| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jerrypitts
Junior Member
USA
24 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Jan 2005 : 12:08:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by doer
Does anyone know if Notaries squawk when you sign your name for both parties to the agreement in two different places? Doesn't it seem to them that you are making a contract between yourself? Just wondering . . . .
Doer
Did it just this morning at the bank where I do business... no problems whatsoever.
Jerry |
 |
|
|
jerrypitts
Junior Member
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2005 : 12:12:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch
Hi,
A lot of the redemption practices use the existence of the Strawman as the foundation of much of their explanations. I understand the explanation of the creation of the Strawman as a way of using as a form of collateral in the 1930's (33?). For a few years now I've accepted it de facto. But after visiting Chris Hansen's website, he argues against its concept. He also argues against Bill of Exchange, the differentiation of all caps and mixed cases etc etc. Now I am not so sure about the actual act of the Strawman creation. Has anyone actually found the existence of the all caps Strawman or is the act of putting all names in caps a matter of convenience as described in Chris Hansen's site (www.familyguardian.tzo.com) ?
I've only seriously studied the redemption process the past couple of months. Before that I just accepted what was told to me w/o question which proved to be dangerous. So now I am starting to ask very basic questions which some may even consider rediculous. However, the answers to these questions will help me build a better understanding and provide a better foundation for other information which build on top of them.
-Enoch
The answer to that question can be found in a Supreme Court case:
U.S. Supreme Court
MONROE CATTLE CO v. BECKER, 147 U.S. 47 (1893)
Jerry |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 06:44:02
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
David stated and quoted this:
quote:
Black's Law dictionaries (Fifth Edition on my shelf) use a definition for Name that utilizes a case quote or maxim:
<quote>A person's "name" consists of one or more Christian or given names and one surname or family name. It is the distinctive characterization in words by which one is known and distinguished from others, and description, or abbreviation is not the equivalent of a "name."<quote>
Beware of any definition that begins with "person" or "person's"! Are you a "person"? There are very few exceptions! Let us give you a couple of examples here.
Passenger. In general, a person who gives compensation to another for transportation. The word passenger has however various meanings, depending upon the circumstances under which and the context in which the word is used; sometimes it is construed in a restricted legal sense as referring to one who is being carried by another for hire; on other occasions, the word is interpreted as meaning any occupant of a vehicle other than the person operating it.
The essential elements of “passenger” as opposed to “guest” under guest statute are that driver must receive some benefit sufficiently real, tangible, and substantial to serve as the inducing cause of the transportation so as to completely overshadow mere hospitality or friendship; it may be easier to find compensation where the trip has commercial or business flavor.
A person whom a common carrier has contracted to carry from one place to another, and has, in the course of the performance of that contract, received under his care either upon the means of conveyance, or at the point of departure of that means of conveyance.
The above definition is simply loaded with "commercial terms" and/or implications [bolded and/or underlined]!! Now compare that to their definition of guest.
Guest statute. …A “guest,” under provisions of guest statute, is a recipient of the voluntary hospitality of the [driver] owner, that is, one who is invited or permitted by owner or possessor of automobile to ride with owner-possessor as a gratuity.
Note well that the word "person" does not appear anywhere in this second definition. Also we see "owner or possessor" separated, telling us that they are separate entities, and in the second appearance of these words,"owner-possessor", it is hyphenated, which distinguishes what "kind" of owner they are speaking about. You are not the Owner, your Master is!! You are the occupier, you are the possessor, or owner-possessor, of His substance! It is a Maxim of Law!
Quicpuid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino. Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. 15 Bin. Ab. 327.
We would do well to remember this when we are seeking title in "allodium" or "fee-simple". If we managed to get it, we [or our children] would only lose it again, this is why He didn't give it to us in the first place! And the word [driver] is bracketed thus eliminating it from the definition. [The bracket states that it is for information only.] And lastly we see that they do not call it a "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" but rather an "automobile" in the definition of "Guest statute". There is, intentionally, nothing in that definition which gives it a "commercial flavor" because "a guest" [a stranger to commerce] has nothing to do with commerce.
And speaking of “stranger”, here is another:
Stranger(s). As used with reference to the subject of subrogation, one who, in no event resulting from the existing state of affairs, can become liable for the debt, and whose property is not charged with the payment thereof and cannot be sold therefor.... Those who are in no way parties [PERSONS] to a covenant or transaction, nor bound by it, are said to be strangers to the covenant or transaction.
Ask yourself, why did they say "one who", why didn't they say "a person who", why did they say "Those who" and why didn't they say "Persons who"; because these portions of the definition do not refer to "persons", that's why!
Leviticus 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. We are to be "strangers to their covenant or transaction" lest it be a snare unto us! Unfortunately the majority of People are strangers to Yahowah's covenant, by choice, though no doubt in most cases out of ignorance or slothfulness, or perhaps a little of both.
And to agree with that quote given previously in this thread, I don't give a sh** how they spell my name, I am still not a "person"! We do not take issue with how they spell our names; this is akin to the IRS telling someone they owe two hundred thousand babel-bux when they believe they only owe(?) two thousand. That "person" then jumps up and says, "Hey wait a doggone minute here, I don't owe two hundred thousand babel-bux, I only owe two thousand!" And the JUDGE says, "Gotcha!!" "I only owe.." is virtually the same as, "My name is spelled..." If you give them your name, you give them power [authority] over you!
Revelation 2:17 ...and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. There, that should be plain enough! As one of kosmokrator's kindly [or sloppy] JUDGES once told a brother, "The DISTRICT ATTORNEY may call you anything he likes, but you do not have to answer." He was teaching Law from the bench, something the black-robed priests of Ba'al are forbidden to do, should we tell on him? Nah, we think we will just heed his Lawful counsel!
Here is the beginning of the definition of Name in Black's sixth:
Name. The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation. Word or combination of words used to distinguish person or thing or class from others.
There is no mention of man, men, woman, women or people! Are you an "individual person", a "firm", a "corporation", a "person", a "thing" or a "class", then this definiton does not apply to you!
Anyway to sum this up we see that their definitons of Name and Legal name are synonymous, they are both describing a "person's" name! All they are defining is the Corporate name. Most states require corporations [PERSONS] doing business under an assumed or fictitious name to register, record, or register and record, the name with state, county, or state and county officials.
Was "YOUR NAME" registered, recorded, or registered and recorded with the state, county, or state and county officials? What do you think the birth certificate was for?!?!
And, in our humble opinions, the only True Redemption process is explained in detail in the Set-Apart Scripture!! The good news is, He doesn't sell it by the page.
Yasha'yahu [Isaiah] 52:3 For thus saith Yahowah, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
p.s. It simply amazes us that so many people are aware of the importance of their own names but apparently give little or no thought to the importance of the name of the Creator. "Oh, it doesn't matter what I call Him..." If this is Truth, then it does not matter what they call YOU!!
Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 13 Jan 2005 10:42:27 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 09:55:58
|
Dear Jerry;
There is a new face on the lecture scene; Winston Shrout. I heard about him because he was passing out my counterclaim http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306&whichpage=3
I am not accusing plagiarism because it sounds like Winston is just passing it out in a bunch of fluff aside from his lecture. The point I am making is two-fold. One, it is very easy to start forming conclusions and then gathering evidence to confirm the conclusions are correct. So many perspectives will also create so many methods and to some extent or another they can all be correct models. Two, everyone I have ever had direct contact with about the Redemption process has always said the same testimony as yours - acceptance de facto. I chalk it up to a "wishful thinking" syndrome. The UCC certainly makes the arguments seem quite cut and dry so everyone wishes so much for it to be true, they never set the belief against Rules of Evidence. Once the next guy buys into it, he spreads the rumor of success so adamantly that it becomes convincing to the next guy yet.
I got an email last night with a link to someone who supposedly got his withholdings back, in the midst of a nasty IRS squabble over another year's alleged debt! The premise was the "Cracking the Code" book; a variation of UCC Redemption. Well it even had a link that because of the period at the end of the sentence, probably, failed. But that gave me a moment to consider 1) was it worth my time, being Internet yarn? and 2) was even my Pocket PC, that I read the email on, worth the risk? Sometimes these are lures to screw up your computer.
I deleted it, like usual. I found it suspicious because it came from an unknown source. If it was from one of the suitors (courts of competent jurisdiction who abide by Rules of Evidence), I would be investigating.
Bondservant reported an article about Colorado Militia arresting the 19th Judge so far. I linked the newspaper (Denver Post) supposedly carrying the article and by the time Bondservant was re-checking his source, it was gone from there too. http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=412&SearchTerms=Colorado,militia I suppose Bondservant is leaving the Topic up for an edifying lesson.
Yesterday a member here reported a very paranoid article about national ID cards that reported a recent act of Congress. I linked the Thomas Register that reports Congressional activity. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109T0Huao:: We have deleted those two Posts. But Congress expressed something on January 4, 2005 quite contrary to the article's paranoia-incubating intent:
quote:
SEC. 11. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) In General- Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to require the presentation of a Social Security card for any purpose other than--
(A) for the administration and enforcement of the Social Security laws of the United States; or
(B) for the purpose of implementing and enforcing this Act and the amendments made by this Act; or
(2) to require the Social Security card to be carried by an individual.
(b) No National Identification Card - It is the policy of the United States that the Social Security card shall not be used as a national identification card.
Note there was only this one hit in the search engine for both "national identification" and "national identification card". No hits for "national id".
This place is crazy as you want it to be, the Internet. Learn to sniff out the source. Learn Rules of Evidence. Distinguish hearsay and immediately disqualify it. In the alternative, like OneIsraelite points out, foundation in words - etymology of "person" - and a sound feel of your identity will produce a reliable 'gut feeling' about whether you are exposed to truth or not.
I have been extremely embarassed a few times and will embarass others for reporting crud. It learns ya' all good.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 13 Jan 2005 20:12:31 |
|
|
|
jerrypitts
Junior Member
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 11:17:43
|
Hello David:
I appreciate your response. I accept your admonition with clear thought and due consideration.
Since my very recent admission to membership on this site, I have posted a total of three posts (this one included). The first was a very direct response to a question in which I stated no theory or presumption of fact. The second was a case citation referring back to the US Supreme Court, and only suggested that the answer was available therein.
In your response, you give no reference to either of these posts directly or indirectly, but rather, leave it up to the reader to presume that you are referencing one or the other. Therefore, I can only presume that you are referencing both, as they both deal with the subject matter of the 'name' by which a man or woman may be addressed.
As to your suggestion that I research prior to posting, I have done much research on the subject. I have been involved in several federal litigations (representing myself flesh and blood body) and representing others. Due to a vast interpretation to the term of 'success', I could advocate a degree of success in all of those litigations. They accomplished what they were set out to accomplish. I am a non-attorney, but have had the opportunity to appear before a three judge panel for the purpose of Oral Argument, wherein the judges stated that they "clearly understand" what I was stating, and continued to admonish the opposing counsil. I have been involved in legal research since the mid 60's; most of which is federal in nature and regarding 'civil rights' and 'constitutional rights'.
It is very apparent that since that time, many new insights have been brought to surface by virtue of the internet and its' rapid dispersal of information. Yes! Like yourself, I have learned to be wary of things that I read on that superhighway, and have made it a point to check out most everything that is not apparent to my own understanding.
I have read some of the material from Mr Shrout, but obviously not all of it. As to his source of information, I remain uncertain with the exception of the statutes and case law that he utilizes. If he obtained any of his information from you, then that is between you and Mr Shrout. I have not posted any material that is copyrighted or otherwise claimed by a singular man or woman. Nor have I posted any promotion of one theory above another. I prefer to think for myself, and learn as much as I can from those that are willing to share. Which reminds me... I thought highly enough of the writings of David Merrill, to influence me to download all of those available writings on the yahoo site to my own computer for further evaluation and possible personal use.
I remain In Christ
Jerry |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 15:52:39
|
Dear Jerry;
Do not think the admonishment was directed at you or what you said. I was warning you that in light of OneIsraelite's treatise above about contracts in commerce, that one must consider Uniform Commercial Code very carefully.
The admonishment about reportinging garbage was generally that when I feel it important, I will get on "MySearch" and fly a few search engines, looking for verification the article is authentic from reliable sources. I enjoy this not because it is embarassing but because it clearly instructs readers about the flaky way people will write articles like they are true and post them. Then others will pick them up and 'authenticate' them by repeating them.
I was not speaking in reply to your Post but that you were speaking about the UCC Redemption. From where I am, many people turn to true remedy by the 'saving to suitor's' clause of 1789. If they are deeply immersed in the Redemption though, even remedy comes too late. As you read my bouts with Lewish, an adamant UCC Redemption fan, (at least he used to be) you will understand that I am as adamant myself. There is no evidence of these court hearings where the 'judge' just re-conveys the title or whatever.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I am assuming you mean Yahoo is your IP and you put copies of my writing here in a buffer there for your reading later. I cannot find any of my writings there (Yahoo) by search engine. Which is no surprise; I do not write anything there. [I might seem like a Boston Law "Denny Crane" megalomaniac with my incessant - "Regards, David Merrill." on almost all my Posts. This is actually for search engine purposes so that I can easily see if there is such duplication of material on different sites."] |
Edited by - David Merrill on 13 Jan 2005 20:10:54 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2005 : 11:12:56
|
quote:
David Merrill wrote . . . . . This instant comptroller warrant cured waiver of tort and destroyed over $1000 of debt.
Actually I never even saw what the amount was, it worked so quickly.
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_novation_ER.jpg
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
David,
At the link you provided above is, the reproduction of what appears to be, an agreement entered into between you and a hospital when you were treated at that hospital for injuries you had sustained.
We assume that your reference concerning the destruction of over $1000 of debt refers to your belief that:
1. The invoice for the treatment you received would have been in excess of $1,000.
2. The debt incurred for the treatment was discharged by your “Bill of Exchange” which cured on the day the twin towers fell in New York City.
Question A: Are the assumptions we have made above an accurate? |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2005 : 11:31:06
|
quote:
David Merrill povided the following link . . . . .
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_novation_ER.jpg
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
David,
At the link you provided above is, the reproduction of what appears to be, an agreement entered into between you and a hospital when you were treated at that hospital for injuries you had sustained.
On that agreement someone has stricken through the words "MERRILL, DAVID" a derivative of the STRAWMAN name assigned to David Merrill VAN PELT and instead printed the words "David Merrill"
Question #1: Did you change the STRAWMAN name "MERRILL, DAVID" to "David Merrill" before being admitted to the hospital and before signing the agreement?
Question #2: Was that acceptable to the hospital administration?
Question #3: Is the thumbprint on the document printed in blood or only in red ink?
Question #4: What is the signature underneath and/or to the right of the thumbprint.
Question #5: If your thumbprint and/or fingerprints were not on file because of your previous incarceration, would you still have been willing to use your thumbprint on this document? |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2005 : 11:47:34
|
quote:
On that agreement someone has stricken through the words "MERRILL, DAVID" a derivative of the STRAWMAN name assigned to David Merrill VAN PELT and instead printed the words "David Merrill"
By straightening out the confusion in the premise, I will answer your questions best I can.
Looking closely at the document:
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_novation_ER.jpg
We see that what I changed was "MERRILL, DAVID" to David Merrill. Not "David Merrill VAN PELT". That legal name never came up. So you began your questions with a faulty presumption based in the Strawman philosophies, which are by and large as flawed*. The Legal Name is the premise that is factual and can be substantiated by law dictionaries. Not the Strawman.
With that in mind, I will answer your questions:
Question #1: Did you change the STRAWMAN name "MERRILL, DAVID" to "David Merrill" before being admitted to the hospital and before signing the agreement?
Yes. I have been to the hospital several times because of various "crashes", stepping on nails, stuff like that. Once I forgot to correct the name until the doctor was treating me. So I inquired for the top sheet from the clipboard and when I had properly corrected my name turned around and she was gone. She noticed the novations and left the room. She came back about a half an hour later and sutured me up or whatever without mention. I think she was inquiring with her or an hospital attorney. But that is when I realized the doctors are never involved with the contract. She had not even looked at it until I brought it to her attention.
Question #2: Was that acceptable to the hospital administration?
The contract in its entirety is acceptable to administration. Administration is METRO, an eleemysonary corporation. Once a nurse said something about the case would go into collections but without a DOB, address or an agreement for "payment" I decided not to tell him (a nurse) that it would get no further toward collections than the first trained attorney.
Otherwise if I see a doctor by appointment, I simply offer what I feel is fair before the visit. I just tell the receptionist to offer the doctor $70 cash. An opthalmalogist and I were trying to get a piece of fiberglass insulation out of my sinolacrimal duct (The little tubes that drain-off tears). He is the only surgeon who will irrigate the lacrimal ducts around. After a few visits I found out the procedure runs about $240. Thing is that cash in hand is convenient and evades all the overhead of insurance claims and hiring office people to handle all that. So I do not feel bad about paying him what I felt it worth and what he accepted as fair payment.
Got it though: http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_fiber_at_100x.jpg
Question #3: Is the thumbprint on the document printed in blood or only in red ink?
Actually that was my copy and the thumbprint did not go through the paper. I added the thumbprint onto my copy when I chose it to scan and show you Readers. It is red ink from a red ink pad. The original top page the hospital retained, that had a red ink thumbprint too.
Question #4: What is the signature underneath and/or to the right of the thumbprint.
That is my signature in paleo-Hebrew. Sumarian Ostraca to be precise, from the time of David.
Question #5: If your thumbprint and/or fingerprints were not on file because of your previous incarceration, would you still have been willing to use your thumbprint on this document?
I am having difficulty understanding the syntax. David Merrill has no police record. The police are the Division of Enforcement for the Department of Revenue [delegation of Class 2 authority at 24-1-117 of the C.R.S]. Re-venue. To attorn or alienate from the original estate. That is the function of the Legal Name - a colorable identity to function in the realm of colorable money - commerce. [You might be acquiring a glimpse of why I am so fanatic about my name.]
Regards.
David Merrill.
* There are two books out by the name Cracking the Code. The older one (author unknown) is about the Strawman Redemption and UCC. The newer one is by Pete Hendrickson and is about the IRS Codes - Title 26 of the United States Codes. The older book is pretty useless but the newer one is getting withholdings back from the IRS by properly filing for a return. One suitor tried it with his wife's returns this year. One year, I think 2003, she got all her withholdings returned. But they garnish her wages and the State pesters her about other years. Only one of seven filings turned out a return of all her withholdings. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 10 Apr 2005 12:41:40 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2005 : 12:30:40
|
quote:
Cornerstone Foundation had posted this previously...
On that agreement someone has stricken through the words "MERRILL, DAVID" a derivative of the STRAWMAN name assigned to David Merrill VAN PELT and instead printed the words "David Merrill"
quote:
David Merrill wrote:
We see that what I changed was "MERRILL, DAVID" to David Merrill. Not "David Merrill VAN PELT". So you began your questions with a faulty presumption .....
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
It can be discerned by reviewing the post we originally made that we indicated that you changed the words "MERRILL, DAVID" to "David Merrill"
To get the basic premise correct, please answer the following questions.
Question A: Do you believe that on or near the time the VAN PELT family welcomed their new baby boy, whom they gave the name "David Merrill" to, into his existence outside of Lucy's womb; that someone, somewhere, created an entity separate and distinct from the real live flesh and blood entity known as "David Merrill"; and they called that fictional entity they had created "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT?"
Question B: Do you believe that the entity known by some as DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT is a fictional entity?
Question C: Do you believe that the term STRAWMAN is an appropriate term to descibe the fictional entity they call DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT?
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2005 : 12:48:33
|
That reminds me of when a lady was teasing me, "You are the only guy I know who is related to a comic strip character." - Lucy Van Pelt (Peanuts). My mother's name is Louanne. Sparky Shulz colored her Lucy for the part in the comic strip.
Question A: Do you believe that on or near the time the VAN PELT family welcomed their new baby boy, whom they gave the name "David Merrill" to, into his existence outside of Lucy's womb; that someone, somewhere, created an entity separate and distinct from the real live flesh and blood entity known as "David Merrill"; and they called that fictional entity they had created "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT?"
I believe that is what we see in the documentation. But I do not think anything was created. The name was registered into commerce in contemplation I would someday create the entity and it would be a persona attachable to me, the man.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification3.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification4.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification5.jpg
Registration as chattel by Birth Certificate
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_soldier-qua-mathematica.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_soldier-mathematical.jpg
Question B: Do you believe that the entity known by some as DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT is a fictional entity?
This is where it gets metaphysical. There is no entity to be known by some as DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. But thank you for mentioning it like there is. You have fallen to the illusion there is such an entity. But it is up to me to determine its existence or lacking of being. Nobody else. That is a good point about property. I do not have a legal name. Why not? Because I choose what I have and what I do not have. That is essence of property rights.
Consider the ziggurat (pyramid) on the back of a dollar bill. The entities you speak of are the bricks constructing the ziggurat. When one heals by curing remedy, capital integration, then the substance - the life you just attempted to breathe into DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT ceases to do its "voluntary compliance" part in holding the ziggurat up. The bill of exchange being based in wealth/energy is like building an antithesis or anti-ziggurat.
Question C: Do you believe that the term STRAWMAN is an appropriate term to descibe the fictional entity they call DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT?
No. Not really. I think its reality, the STRAWMAN is like the illusive phantom in Question B. The promoters of the Redemption could never really come up with a comprehensive definition for the all upper case name. They could never really define Strawman. (Not that I ever heard). The Redemption was silly from my point of view - redeeming something you already have. I can use David Merrill Van Pelt or DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT whenever I please. I just avoid nuisance suits against it by only using it when I want to, not whenever someone presumes it is me. And another thing. Say I use it for utilities, for billing gas and electric. That usage only boils over to other contracts as far as I will let it. That illusion debt action in assumpsit is very important to dispel. like I did in Question B.
The closest I have heard was a treatise I read about somebody who tried to define the convention by standard practices. The UCC uses a term for valid notice "conspicuous". Like a SPEED LIMIT sign. Or a STOP sign. I like that model. It works better and actually has some roots in reality.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 10 Apr 2005 13:18:36 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2005 : 22:20:21
|
David,
After rereading Question A, which we had asked you and considering your response to that question, it occurred to us that we may be using different definitions for the word ”entity”.
Question A: Do you believe that on or near the time the VAN PELT family welcomed their new baby boy, whom they gave the name "David Merrill" to, into his existence outside of Lucy's womb; that someone, somewhere, created an entity separate and distinct from the real live flesh and blood entity known as "David Merrill"; and they called that fictional entity they had created "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT?"
quote:
David Merrill’s response to Question A:
I believe that is what we see in the documentation.
But I do not think anything was created.
The name was registered into commerce in contemplation I would someday create the entity and it would be a persona attachable to me, the man.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
We found it interesting that the term ”entity” does not appear in Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition.
[quote]In Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Fifth Edition. “entity” is defined as . . . .
A real being ; existence.
An organization or being that possesses separate existence for tax purposes.
Examples would be corporations, partnerships, estates and trusts.
See also Legal entity.
Legal entity is a defined as . . . .
Legal existence.
An entity, other than a natural person, who has sufficient existence in legal contemplation that it can function legally, be sued or sue and make decisions through agents as in the case of corporations.
Follow-up Question #1: Do you agree that the definition given for ”entity” can be agreed upon by us to to examine the issues alluded to in Question A above and in your answer to question A.
If not, please either redefine ”entity” or propose an alternative term that would be more appropriate.
Request for comments: We are asking that anyone who has any insight into, or speculation about, why the word “entity” did not yet appear in Black’s Third Edition which was published in 1933 to express the ideas they have about that. |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 10 Apr 2005 22:21:55 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2005 : 22:55:42
|
David,
Question B: Do you believe that the entity known by some as DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT is a fictional entity?
quote:
David Merrill responded to Question B in this manner . . . .
This is where it gets metaphysical.
There is no entity to be known by some as DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. But thank you for mentioning it like there is.
You have fallen to the illusion there is such an entity. But it is up to me to determine its existence or lacking of being. Nobody else.
That is a good point about property. I do not have a legal name. Why not? Because I choose what I have and what I do not have. That is essence of property rights.
Consider the ziggurat (pyramid) on the back of a dollar bill.
The entities you speak of are the bricks constructing the ziggurat.
When one heals by curing remedy, capital integration, then the substance - the life you just attempted to breathe into DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT ceases to do its "voluntary compliance" part in holding the ziggurat up.
The bill of exchange being based in wealth/energy is like building an antithesis or anti-ziggurat.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
We found it interesting that the term ”legal fiction ” does not appear in Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition,published in 1933; but by the time Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Fifth Edition was published fifty years later in 1983 the tem does appear.
quote:
Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Fifth Edition defines legal fiction as . . . .
Assumption of fact made by court as basis for deciding a legal question.
A situation contrived by the law to permit a court to dispose of a matter,
Though it need not be created improperly;
e.g. fiction of lost grant as basis for title by adverse possession.
Follow-up Question #2: Do you believe that DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT can properly be called a ”legal fiction”?
Request for Information: If anyone has access to Black’s Fourth Edition we would be interested in knowing if the term “legal fiction” is defined therein.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2005 : 11:09:23
|
We are going around in circles....
"DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT" does not exist. That is why I corrected you up at the top, (Apr 10 2005 : 11:12:56 AM) when you started up with it. It does not exist!
Pseudonomania! Your persistence to make it somehow exist is equivalent of pathological lying.
P.S. Let me shave the edge off that a bit Marty. I have a tharful, I like to call these "tharfs" and even considered calling mine "Tharfy" at first. Now we can mix letters in any fashion we like and even flatter ourselves that maybe there will come into existence through reverence to David Merrill of an actual thing called tharfuls some day. So you may create, as the booking agent (deputy) something called "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT" but it will not come into existence until I endorse it. Therefore:
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/abatement.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/judgment.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavit2.jpg
Abatement for misnomer
This is the essence of debate between me and someone named Gregory Thomas on a Christian chain-letter forum. He said that the policy to "use" your SSN for 15 years even without you using it, well that made it bad advice to just quit using it. "They" cannot use it. They may press you into thinking they can use it but that is just to buffalo you into endorsing the use of it. See? So if you do not want a SSN just quit endorsing its existence. Quit saying it or writing it. That is how the manager at the SSA told me to get rid of it. What is beautiful about this fact is that since I have paid into my 40+ quarters, I can simply endorse my investment and claim when I am 65 or earlier if I need to draw the bennies.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 11 Apr 2005 12:35:30 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2005 : 12:28:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
We are going around in circles....
David ,
Please either respond to the question or redefine the terms if you cannot answer the question asked so that you can stop going around in circles and begin to go forward with this discussion.
We perceive that if we do not properly define the terms at this juncture, all the readers will be going around in circles with you later and that should be avoided.
Here is a clue that may help us. Do you believe that a fiction "exists"?
quote:
David Merrill wrote . . . .
"DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT" does not exist. . . . It does not exist!
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Follow-up Question #2 again: Do you believe that DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT can properly be called a ”legal fiction”?
Please respond to the question - Yes or No.
If you cannot answer the question, please either:
1. redefine the terms "Legal fiction" and "entity"
or
2. supply alternative terms so that we can go forward with this discussion
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Best Regards,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 11 Apr 2005 12:33:40 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2005 : 12:43:55
|
You made it up - DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. Not me. So you, like me with tharfuls have now the task of defining it, not me.
quote:
On that agreement someone has stricken through the words "MERRILL, DAVID" a derivative of the STRAWMAN name assigned to David Merrill VAN PELT and instead printed the words "David Merrill"
"David Merrill VAN PELT" is nowhere on the face of the documentation subject. So I said:
quote:
By straightening out the confusion in the premise, I will answer your questions best I can.
Looking closely at the document:
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_novation_ER.jpg
We see that what I changed was "MERRILL, DAVID" to David Merrill. Not "David Merrill VAN PELT". That legal name never came up. So you began your questions with a faulty presumption based in the Strawman philosophies, which are by and large as flawed*. The Legal Name is the premise that is factual and can be substantiated by law dictionaries. Not the Strawman.
[You chose to pursue the confusing premise, now subsequently creating "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT".]
If you want me to define tharfuls, I would be glad to. But you know I am just making it up anyway.
Thank you for this exhibition of foolishly shooting your own foot - making demands of me to define something you made up. That's great!
That is what the world does Marty. That is why it gets so confusing - widespread psychotomimetic (folie a deux) pseudomania on a global municipal scale. Societal MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder) manifest in cooperative paranoid schizophrenia. This is probably the closest thing to 'coming out of the Harlot so as not to be participant and effected by Her plagues'; for you to just see the foolishness of your demand Marty.
Regards,
David Merrill.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Folie-a-Deux.jpg
group psychotic disorders
quote:
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
P.S. An amusing sidebar but right on the subject matter is Charles Bruce has invented another pseudonym for me called "Dr Fill. phd" to import things I have written here on ecclesia.org to portray them on the christiancommonlaw.org website. Admin, you may edit this as you see fit and I only say that because I feel the same way you do about Charles' beasting. It is so detestable that you are justified in simply cleaning things up here for the fitness sake of this fine forum.
Marty, you can see this has degrees of offense and I am not offended by you creating DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT and expecting me to define it at all compared to what Charles has done:
I posted these two messages on Charles' site about me:
quote:
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:33 am Post subject: boiling over
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The psychosis of Charles Bruce is boiling over into other matters. He has registered an entity Dr. Fill for the purpose of importing material I have said elsewhere here - to portray me in the ridiculous context of this forum.
This arrived in my email attached to the address from which I write. My subsequent reply is at the top - the top two lines warning Charles never to use this private email address again in any way.
quote:
Further use of this address will be reported abusive.
Last warning!
----- Original Message -----
From: <charles@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>
To: sanitized for privacy
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 11:09 AM
Subject: Welcome to GeneralAssembly:CCLGO Forums
>
> Welcome to GeneralAssembly:CCLGO Forums
>
> Please keep this email for your records. Your account information is as
> follows:
>
> ----------------------------
> Username: Dr. Fill. phd
> Password: esau
> ----------------------------
>
> Please do not forget your password as it has been encrypted in our
> database and we cannot retrieve it for you. However, should you forget
> your password you can request a new one which will be activated in the
> same way as this account.
>
> Thank you for registering.
>
> --
> This Computer Thanks You Sincerely.
>
I am quite certain that Dr. Fill was registered by Charles. I know it was not me.
Charles has said he would not change nary a word of anything I have Posted here so have fun with it. Login and write whatever you think "Dr. Fill" should say too. I think it is a dodge for slander, at least in Charles' mind. That he not be quoting me as David Merrill, but Dr. Fill.
But he attached Dr. Fill's registration to my email and therefore be it known that I wish nothing at all whatsoever to do with Charles Bruce, his website or philosophies. I would unregister Dr. Fill if I had ever requested his being registered to begin with. You will not be finding David Merrill registered here - ever. I suggest you flee from this man and his site.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:56 am Post subject: Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further be it known I emailed this to Charles Bruce:
quote:
Dear Charles Bruce;
There are several common law remedies against libel and two or three forums for me to choose having them heard.
You may say what you will for your creation, Dr. Fill. But it will be quite easy to prove you are slandering me and so keep building evidence for court proceedings later.
I am retaining the two attachments for evidence against you if you should ever use this email address in any fashion again. The objective will simply be to have the FBI glance at your ramblings and Freeman-style objectives and decide if you are a nuisance to the peace. I will be encouraging that your site be shut down before anybody starts to believe you enough to act upon these privatized premises you spout. The next time you involve me directly with your slander-projects Charles Bruce, I will report you to your IP as abusive. If you do it again after that, the evidence package will go to the FBI tipline.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 11 Apr 2005 14:09:17 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2005 : 14:50:39
|
| Neither Admin, nor myself, nor the Moderator will be editing what you have posted above, David. This supports part of the reason why Charles Bruce and his IP address were banned from posting on our forum. Readers need to know what Charles Bruce is all about, and nothing can say that clearer than his own actions. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2005 : 15:36:35
|
Understood. Then I appreciate the forum for Notice. I wrote a (hopefully final) Post over on that forum:
quote:
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:35 pm Post subject: misdirection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Bruce feels he may persist in writing to this email address if I view this forum;
quote:
Dear Charles Bruce;
You made the mistake of registering Dr Fill and then attaching that to this email address. That is retained evidence. These gyrations are twisted, to call yourself "This Computer" and soforth.
Do not write me again or request my participation in your wierd endeavors.
I can view your slander against me without being subject to email - at least I have never gotten "Undisclosed Recipient" email from other forums I view. I have a strange feeling that I am the only recipient on that list.
You are a real character Charles Bruce! I have been gauging the extent of brain-damage this Christian Identity movement/paranoia can cause. Furtunately you are an anomoly. You cannot be entered into the statistics scientifically.
Regards,
David Merrill.
----- Original Message -----
From: <charles@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>
To: <Undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 1:14 PM
Subject: Topic Reply Notification - Psychoanalyzing David Merrill
>
> Hello,
>
> You are receiving this email because you are watching the topic, "Psychoanalyzing David Merrill" at GeneralAssembly:CCLGO. This topic has received a reply since your last visit. You can use the following link to view the replies made, no more notifications will be sent until you visit the topic.
>
> http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/GeneralAssembly/viewtopic.php?p=109#109
>
> If you no longer wish to watch this topic you can either click the "Stop watching this topic link" found at the bottom of the topic above, or by clicking the following link:
>
> http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/GeneralAssembly/viewtopic.php?t=3&unwatch=topic
>
> --
> This Computer Thanks You Sincerely.
>
I have always noted that one must request to be notified of PM's or email notifications. Now Charles is prompting that I have made that request by simply "viewing" any Topic or Forum. Well... he wants me to undo something I have not done. This is very educational right on topic if you think about it.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. What I am really enjoying about this is that it is working! If you are silly enough to visit Charles site, you will quickly discover by reading the "Views" column I am making an otherwise empty show. Fascinating! Charles has managed to get me to publish the links here. Is not that just stultifying?
These cyberspace echo chambers are quite fascinating to me.
So the current question is should I grab christaincommonlaw.org for myself? Charles with his demented map-based idea of territorialism will not come to court, no matter what forum I choose. However his IP will honor the default judgment and award the site to me. Which I will quickly vacate of any information. Charles of course is reading this without any junk email attached. So Charles are you ready?
News Flash: The honorable Charles Bruce is expelling his own Dr. Fill. phd from christaincommonlaw.org!
quote:
I just sent the following message in private email to the person who identifies himself as "Dr Fill".
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 11 Apr 2005 17:55:31 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2005 : 18:03:08
|
David,
We are concerned about the last several posts you have made to this topic.
We know of someone that was kicked off this forum recently for the very same things:
1. Cutting and Pasting
2. Mentioning those "we do not speak of" (see the movie 'The Village')
There have also been admonitions in the past about posting the content of private e-mails.
We are asking that you consider one of the following options:
1. Delete your last several posts entirely so that we can get back to the important subject matter we were discussing before that interruption.
or
2. Transfer the posts to another topic so it does not clutter up this one. It may be that the Administrators would allow this kind of discussion at the topic you started for people to make comments about David Merrill. It seems that you may have gotten a special waiver for some of the rules to be stretched when posting within that topic.
Thank you for considering this.
We don't know who we will get the answers from if you get kicked off this forum because no one else is participating in this particular topic at the time.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marty |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2005 : 18:07:23
|
Marty;
You must sit back and savor how pertinent Charles and his antics are in light of your creation of "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT". Especially how "Dr. Fill" is an absurd parallel to what you are trying to do.
I will not be answering your demand "yes" or "no" to define for you your creation DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. Any more than I am going to play the part "Dr. Fill. phd". This is the appropriate Topic.
Earlier today and today only you could have gotten on and spoken for the new fictitious entity Dr Fill using the password given me private email for it. But now you missed your chance. Give it a try. [One thing for sure; there is no record of this address I am writing from logging on as Dr. Fill or for that matter, anyone but David Merrill - anywhere.] It sounds as though the fictitious entity Charles dreamed up and tried to attach to me is already persona non gratus on its own creator forum.
Can't you see how amusing that is? If not Marty, then try viewing the creation of Dr. Fill as a microcosmic parallel to your presumption society can create DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT, much like you did above at the beginning of this thread. It is not for real Marty. Neither Dr. Fill or DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT are for real.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Charles is making it out that somebody in Denver registered Dr. Fill. But I cannot imagine how to fabricate emails, substituting addresses so that Charles would respond directly to me at this private email address from that christiancommonlaw.org address. My Reply button would send the message back to the sender by address. But things like that are possible I suppose. I will not attribute the day's events to some sicko-psycho hacker with that ability. It makes more sense that Charles is trying to backpaddle on a slander project that went terribly awry for him and actually threatens the future of his site. I suppose a quick search through the records of Charles' server would tell that matter out.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 11 Apr 2005 20:51:16 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Strawman
