws in addition to God's are dead legal fictions and Jesus told us not to go there yet here you have a man declared to not be Christian telling you otherwise.. Who will you believe the word of God or man???
Here is mans law saying that it does not apply to us!!!
Can we as men be so egotistical to tell them they are wrong??
[ print version ]
This is Canada's Supreme law, all other law is under this one, this section tells us in plain English who it applies to. As you can see David it is you who are wrong and yes I disagree with you as you are espousing the doctrine of men.
GUIDE TO THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Part II : The Contents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 32
Application of Charter
This Charter applies
to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
Blessings in the holy name of God YHWH and may peace be upon all who choose light over dark. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 22 Dec 2004 : 20:37:26
Not that you are wrong. I do not agree.
I used to think like you do about "laws of God" and "laws of Man". So I think I have a decent perspective of where you are coming from.
This is more that we have a right to judiciary and judicial review to prevent administrative procedures from taking our property from us. See Administrative Government in American Jurisprudence. Administrative government, government in miniature, cannot exist with its abrogated checks and balances formed by the Constitution, without the immediate beacon call of judicial review. The UCC is a parallel and complimentary process to common law. But that is not what is being used in the courts with gold fringes. The equity side is of course law of contracts but the fringes are admiralty.
So one can make restricted appearance under Rule (8). This limits the jurisdiction over you, filing or not. The only issue is the contract or claim that there has been notice given.
quote:
(8) Restricted Appearance.
An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.
I have been writing a lot here for some time and you cannot be expected to read it all. Especially if you have the precept of Man's v. God's laws, you will consider me incorrect anyway so therefore it would be a waste of your time.
But also in admiralty is the common law right of arrest, to be able to take responsibility for an arrest. That is Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B).
The County Courts fly admiralty fringes and therefore are a good forum for sueing the clerk for malfeasance or breach of contract. The wording is quite clear.
Your perception of forums and forum shopping is incorrect.
You have misread Matthew 18:17. To treat him as a publican and heathen is to sue in the lower process forum. The baser form of equity after all the reasonable approaches fail.
quote:
Mt 18:17 And if he is heedless of them, speak to the church. But if he is also heedless of the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the tax collector.
Mt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto you as an heathen man and a publican.
Mt 18:17 If he refuses to hear them, appeal to the Church; and if he refuses to hear even the Church, regard him just as you regard a Gentile or a tax-gatherer.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Please keep in mind that I only read a little of your Post. I was quickly convinced from other things I have read that you are convinced of the above laws doctine. But the little faces just come off patronizing.
|
| source |
Posted - 22 Dec 2004 : 18:11:59
The reason I ask David is that you appear to be counselling others to utilize it and even file into it. That is why I asked who owns it and when you put your name into to it whose jurisdiction do you submit to Gods or mans???
I suggest that until you know the answers to those questions you may wish to refrain from giving others the impression that filing into the laws of men and those registries is a wise course.. 2 Peter 2:3 along with Romans 16:17-20 tells us to be wary of mens words and customs.
As you are aware, correct me if I am wrong, this is a Christian website, you must also be aware that we as faith based in the word of God are to be as watchmen for the sake of our brethren and to warn them if harm comes to befall them. It is also our duty to warn the enemy who plans to attack or deceive our brethren and if they are harmed as a result of us not warning them and the enemy we shall be held responsible. If we fail in diligense to do so we are guilty of sin and will have to pay the price.. Ezekiel 33:6
So to be clear the UCC and the laws of men is not the law of God and we are commanded to not add to his law nor take away from his law ( Detueronomy 4:2;12:32)so all of mans law in addition to or in derogation of God's law is not to be respected nor bowed to in submission, like putting your name in that book...They act as false gods. God told us to not bow to them nor serve them.Exodus 20:3-5. You cannot effect Christian principles by serving mammon which is all of mans law not in line with God's.
Babylon the great has fallen and we are to get out of her...mans law of commerce is Babylon the great Talmud. Get out of her that great prostitute as you will never gain the virginity of truth in her bed!You defile yourslef and your redemption if you go there!!
Even in the u.s. of A. you still see the King James Bible beside the Judge. It is an offer just like all of mans law on the other side of the judge.. It is up to each and everyone of us to determine that the Kingdom of God and his children is who we speak to and to make known to all that is is where we are living and according to God cannot leave if we wish to remain in his protective custody..
The us of A is bankrupt since 1933 under the Talmuds law in servitude!
We all have free will to leave that Kingdom of God but he lets us know we give up his protection if we do..
The courts of mans commercial ownership, determine and assume you are a commercial debtor and have admitted it by you just showing up, as if you had read our saviors words of advise to privately tell them of your faith and where you live and why you cannot bow you would be invited to not show up in Satans courts.
The words of Jesus regarding this matter of proclaiming your faith and masters law are in Matthew 18:15-20 in the book that still sits beside the Judge as testimony of the word of God and our redemption should we choose to claim it.. If we do not privately notify all those men and women who took the oath to respect your freedom of religion ,in showing the works of our faith,then it is accurately assumed you are not of God but of a debtor classification being and acting in submission to and bowed to mans codes rules and regulations. This ommission on your part to proclaim your faith privately and prior to court registers you upon their assumption as a part of the beast!
I believe if you look you will see at the front of that book that it says all who put their names into that UCC registry, owned by men of talmudic following, will be under the jurisdiction of that book and it's owners!!
Do you wish to encourage God's children to give up God's law ?? If you really look hard you will find that the book of codes and rules for commercial men and women is actually the Babylonian Talmud being ruled over by Talmudic scholars and Rabbi's..
This UCC is not the word of God but rather the customs and traditions of men passed along and added to and embellished with time... Jesus threw these same men preaching this same law out of the temple of God and described them in John 8:44
No anti semetism here just the facts..
We do get a choice and are warned about the deceptions of men wishing to ensnare men in God's word..
Shall we act on opinions of men or the word of God?? Acts 5:29
What say you?
Blessings |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 22 Dec 2004 : 05:49:36
I do not own a copy of the UCC. |
| source |
Posted - 22 Dec 2004 : 03:56:12
Hey David who owns the UCC and what does it say at the front ofg that book about jurisdiction?? |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 21 Dec 2004 : 22:19:57
Crosstalk:
Dear Suitors;
Gregory Duane reminded me about the foundational premises we suitors stand upon for developing our authority to be ‘courts of competent jurisdiction’.* He did this through a couple important points; 1) http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdslirs.htm ^ and 2) by quoting from Section 6323 of the IRC, “…court. In the office of the clerk of the United States district court” about administrative process acceptable to file with the County Clerk and Recorder. (Also see http://www.svpvril.com/dmjuristic.html )
The key to understanding our posture for Refusal for Cause dwells within “Administrative Government” and “Judicial Review”. American Jurisprudence – Administrative Government reveals the only authority in administrative process is judicial review. “Voluntary” consent to the abrogation of the Constitutional ‘checks and balances’ – administrative process, can only be found in the immediate ability to call in judicial review of the abrogated checks and balances.
So early on, I designed the counterclaims around Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B), the right to execute arrest for certifying that ‘judicial review’ was in your competent opinion, impracticable; Certificate of Exigent Circumstances.
Greg also spent a few precious hours (‘precious’ amplified by him preparing for his daughter’s wedding at the same time dealing with a seizure of his land) with deputy clerk Diedra in Des Moines. Both visits brought to light that Diedra agreed the wording of Rule C said plainly “the clerk must immediately issue a warrant” in both spirit and fact. However, Diedra was under orders and it would probably lose her job to issue the warrant for Gregory Duane, the “plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney” in the Rule. In counseling Greg I have also formulated a system that may work. At least it looks good in theory.
If you are being victimized attempt to have the signor for the Secretary or the Secretary John Snow arrested. So far this is met with the same reluctance by the clerk. A few of you have already had your Certificates ignored. So you already have accomplished the first step. The second step is to sue the district court clerk for ‘breach of contract’, or malfeasance of office. Get the deputy's name like Greg with Diedra for a witness. On the stand it will almost certainly be disclosed that the clerk being sued instructed the deputy not to execute the arrest according to the Contract, Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B).
Since there are gold admiralty fringes in the County courts, you may enter filing under Rule E(8) Restricted Appearance. This limits the matter to the contract or claim expressly notified. Your claim is that the clerk has notified you by publication F.R.C.P. and the Supplemental Rules that he would be executing arrests for you. There is no mention that a judge would be abrogating the clerk’s authority to do so. One could file in County Court. The presumption would exist that you are pro se but it is obvious you are a man or woman. By keeping the issue simple, the false pro se branding would be minimized. There is risk that a counterclaim might be honored by the jury but weigh that not only to your own property loss but by what effect that has on greater common law and society by allowing it to happen.
In County Court there is a good chance the State would honor your 7th Amendment right to a trial before a jury. At that trial you might have a chance to pursuade the panel that the clerk did not follow the Rule and it cost you. Damages might be awarded. Even punitive and exemplary damages would be considered by a jury.
It might be tempting to bring into the light the recent judgment against John Snow. But I implore you not to "open any doors". By keeping the issue to your right of arrest and to take responsibility for an arrest, clearly expressed by Rule C, you can mitigate the sophistry the Treasury lawyers will attempt to use to dazzle the jury. Greg will definitely keep things simple. One key witness who will likely under oath, disclose that she would arrest the culprits according to Rule C, but the clerk Donald Cinnamond will not allow her to. That might be persuasive in front of a jury.
Also, by multiple cases summoning the clerks in Denver, Des Moines and elsewhere, pressure to execute arrests may have some effect to that end. Maybe we can get a Treasury agent or the Secretary in cuffs.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Authority always rides a fidelity bond. Ours rides the bill of exchange that cured September 11, 2001 against the original estate. But there is a bonding in place, so I hear, for clerks. It would be good to sue against this bond so see if you can get more information. However, it is not crucial because we may presume the bond exists and if it does not, there is no authority and the clerk is personally exposed to suit.
^ Greg brought up a very important point – that there is no notary seal as required by the Code on the processes by which agents have laid a ‘seizure’ to his farm land. I believe that there is always a fault in process and by not R4C or calling for judicial review of the fault, we are presumed to be in ‘voluntary compliance’ with the abrogated or administrative processes, forfeiture of our claim. For instance, since Greg has been R4C all proper notifications, the agents are pounding on his door (faulty paper process). But also, this sets Greg up with the right of arrest through Rule C. If your case has been closed or dismissed then you are set up too.
P.S. I have attached the memorandum of law for confidence that revenue processes are admiralty. Also attached is a generic Certificate of Exigent Circumstances.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_GenericCertificate.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_LibelInReview.pdf
I am available to help you with details by commission but point out that the less I do the better as I implore you to keep it so simple you will not need me. File on simple breach of contract by the district court clerk.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 16 Aug 2004 : 15:49:25
Dear Jay;
Authenticated means certified by Audrey Brown - County of Scott - in Minnesota and filed with Robert Balink, county clerk in El Paso county - which is by the way the territorial capital of Colorado state.
Speaking in general though, "authenticated" really means that if somebody, presumably an attorney (Bank agent) is considering challenging its existence, they will look foolish doing so. Serve certified copies and keep the proof of service.
The question you bring me smacks of externalization, typically a symptom of paranoia but that societal Multiple Personality Disorder is so prevalent you misunderstand me if you take offense. The CRMD is best utilized after you understand and have confidence in yourself as the court. Once there, you will acquire the cognizance of the lower "courts" (attorneys in black robes*) by serving, not filing certified copies of the CRMD. Then if the attorneys come after your property they know, if you have your own identity sound, they will have to address the fact you are creditor - not the debtor.
I say externalizing is a symptom of paranoia because I am "them"; I signed the bill of exchange fidelity bond against suitors' judgments in common law. Lose the "us" and "them" paradigm and you can be an heir apparent like "us" (suitors). http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=378&whichpage=4
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Most effective if forced into a hearing by these nisi pruis tribunals is to ask the black-robed one, "What is your attorney registration number?" You cannot be arraigned without understanding the nature and cause of the court and charges so who would dare fault you for inquiring?
|
| Jaywood216 |
Posted - 16 Aug 2004 : 00:37:04
David,
In your letter of 6/12 you mention that the CRMD is authenticated. Does that mean that it can be used in court as a defence? I am in Denver but have a house in Florida under threat of forclosure and it seems that that would be a good tool. Thanks for your input. Jim Wood |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 13 Jul 2004 : 13:19:05
Dear Readers;
integrity of the vessel
driving seal
Above on July 6 I abated a matter for misnomer.
If Lee, the court clerk fails to contact me to give me my cash refund on the contract ($750 bond) then I will have to assume that there is an arrest warrant issued for the artificial entity (legal name). I can cure that misnomer by using the legal name; which for now, I do not. That will activate the warrant for execution against me, David Merrill.
I am not eager to deal with the misnomer from inside jail so after 30 days I may choose to sue Lee in the common law venue of small claims. If I notify him 10 days in advance of filing, I can sue him for triple indemnity. That will bring forth the issue that I simply refused for cause his contract presentment timely and am demanding a refund of the "good faith" funds I put forward. This against the argument that because I bonded out for the legal name, which if you read closely I did not, that name is mine. Interesting.
So it would behoove anyone who wants to use the legal name as an instrument or vessel in commerce to protect "your good (legal) name." But understanding the removal from Schedule A of the public trust enables one to only appear for the terms of the current notification/contract in admiralty under Rule E(8). So once the abatement has cured for thirty days I can appear through the legal name non-assumpsit for a driver license, Social Security benefits and if they try to notify me of tangential obligations, novations (innovations), I can refuse for cause.
Abatement for misnomer link
Judgment Image link
quote:
(8) Restricted Appearance.
An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/RuleE.htm
Regards,
David Merrill |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 12 Jul 2004 : 09:06:12
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
Thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes I find one definition before a nearly contrary definition. Like "notwithstanding" in the counterclaim.* It seems to be "in spite of" by most dictionaries and would mean that Notice overrides Law. Well the IRS would love that and I wonder if the IMF is taking advantage of the "word of art" that can be read two ways.
But look at it etymologically and see; not withstanding. So Law supersedes Notice.
So the "appropriating" I meant was 'taking possession by right' (true heir apparent on the original estate). Albeit the man who said the word "appropriate" to me years ago, come to think of it, probably meant the 'word of art' definition as a clever slur.
Regards,
David Merrill
* Flip to page 4 of the "saving to suitors" thread and use ctrl-F (find) on "notwithstanding" in the counterclaim. |
| iammai |
Posted - 12 Jul 2004 : 01:45:30
Dear David Merrill,
"Appropriating"... Hmm, when I look up the definition in a regular
dictionary, I find that I don't like it's current usage for what I
think you are saying. If I look in an etymological dictionary however,
I would have to say it is a perfectly appropriate, ;), use of the word.
Of course, I am still not sure which way you intended it, only how I've
chosen, for now, to interpret it.
Thanks!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 16:01:12
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
One fellow years ago, after I described some of these wonderful judgments that go into effect without a reasonable papertrail or whatever, used the word "appropriating" (the kingdom of heaven on earth). I think after studying that word and its applications that it works well.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| iammai |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 15:28:42
Dear David Merril,
Thank you again for sharing some of your process. I look forward to learning more about it.
Long before exploring matters of Law intentionally, I discovered through my experience that there are Laws not written by men, and courts that have nothing to do with the state. I was also made painfully aware of my lack of integration. I have no doubt that I still have a lot of work to do on the integration front. Facing the truth of immediate experience seems to be the most challenging thing for human beings to do. At the same time, living from the truth that I could face, I have witnessed my judgement be executed, as if by magic. Life is a mystery, and it becomes most mysterious when we try to comprehend the connection between our experience of our internal world, and our re-presentation of our experience of the "external" world.
Undoubtbly, we must discover the Kingdom of Heaven within, before we can discover it without. That is how I understand your earlier statement:quote:
To standardize your thinking (orientation) upon one truthful fact. To cherish a calibration standard that is true.
Thank you again for sharing your process, the political as well as the personal. I feel that you are truly externalizing the Kingdom of Heaven that you have found within.
With Blessings & Sincerity,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
