Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Statute Law
 Are You a PERSON?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 11

Advanced Member

833 Posts

Posted - 13 Nov 2004 :  06:28:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
DICHOTOMY, n. [Gr., a division into two parts; to cut.] 1. Division or distribution of ideas by pairs. [Little used.]
Yahowshua said…On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two what will you do?” – Good Tidings [GOSPEL] of Thomas, verse 11

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

1147 Posts

Posted - 28 Nov 2004 :  11:04:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Readers;

This suitor is a respected author and macroeconomist. Unfortunately he is also a respected surgeon and medical doctor so that leaves very little time for email correspondence like this.

But the Crosstalk may be useful.


Dear Suitors;

Last night I broadcast:

I respect this suitor's opinion:

Hi David:

Everyone is looking for a contract. The contract is
implied under a presumption. I do not care if you use
your given name plus or minus the family name,
everyone voluntarily "uses Federal Reserve Notes to
dischargwe debts in equity with limited lability".
This is the unrevealed commercial agreement. The
liability of this agreement is that you have agreed to
be subject to all codes and statutes.

But every system of law must have a remedy or else we
are all in slavery.

The courts are giving you NOTICE. It is the admiralty
flag which is NOTICE of a condition of contract.

If you do not have a public NOTICE in the county
recorder's office of your objection to the use of Fed
Notes, and do not timely reserve your rights under the
UCC, the controlling law of negotiable instruments,
the battle is lost!

Have a happy holiday season.

signed by the suitor.


It may be true.

Also it seems to enforce my theory that we are always looking for the contract ourselves, every time we are dragged before an attorney-in-the-black-robe. The assumption is that we always are notified of the contract - this social compact of using the FRNs.

Since my experience triggering the Montana Freeman Standoff with a Comptroller Warrant upon which I did not cite the UCC at all, I am skeptical that the remedy lies in the codified Law Merchant, the Uniform Commercial Code. Just the same, there may be some wisdom to be gleaned here.

Dr. Wayne Dyer said: "Literally rewrite your agreement with reality."

So pursue that agreement if you are being fleeced. Bring it to the table and inquire where you became obligated to perform. Find out where you agreed to turn your property and funds over to the Bank and Fund. We all need to know.

Exception to the "under the UCC" aside, I think I have been saying the same thing all along.


David Merrill.

And now I am thinking the alternatives between admiralty and the UCC should be examined. But first I should state that my objection, at least exception to losing sovereignty over use of FRNs was filed years ago as the third page of my approbation to the Declaration of Independence. So maybe I have had this instrument in place the whole while and not really understood what it has been doing for me. So like I said last night, there might be a gem there regardless of the UCC.

Image of page 3 of my approbation to the Declaration of Independence. [I may be able to link this image soon.]

When I first began writing on the forum I started Topics about the de jure 13th Amendment and Credit River Money Decision. You will gather about all my philosphies by reading there. You will also see how several people attacked me who were advocates of the UCC Redemption or variations. The foremost Internet advocate of the UCC paid me for the counterclaim (never filed) to see "why it works" and you may recall he attacked a suitor here for allegedly trying to steal or something ("savingstosuitor" v. "savingtosuitors" to find graphics on a Yahoo group), some nonsensical skurmish.

Since early experiences I have been convinced that using the Uniform Commercial Code is hiring an attorney (black robed) to decrypt the code. The main problem that I see is that you subject yourself, just like stated in the above suitor's letter. This means laying down the character of sovereign and judiciary officer (court of competent jurisdiction).

But there is something else I feel is very dangerous about the processes based on the UCC. I gave up challenging people for evidence it worked years ago. Mainly because they would never produce a single shred of evidence. I know it is hard to convince me, especially over the Internet but back with the Montana Freemen, that was really the pinnacle of success utilizing the UCC as far as I have directly experienced. Leroy Michael and others had cured a lien for $200m and were instructing others how to become private banks. The people were walking away from that rural farmhouse (a/k/a "Compound") with bona fide Comptroller Warrants and instructions on how to make them work. And they were working. The Freemen were providing ten or twenty copies of signed testimony.

I am sure the Feds were preparing to raid the "Compound" at the time but about two weeks after I left with my comptroller warrant written to "International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service and David Merrill: Van Pelt" I ignored the instructions to cite the UCC and simply applied the concept "Without Recourse" after my indorsement. About the same moment that would have arrived in Ogden, Utah the Feds picked up Schweitzer and Petersen and seized that farmhouse for the Standoff. I am pretty convinced that whole deal was a bunch of theatrics to kill the usage of the UCC and to discourage private banks. They could have just said the remaining people were insignificant and we will pick them up down the road on warrants as we find them, and just walked away from that Standoff. But no. The Feds had to make it into a super-spectacle.

Back to the link to "Diversity of Citizenship" (above) in Title 28, §1333. The main reason I am adamantly sticking to the concepts of admiralty and treating collection agents as foreign agents is because that establishes a clear requirement they must file in the district courts. That is how a foreign agent makes a claim against a man or woman in this land. That is a pretty global claim-filing policy in admiralty. You must come into any sovereign through proper channels and service has been perfected through the mailboxes. So in lieu of a clerk and federal judge we have the right to Refuse for Cause and demand the claimant cures any claim in judicial action; not the administrative processes of notice and grace found in the mailbox. The law is clear that these actions have been paralyzed by lack of process long before they become Notice of Lien or Levy.

The main problem as I see it is that the Rules of civil procedure make it easy for the district court clerks to assassinate our character and falsely brand us pro se citizens of the US. We continually go around gyrations and Steve Ehrlich (a/k/a Mr. Bowtie or Rogers) makes us jump through rediculous hoops. A couple weeks ago he made someone fill out a new Cover Sheet to file something! For now, until one of you sues probably, it would seem that you cannot get certified copies of your default judgments. Maybe that is just that one case where the Fed attorney ("judge") put an order in the front of the case jacket "striking" the judgment. [Writ of Error coram vobis issued.]

In conclusion, the main reasons for not going UCC are:

1) It is an extremely complex body of laws in fullness requiring years of exploration and studying case law.

2) because of 1), many people look at it in a simplistic manner and like myself years ago see 'failsafe' strategems. It seems remarkably easy to convince people there is evidence of reconveyance of mortgages and that bills of exchange are being honored etc. The closest I have come to evidence is that "if so-and-so says he was there, I believe him." Well even under the best conditions, I must be speaking with so-and-so instead of hearsay about so-and-so.

3) our character being native men and women to this land, is not addressed formally in the UCC. At least not directly. Being the codified Law Merchant there may be that presumption in reserving common law rights, but even that right to reserve is codified and decided typically by an attorney. Our character is much better addressed in admiralty defining diversity of citizenship. I see it every Civil Cover Sheet. There is the man or woman's true name accross from an agent of a foreign principal - legal name or title.

So I will spend the time to examine evidence you may submit to me and renew my challenge. If you can show me evidence these wonderful strategies have ever worked; transcripts of a hearing would help, then I will consider recommending it as a method of remedy and maybe recourse. Until then, I think it best to protect the truth of our character and proceed in the truth of the diversity. Obstacles seem to fall away in the timing set forth by Daniel and referred to by Jesus Christ in the Holy Bible. But I forewarn any of you UCC advocates that you must make it clear upon first glance you have something worth looking at - I do not like opening attachments so scan a page into the text as an image file or telephone and we will make arrangements for me to order certified copies from the court that heard the matter.


The truth shall set you free.

And so do not lose track of the truth in the kind letter from the suitor. I do not think he is promoting the UCC any so much as for us to file our exception to having to use Federal Reserve Notes so the principals of retaining (not reserving) our common law rights "without prejudice" remain intact through our usage of the notes in international commerce (at the corner store). So if you agree, draw your objection and file it at the county clerk or publish it by whatever means you have available.

[Here goes an image of a $20 bill with a stamp on it "Used only by Necessity Under Protest". When the Suitor and some friends visited with me the $20 was set on the counter in a coffee shop so I photographed it. I am not sure if it was from the Dr./Suitor or one of his friends.]


David Merrill.

P.S. I hear my typo "viola!", a musical instrument instead of "voila!" the correct French term, was amusing. Thank you.

Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Nov 2004 11:30:03
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

735 Posts

Posted - 28 Nov 2004 :  12:13:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Everyone is looking for a contract. The contract is
implied under a presumption. I do not care if you use
your given name plus or minus the family name,
everyone voluntarily "uses Federal Reserve Notes to
dischargwe debts in equity with limited lability".
This is the unrevealed commercial agreement. The
liability of this agreement is that you have agreed to
be subject to all codes and statutes.

Exactly. What's more is our willfull use of this commercial measure of trade (FRN) to buy CONSUMER GOODS usually includes a TAX to support the INFRASTRUCTURE. This act trumps any thought theology which might profess the evilness of the INFRASTRUCTURE. Slave or free, rich or poor from anywhere in the world can partake in the NOTE scheme. The only logical remedy would be to "just say no". Easier said than done, no doubt.


Edited by - BatKol on 28 Nov 2004 12:16:58
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

1147 Posts

Posted - 28 Nov 2004 :  12:27:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
And to amplify, I import a quote from the link to Title 28 above:

The ``saving to suitors'' clause in sections 41(3) and 371(3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words ``any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled'' for the words ``the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.'' The substituted language is simpler and more expressive of the original intent of Congress and is in conformity with Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing the distinction between law and equity.

[Quite contrary to Bennett v. Butterworth (52 U.S. 669). ]

41. Under the old equity rules it had been held that the absolute right to a trial of the facts by a jury could not be impaired by any blending with a claim, properly cognizable at law, of a demand for equitable relief in aid of the legal action or during its pendency. Hipp v. Babin, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 271, 278 (1857). The Seventh Amendment was interpreted to mean that equitable and legal issues could not be tried in the same suit, so that such aid in the federal courts had to be sought in separate proceedings. Scott v. Neely, 140 U.S. 106, 109 (1891); Bennett v. Butterworth, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 669 (1850); Lewis v. Cocks, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 466, 470 (1874); Killian v. Ebbinghaus, 110 U.S. 568, 573 (1884); Buzard v. Houston, 119 U.S. 347, 351 (1886).

This is reference to Erie Railroad Company v. Thompkins that blurred the common law by casting aspersions on case law between 1842 (Swift v. Tyson) and 1938 (Erie).

I avoid the "just say no" doctrine because most people have to have bank accounts. A lot of times the banks have gold fringes there in the lobby. Albeit I have no birth certificate; no DOB and no account. That is in the essence of contract. I am in control of what I have. The Birth Certificate above linked belongs to my mother. At least she was adamant I get it back from the clerk and give it back to her. She understands it is nothing but testimony to me. So she got all concerned I might shred it by accident or something.

But the 'just say no' doctrine often drives one into unnecessary poverty. At least I feel it is unnecessary.

So I like the advice too. I have heard it before and even been asked by deputies in booking; "Do you use Federal Reserve Notes?" Maybe next time I should lie and say I never have used Federal Reserve Notes, even the ones in my wallet [Is not that evidence in support? That they are still there in my wallet?]. Then they would have to investigate. So they go to the Drugstore and show my photo and find out I have lied but it goes into the investigatory report and this testimony comes forth on the record to establish jurisdiction of the nisi pruis tribunal. Now I have proof of unconscionable contract whether I produce my declaration of protest from 1996 or not.

That might be a much more powerful approach than even the "Is this an investigation?" question. Simply keep informing the police, attorneys (judges) etc. that you do not and have never used Federal Reserve Notes (true or not). Anyway, I keep myself entertained with such mental scenarios.

So a published asseveration that usage of FRNs in no way abrogates one's access to common law remedy might be a very useful utility. I could easily prove that since 1996 or so, I have been publicly saying that all along.


David Merrill.

P.S. This Crosstalk suggests the man (Dr./Suitor) who is not a religious man, Christian or otherwise, has figured ways to function quite well 'within the lookingglass'. I remind you this fellow is a genius - the first to re-plant a severed human thumb and popular author. I do not know how he feels about me advertizing here so I refrain from mentioning his name and books.


Dear Suitors;

Having seen many abatements work, I disagree that it is absolutely necessary to "color" our character to be recognized within the forums of bankruptcy. However the frequent occurance of 'blindness' to our character as grantors and sovereigns compels me to relay this information. It may in some form or another prove quite useful.

Hi David:

Yes, you have been saying the same thing but from the
world of physical reality. Unfortunately, our
adversaries cannot see Affidavits, truth, or us
(physical reality) in their courts that operate in the
mirror(reversed images of physical reality). They can
only see FICTIONS.

The Law(common law, that is) is tied to Legal/Lawful
money, gold and silver.

Since the bankruptcy, there has been no such money in
general circulation to "pay debts" and consequently
"no law". So the modus operandi in "this
state" is FRAUD and QUASI-CONTRACTS under color of law
- Black Letter law.

Is it not true that since the U.S. bankruptcy and the
removal of substantive money out of circulation the
courts are only agencies (fictions) of an association
of unincorporated fictitious States ( the land and
water and air space above the land and water- Model
Penal Code 1.030)?--Sir Thomas Moore's "Utopia" an
island in the sky. No wonder Henry VIII beheaded
Moore, and for good reason, Treason!

So how do we get them to see our evidence, our
Affidavits and our truths? We have to color them!

Under their system of laws "silence is agreement".

Create your private agreement with them under the
Administrative Procedures Act. Support your private
claims by affidavit and Notice them (1)to timely
(state the time limit)respond in affidavit form signed
under penalty of perjury, 28 USC § 1746(1), (2) the
consequences of their failure to respond, and (3)
their failure to respond is their limited power of
attorney authorizing you to sign their names by
accomodation, UCC 3-419, on a UCC-1 financing
statement making them the debtor.

They will never respond and support their statement of
facts with an affidavit because fictions cannot make a
proper affidavit and they can't see the truth until it
is colored --color of law).

Follow up with a Notice of Fault then a Default
Notice. (Keep originals of all documents you generate
and sign.)

Make sure that you instruct them to respond to a third
party witness (give name and address of third party)
who will provide you with an affidavit of

Then attach your Notices of Claim, Fault, Default and
affidavit of non-response to an Affidavit and record
it with your local county recorder's office (common
law). Then get a certified copy (they still cannot see
this} from recorder's office and attach it as an
exhibit to a UCC-1 financing statement making your
legal name as the secured party and signing your
opponent's name as debtor by accomodation.

Now you can get a certified copy from the Secretary of
State's Office with their Seal that can now be seen in
their fictitious court.

This is an offensive procedure. We need to be the
plaintiffs. They become debtors in assumpsit. Judge's
hands are now tied by his Oath and the "contract
clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

As defendants, we get mauled for failure to understand
what is happening in la la land -- "they say what they
mean but not necessarily mean what they say". Every
suitor should go back and read "The Adventures of
Alice in Wonderland", especially Alice's conversations
with the Cheshire Cat and the March Hare. Very thought

Sorry, David that I cannot participate in the general
discussions. My present focus is to take care of a
family I long neglected by creating financial
stability from which vantage point I can also help

I greatly respect what you are doing, David.

Joy, Peace, Truth, Light, and Love.

Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Nov 2004 14:20:09
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

1147 Posts

Posted - 28 Nov 2004 :  16:03:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hey. I really hope this is stimulating reading. These conversations are great and I really hope this is helpful information in making it through life, a pleasing ecclesia to God:


Dear Suitors;

This is interesting. Almost like having a conversation with myself and then having people listen as 'voices in my head', chiming in. So keep in mind I am relaying specific emails to me, and you are hearing other people speaking with me.

Now the suitor who is experienced with UCC operations, whom I have been quoting all morning, was not offended with me saying his tactics lacked "religious conviction" because he is a "spiritual man", not a religious man. From his perspective religions are fear tactic tools and like medical and municipal operations can and are almost exclusively used to traffic in souls, bodies or liberties respectively through fear tactics. And I agree with his perspective.

Then on the other hand, from the other side of the spectrum came an informed opinion:


This is similar to the the Honor/Dishonor thing I was doing with the Notary - third party witness. They have refined it in the last year or so. The concept is still the same, you are part of their kingdom. In their mind it is all about not paying taxes. In my mind it is all about who I serve (who's kingdom do I live in). Maybe there are some ideas to process here that will apply in the common law? I don't know."

So I want to link that together with a later email from the first, spiritual not religious [presuming the distinction of "kingdoms" religious], perspective:

Dear David:

I agree that our remedy is under the common law.

So, permit me to quote from Anderson's Uniform
Commercial Code.

' 1-103:6. Common law.

"The Code (UCC) is "complementary to the common law
which remains in force except where displaced by the
Code.... And it is for this reason that courts have
adopted the principle of statutory construction that a
statute will not be construed so as to overrule a
principle of established common law. unless it is made
plain by the act that such a change in the established
law is intended.

A statute should be construed in harmony with the
common law unless there is a clear legislative intent
to abrogate the common law."

The Reservation of Right is at Article 1, ' 207 and
the argument is at Article 1, ' 103.

Unfortunately only a handful of people know what right
they are reserving when they use the phrase "Without
Prejudice UCC 1-207". I have heard some very naive
answers when I ask them what they mean by that phrase
in connection with their signatures. This Right has
nothing to do with one's unalienable rights to Life.
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness with which we
are endowed.

The correct answer goes something like this"

"My use of the phrase "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" in
connection with my signature means that I have timely
exercised the remedy offered to me under the Uniform
Commercial Code at Article 1, ' 207 whereby I might
reserve my common law Right not to be bound by nor
compelled to perform under any contract, commercial
agreement or bankruptcy which I did not enter
knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily, and by such
reservation of Right I have notified all federal,
state, and local governments that I do not and will
not accept the liability associated with any such
unrevealed contract, commercial agreement or
bankruptcy, especially including but not limited to
the use of Federal reserve Notes to discharge debts in
equity with limited liability.

It is my opinion that this reservation puts one back
under the common law for a remedy with the argument
being under UCC 1-103:6.

With regards to sovereignty, I do not think one can
give it up, David. It is not ours to give up, even if
we are in their courts. They simply cannot see us in
their courts until we color ourselves.

Like you, I do not believe in the redemption process.

But can mortgages be discharged under the UCC? The
answer is yes, and I have seen evidence of
reconveyances. However, the process has nothing to do
with redemption or bills of exchange or any such
hair-brained schemes. When we have time to talk, I can
explain it to you.

David, my use of the UCC is to access the common law,
so I am with you on the common law. I know that there
is more than one way to "skin a cat".

Ignorance is the order of the day among law
enforcement agents including judges, attorneys and the
police. We have to arm ourselves with whatever tools
are necessary to stay out of their traps which are
many. They have all been dumbed down. If we offer them
something they do not understand they react, sometimes
with violence, because they are taught that they are
the masters above the law and that we the people are
scums/slaves. Governments are in the business of
slavery. There is nothing personal. JUST BUSINESS.
Trading in the bodies and souls of men.


And to tell you the truth, I do not see a big discrepancy between what I have labelled "religious" verses "spiritual" above.

It is quite stimulating how informative these conversations have been for us all. I am confident that this is building confidence and security in both the bill of exchange and our competence being the only true judiciary.

I can only agree with the point that we are not seen as men and women when we appear before the bankrupt and bereft system. That is to say, without abatement or even appearing restricted under Rule E(8) we in our true character are without "standing in judicio". A good book on that is Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph Vining (out of print; (719) 578-5044). The book is a bit heady but explains why I can be in agreement with both the suitors.

By the by, I have heard that people signing their licenses "Without Prejudice; UCC 1-207" get the card in the mail 10 days later with the verbiage removed.


David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Nov 2004 16:08:45
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

735 Posts

Posted - 28 Nov 2004 :  18:48:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
David said: But the 'just say no' doctrine often drives one into unnecessary poverty. At least I feel it is unnecessary.

I have not (to this date) witnessed the kind of unity that would be needed between seekers to make living without FRN's a plausable option. Differences concerning 'beliefs', social dynamics, etc. often erode and splinter groups who don't shun FRN's, imagine the strain if they were to be verboten. All of that aside, I still have not met anybody (self included) who really hates 'the SYSTEM' enough to refuse the FRN scheme or refuse to pay a CONSUMER TAX when ponying up at the till....

Enjoying the thread,
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

1147 Posts

Posted - 28 Nov 2004 :  19:01:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

One thing to note in the Credit River Money Decision is that justice Mahoney makes reference to the land; the Northwest Ordinance []. I just copied this filing below from the man who did the work at the time but it is very detailed in describing claim to the land, the soil, I am standing upon. And this is proclaimed suae potestate esse - "lord of the soil" or literally moving essentially in the power of the state. The thumbprint is mine; reverse image right here on my right hand and proving there is a man involved and interested in the document; rather than this elusive "person" subject Topic here.

One of the suitors probed around with search engines and found quite a list of people who have added their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, either by approbation and a few, in fact were actually able to sign the document after July 4, 1776.

Thanks again for providing the graphic links.

Once when I needed this document from my clerk, they told me it did not exist. I was talking about getting the Sheriff from across the street to investigate the document's disappearance. Well, they were shuffling around and I remembered to ward off the ticket witch with magic tokens. Funny, when I came back in there was the document on the counter, no charge. I think they thought I was going out for the sheriff deputy.


David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 30 Nov 2004 11:40:50
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

735 Posts

Posted - 30 Nov 2004 :  16:56:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings Loved Ones,
LOL. Yes, it's like old times at least for a moment while I have time off of my busy schedule (my own fault.. should not have pick up the paint brush!!). Today is my last day of vacation so I'll chew on the toy with you guys.

I see your point but I would have to say that the FRN is unlike anything we have seen thus far. Sure, credit vouchers existed in times past but not to the extent of the FRN. These items are backed by the very contracts and dealings which go against the idea of freedom. So to equate coins used back in the NT times to the FRN, I think, does not translate. Back in the time of the NT a gold coin was a gold coin if it weighed. A man knew what it was worth and it was not subject to arbitrary fondlings of the FED like the FRN. Even the funny money is not valued the same day to day and is completely gauged by the objectives of THE CORP. Surely the FED has a variety of stones of different weights it places on the 'scale' when they want to inflate or deflate the CURRENCY. What's more is the FRN has enabled us to 'sub' out our most vital elements of survival to CORPS. Food, clothing, shelter and much more. Daydream with me for a moment. Imagine what would happen if even a small portion of the population refused to trade with the FRN based on principle alone and instead operated solely on point to point bartering, etc. It would damage the whole farce, no? But the FRN is too convienient and INGLES has prefected food MARKETING....Also, the FRN could most certainly qualify as the 'mark of the beast', more so than the SS# at this point, IMO. I can respect that you might not agree and heaven knows we have chewed up much HTML on this very point. Again, I would stress that the inflatable/deflatable FRN is a new creature compared with the weighted coins used for thousands and thousands of years prior. The FRN is the sorcery of the merchants, indeed. Sorcery is a perfect description on how they work. Even the FED LAWYER said they operate a great deal on world-wide "faith" in their spendability..Rich or poor, slave or free might not be able to buy or sell without these USURY TICKETS. As always I like to add that I am guilty of using these FRN's.

Hope this post finds you all well.

Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

833 Posts

Posted - 30 Nov 2004 :  17:07:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It does indeed find us all well, my dear friend, and we hope the same is true of your and yours. Give our love to all.
Oh, by the way, I did "daydream with you for a moment" and, as you already know, agree wholeheartedly with your "daydream".
Peace, Robert:

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

1147 Posts

Posted - 01 Dec 2004 :  07:59:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was stumped until I realized you might have been equating Crosstalk with regular Replies. Thus the comments about wearing out the same old topics and threads.

I was importing the conversation over the weekend for anything new you might be able to glean. I agree that most of the subject matter has been beaten to death.

Here, there is a lot less experience using true name in practical fashion. With the suitors, they have all published a true judgment from the position and character of men and women. Meaning there is no Birth Certificate bonding on the true name and this is a method of release from the presumptions made by debt action in assumpsit - the debt currency system of the Federal Reserve, which is the central bank of the United States corporation.

One very fluent suitor brought forth an alternate method of accomplishing the same thing; a portal to common law supposedly in the UCC (1-207 in conjunction with 3-106). It involves coloring yourself to become united with colorable money and that of course brought up what I called a 'religious' question about division of kingdoms - our kingdom (the original [uncolored] estate) and their kingdom (a counterfeit kingdom where words of art prevail for "name", "money" and "real estate".)

So I played out a controversy between the 'spiritual' man and the 'religious' man (knowing full well they both take exception to being called religious). I am confident the conversations were beneficial to the suitors in general and pretty certain it was beneficial here too. Mainly because I have had the 'daydream' too. I have been participant in budding young jural societies only to see them crushed by METRO. Once we already had a verbal contract over the phone to publish meeting times in the local newspaper. The ads failed to appear. The member who placed them inquired and was stonewalled until he pushed and was informed point blank, off the record, it would not happen. I have been part of these barter services and coops too. Maybe I gave up because a restaurant dissed me; they sold to new owners who dishonored my credits and I had to leave them my license while I ran to the bank for cash.

Solari seems to be the closest thing now. And there are no Solari Circles. It is a very simple paradigm shift. When you are making that decision on how to 'vote with your money' try your best to keep it 'in the neighborhood'. It is through the lack of organization that jural societies grow strong - look at METRO! Since they moved out of Chicago and into Washington DC, it is nearly impossible to even prove METRO exists at all. Denver/METRO; Chicago/METRO; Singapore/METRO; Bombay/METRO... but where do you go to talk to METRO?

Being aware of METRO, I spotted it at work here in Colorado Springs. I was hopeful that Arnold Schwarzenegger was proposing to liquify the State of California's CAFR investments when he kept promising to balance their budget for that particular corporation. After all, Arnold is an actor, not a politician. He was my (fantasy) wild card - throw an actor in the mix. The State Governors' Conference (METRO unification) would possibly miss this until the run, the panic that would cause, cashing in on all that State bought stock [the annual budgets need not report the investments until they are liquified so the funds in stock are hidden in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report(s)]. But METRO got to him and put him through a crash course. I heard for $1000/day he was shuttled between the Broadmoor Hotel and this Leadership Headquarters building for classes.

So I am afraid Arnold was initiated into the Club and told that liquidation of CAFR assets was to be managed by higher-ups than State governors.

Then I proposed the energy based bill of exchange to Catherine Austin at Solari. Well, she has not gotten back to me but the conspiracy buffs there reacted rather poorly to my proposition that they would be a lot less paranoid about government if they would only recognize 'government' as another NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) that specializes in providing governmental services by social compact. Another business and extension of the Bank and Fund.

So the problem as I see it with the daydream is that anyone hoping to 'keep it in the neighborhood' with these cooperative barter systems, FRN-based or not, will do a lot better to keep the competetive and dominant jural society already in place in mind. Probably 50-60% of resources are drained off in obvious and hidden taxes before we get started.


David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Dec 2004 17:16:47
Go to Top of Page

Werner Maximilian
Senior Member

55 Posts

Posted - 01 Dec 2004 :  10:10:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Metros' branch, the Federal Reserve, acknowledges the "value" of an FRN has fallen 97% since 1913, 20% in the last year. If one "owes" a $10,000 tax bill for last year, shoudn't the IRS (METRO) be trying to collect $12,000 or even $970,000 for net agregate losses incurred over that time?
Man, that METRO is really being taken to the cleaners! They've got to do something before they go broke!

I'm sending in all my spare FRN'S.

Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

1147 Posts

Posted - 01 Dec 2004 :  11:16:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I am Save Metro; send all your spare FRNs to me please.

Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Dec 2004 11:20:33
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

1147 Posts

Posted - 01 Dec 2004 :  13:42:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Readers;

I think you may benefit from this judgment as well:


Apologies: I forgot to provide the fax number for the US Courthouse in Denver (303) 335-2714.


If anyone is going to Denver to get certified copies, I would like (10) (lots of people to apply EC [Certificate of Exigent Circumstances demanding arrest of persons liable] to). I will gladly pay for your trip and the copies.

Anyone game?

suitor in Portland, Oregon.

From: David Merrill
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 8:59 AM
To: suitor's true names sanitized.
Subject: the right of arrest

Dear Suitors;

It took a year or so but we have the judgment in place, properly filed and published on September 14, 2004. The clerk in Washington DC refused to file the case and it would seem stole the paperwork as well but I accepted that as part of the testimony - which is that John Snow has been regulating clerk performance so that our right to take responsibility for arrest has been abrogated.

Ronald Dean, who was drawn into obvious admiralty process was able to restore funds by Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) and in addition posted the bond to be the sunset of the Bretton Woods Agreements by April 4, 2006. We see evidence of debt forgiveness and I expect the national debt systems will be completely refurbished by that date. Which brings to mind the recent Washington Post article that Bush is replacing his financial staff, including of course John Snow.

I was expecting that John Snow would be replaced upon completion of the cognizance process of the judgment. [US district court seal 11/19/04.] Sure enough.

But now I think we have a safeguard against all this 'puppeteering'. That they will just begin again on the same old banking policies with a new puppet on the strings, a new Secretary of the Treasury. Last report was that John Snow was planning to stay and rewrite the tax codes over the next year. Keep listening to reliable reports and we may be able to see where this is going in relationship to sunset of the Bretton Woods Agreements. Meanwhile as I understand the Article III case jackets, that judgment properly filed in 04-X-06 is ripe for subsequent judicial actions like Writ of Execution, Mandamus and Habeas Corpus.

So think about it and how this might be of advantage. I think you might want to start by getting certified copies (303) 844-3433. If Steve Ehrlich gives you a headache about providing a certified copy fax him a printout of this proof he has it. Then imply you might sue him personally for breach of contract; not providing documentation per his job description (malfeasance of office).

[Should you need it, if the clerk is not giving you certified copies and you wish to sue for malfeasance of office or even just coerce him to comply, equip yourself with a certified copy of proof this judgment has been properly filed in the district court in Denver. (719) 520-6200; #204197155 filed 12/2/04.]

Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Dec 2004 18:54:28
Go to Top of Page

Senior Member

65 Posts

Posted - 07 Dec 2004 :  19:50:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

Hello I am source and am a student of solutions rather than complaints ....I hope this is not a repetitive offer but is received as it is offered, in love.... the newest members to this forum may benefit from this info..Speculations and judgemental posts aside the fact is we do have choices as to what we can do and our responsiblity to be aware of God's law as primary in our duty!

The definitive Person....Are you a person ? Deuteronomy 10:17 Acts 10:34 Romans 2:11 James 2: 9 seems to inform us God is no respector of persons and if we are or allow it we are sinners and will be judged by mans corrupt law!!!

You do not have to consent to the description but if you show up you have volunteered yourself into mammons game!!

Private notice is the only way out as Yeshua told us in Matthew 18:15-20...

All of the words below are of someone called the informer I did not edit them as they are not mine and neither do I know how old they are.

This article is being presented, by The Informer, to all people who call themselves "persons" when in a legal setting. The word "person" is not, in legal terms or political terms, what one wants to be. Also, as you will see the term "people" in political terminology is very bad for one who loves freedom. Such as in the phrase "We the People." This will quell and settle, once and for all, all the arguments that are flying around about the term citizen and person, that never is settled. This will also upset people that use the term Pro Se or Propria Persona. I have rung the bell many times since 1990 and still people persist, to their own detriment, to use these terms and tacitly admit they are a "person." This will undoubtedly set some guru’s back a piece that preach citizenship of a state is what you want to be. It will also set back some guru’s who preach 14thamendment, and that blacks were not persons until the 14th Amendment was conceived. The History here will show why their arguments are flawed. Of course this will inflame those guru’s to know end. But this is not directed to them but to all you "MEN" and "WOMAN" out there that don’t know what to call your selves when addressing any government in a political and legal position. I just gave you the terms to use as you are a physical man or woman reading this, are you not? The artificial you, with a name spelled in all Capital letters or in reverse, cannot read but has to have a representative. That representative is you, the real live natural MAN or WOMAN and not a "PERSON," is that not correct? Don’t know how to answer this, do you? Well don’t be dismayed for you will after reading this. The truth is here for all to see. I suspect that Men and Women are so brainwashed by the spin doctors, and guru’s that have never studied this, will have a hard time believing this. This comes from a Law book used to teach in Law Schools across the Country. But you will not find it being taught in this modern era, because to do so would put a very bad crimp in government's control over the masses of people calling themselves "persons."
Do not think that after reading this you can go into any court and they will say, my gosh you are right we have no control over you. Just the opposite will be true and they can ask at least three questions that will stop you cold in your tracks and they will walk all over you like flies on a cow patty, because you will stammer and not be able to answer them. At that point they will know that you don't know the correct argument and you lose and BAD CASE LAW will be set. The next MAN that come in with a correct understanding will lose right off the bat because of the bad case law that you have set. I have seen this hundreds of times in the patriot community when someone with a little knowledge is very dangerous to other freedom loving MEN when jumping into water they think is two feet deep only to find it 1000 feet deep and no way to get out.
The material below comes from a 13 volume set of Law books.
This is from Vol. XIII AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE. JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. (Albany Law School), LL.D. (Ruskin University) from La Salle University. I have bolded the footnotes as they may be mixed within some paragraphs, to separate them from the main text so it is not confusing. Starting at the end of section 63;
"Jeremy Bentham, in his remarks in reference to the inexact use of language by Blackstone in pages 47 and 49
of the Commentaries, says: "When leading terms are made to chop and change their several significations,
sometimes meaning one thing, sometimes another, at the upshot perhaps nothing, and this in the compass of a paragraph, one may judge what will be the complexion of the whole context" (31).
64. The legal conception of leading words. Inasmuch as the word person, man, thing, property, rights, wrongs and actions are leading terms constituting the designation of departments of the corpus juris, it will be impossible to obtain clear conceptions of subjects connected with these words until an understanding is agreed upon as to the sense in which these terms are used. If we arrive at the meaning of these words intended by Blackstone and make the same clear, we will have a better idea of his method and perhaps a better opinion of it, and at the same time will be able to show the distinction between the same words in the Roman, the English and in American law.
Blackstone apparently uses the Roman word persona as synonymous with the English word "person," and the latter word interchangeably with "individual" and "man," whereas he might have avoided all confusion by a closer adherence to that which he professed to follow.
65. The word "person" defined. Gaius says "De Juris divisione" [the divisions of the law] immediately preceding his division of the law; then follows, "De conditione hominm" [meaning the condition or status of men]. In the Institutes "De jura personarum" precedes the expression "all our law relates either to persons, or to things, or to actions,... The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar reference to artificial beings and the condition or status of individuals.(33)
33. Professor John Austin’s view.—"Many of the modern civilians have narrowed the Import of the term ‘person’ as meaning a physical or natural person. They define a person thus: ‘homo, cure statu sue censlderatus;, a human being, invested with the condition of status., And, In this definition, they use the term status in a restricted sense, as including only those conditions which comprise rights and as excluding conditions which are purely onerous and burthensome, or which consist of duties merely. According to this definition, human beings who have no rights are not persons, but things, being classed with other things which have no rights residing in themselves, but are merely the subjects of rights residing in others. Such, in the Roman law, down to the age of the Antonlnes, was the position of the slave." Austin’s Jur., vol 1, 358.
The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word ‘Person,’ in its primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part he was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in society, abstractly, without considering the individual".
1 Bouvier’s Institutes, note 1.
Austin’s Jur., 362.
See 4 Harv. Law Rev., 101,
Austin’s Jur., 363.
The word "homo" corresponds to the English word "man," and, as the Romans expressed it, "unus homo sustinet plures personas;" i.e., one man has many persons, or sustains many status, or many different conditions (34) AUSTINS JUR., 362)
Austin says: "The term ‘person’ has two meanings, which must be carefully distinguished. It denotes a man or human being; or it signifies some condition borne by a man (35 See Harvard Law Revues 101). A person (as meaning a man) is one or individual, but a single or individual person (meaning a man) may sustain a number of persons (meaning condition or status)" (36 Austins Jur., 363).
Notice that this meaning is not so broad as that given by Ortolan. It does not include artificial persons. Again, he says: "As throwing light on the celebrated distinction between jus rerum and jus personarum, phrases which have been translated so absurdly by Blackstone and others,--rights of persons and rights of things, jus personarum did not mean law of persons, or rights of persons, but law of status, or condition. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested. It is a remarkable confirmation of this that Gauis, in the margin purporting to give the title or heading of this part of the law, has entitled it thus: De conditione hominum; and Theophilus, in translating the Institutes of Justinian from Latin into Greek, has translated jus personarum . . . diviso personarum; understanding evidently by persona . . . not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons. This distinctly shows the meaning of the phrase jus per sonarurn, which has been involved in impenetrable obscurity by Blackstone and Hale. The law of persons is the law of status or condition; the law of things is the law of rights and obligations considered in a general manner, or as distinguished from these peculiar collections of rights and obligations which are styled conditions and considered apart.
A moment’s reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is personality, which we see and by which we are affected.
The law does not distinguish between men except by their personality, as king or magistrate, or as parent or husband or wife, etc. While the idea may be difficult for the tyro to grasp, the personality, i.e., this condition or status of a many is entirely the creation of the law. By nature all men are created free and equal, i.e., of equal rank, equal rights; but the law does not look upon all men as equal, though in the law of the United States all men have equal civil rights (39).
The question is asked, Who is that man? The reply would be, that is the king or lord so and so, or the chief justice or the president or governor. But what is the name of this personage? The name indicates the man, the title, rank or legal standing of the person.
The word "persons" denoted certain conditions of rank or status with which a man was clothed by law. To adopt the language of the same author, "the term ‘person,’ as denoting a condition or status, is therefore equivalent to character (40). It signified, originally, a mask worn by a player, and distinguished the character which he represented from the other characters in the play. From the mask which expressed the character, it was extended to the character itself. From characters represented by players, or from dramatic characters, it Was further extended by a metaphor to conditions or as status. For men, as subjects of law, are distinguished conditions, just as players, perform by their respective conditions, just as players, performing a play are distinguished by the several persons which they respectively enact or sustain" (41). As we shall see, the word had a still broader meaning.
"A slave," says Holland, "having, as such, neither rights or liabilities, had in Roman law, strictly speaking, no ‘status,’ ‘caput,’ or ‘persona.’ On the day of his manumission, says Modesfinus, ‘incipit stature habere.’ Before manumission, as we read in the Institutes, ‘nullurn caput habuit’" (42).
The following is the explanation given by Mr. Sandars in Ms translation of the Institutes: "The word persona had, in the usage of the Roman law, a different meaning from that which we ordinarily attach to the word ‘person.’ Whoever or whatever was capable of having, and being subject to, rights, was a persona. All men possessing a reasonable will would naturally be personae; but not all those who were, physically speaking, men, were personae. Slaves, for instance, were not in a position to exercise their reason and will, and the law, therefore refused to treat them as personae."
"On the other hand, many personae had no physical existence. The law clothed certain abstract conceptions with an existence, and attached to them the capability of having and being subject to rights. The law, for instance, spoke of the state as a persona· It was treated as being capable of having the rights and of being
39 See Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 368.
40 Hale nowhere speaks of status, but uses the term "character" or "capacity." See note 60. below.
subject to them. These rights really belonged to the men who composed the state, and they flowed from the constitution and position of associated individuals. But, in the theory and language of law, the rights of the whole community were referred to the state, to an abstract conception interposed between these rights and the individual members of society. So, a corporation, or an ecclesiastical institution, was a persona, quite apart from the individual personae who formed the one and administered the other. Even the riscus, or the imperial treasury, as being the symbol of the abstract conception of the emperor's claims, was spoken of as a persona. The technical term for the position of an individual regarded as a legal person was status" (44).
Ortolan’s explanation of personality.(45) The substance of the above was undoubtedly taken from Ortolan’s treatment of the subject as given in his History of the Roman Law, which is submitted because it is clear and concise:
"The word ‘person’ (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man. This word in law has two acceptations: In the first, it is every being considered as capable of having or owing rights, of being the active or passive subjects of rights.
"We say every being, for men are not alone comprised therein. In fact, law by its power of abstraction creates persons, as we shall see that it creates things, which do not exist in nature.
Thus, it erects into persons the state, cities, communities, charitable or other institutions, even purely material objects, such as the fiscus, or inheritance in abeyance, because it makes of them beings capable of having or owing rights. In the inverse sense, every man in Roman law is not a person. For example, slaves were considered as the property of the master, especially under the rigorous system of primitive legislation, because they are the object and not the subject of law. This, however, did not prevent the Romans from including them in another sense in the class of persons.
"We shall therefore have to discriminate between and to study two classes of person: physical or natural persons, for which we find no distinctive denomination in Roman jurisprudence except the expressions taken from Ulpian, singularis persona; that is to say, (46) the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.
"In another sense, very frequently employed, the word ‘person’ designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage; that is to say, each quality which gives him certain rights or certain obligations-for instance, the person of 43 Slaves were not persons in the United States until after the abolition of slavery
1 Hammond’s B]k. 334, note.
44 Sandars’ Justinian, Introduction, P. 26.
45 Ortolan’s History of the Roman Law is among the best. It is, unfortunately, not easily obtained.
father; of son as subject to his father; of husband or guardian. In this sense the same man can have several personae at the same time. The last two paragraphs embrace all that Austin gives us in the quotation given above.
From what we have seen, the following conclusion may be drawn: The words persona and status were not synonymous, though very nearly so. The word "person" had two meanings:
First. Every being, artificial or natural, capable of having or owing rights.
Second. The characters, capacities, qualities or positions which the law ascribed to certain men as individuals—that is, rank, condition, capacity-status.
The technical term for the second meaning, namely, the position, quality, character which a man bears, is status.
Status is not so broad as person, but always related to physical men.
A slave had no rights, no rank, no standing, no capacity, and consequently no status. This applies, of course, only to the earlier days of Roman law, for subsequently slaves were given a standing as men.
" In the earlier days of Roman law," says Sandara "no one would have conceived this to be unnatural" (48).
In the days of Gaius, it seems, slaves are treated as persons, for he says: "Persons are freemen or slaves" (49).
In England all men were persons, and were divided into certain classes or ranks by virtue of which they had especial characters, capacities, rights, privileges and immunities; for instance, the right of magistracy’ as king, as lord, etc. These were artificial. In human societies men have certain standing, position, capacity, according as they are sovereign or subjects, parents and children, husband and wife, or citizens.
We have seen something of the etymology of the word, also its meaning and application as used in the :Roman law. We know that the word "person" is a familiar one in English literature, both in England and America. We are endeavoring to ascertain whether in the English language we have a right to oppose persons to things for the Purpose of classification of rules of law, and if thereby we convey intelligent ideas.
We know that all laws emanate from persons and also that they operate against or upon persons(50); that is, all law certainly from laws, and that the principle of classification adopted is the difference in the objects to which the rules relate.
There can be found in the Commentaries of Blackstone no definition of the word person, nor any explanation of the meaning
46 Does not this equal "individuals?" See 10 Harvard Law Rev., 101.
47 Ortholan’s History of Roman Law, 567-68.
48 Sandals’ Justinian, Int., 27; Austin’s Jur., lect. 12, P.358 49 Galus, 1-9; Austin’s Jur., 358.
addresses persons. So of rights. We know that rights belong to persons, and that in that sense there cannot be the rights of things. It should be borne in mind that we are endeavoring to classify the body of laws, and not the rights which are resultant intended to be ascribed to the word "person,"and the word is there used indiscriminately in the popular and legal sense, interchangeably with "man" and "individual," and also to designate artificial beings capable of having rights; and there is not the slightest hint that in using the Roman expressions there is any change intended from the Roman idea of the word "person," though he does treat under the rights of persons what he styles absolute rights, which would be called "things" in Roman law.
§ 66. Scope of the word "thing." Of things (51), which is the subject of the second book, Blackstone says: "The objects of your inquiry in this second book will be the jura rerum, or those rights which a man may acquire in and to such external things as are unconnected with his person." Why not say unconnected with him, himself? These are what the writers in natural law style the "rights of dominion or property." This is the only definition given of the words "property" ‘or "thing;" that is, the jura rernm equals those rights which a man may acquire in and to external thlngs. Otherwise put, the rights of things are rights which a man may acquire in and to things unconnected with his person; and these are what writers in natural law style property; yet in the treatment of this subject the learned commentator treats the subject of contracts, the main feature of which is its obligation, or, in other words, the power which the law affords one person of enforcing it by . . . ..
WE now go further into the book and this is what it has to say about you people who want so much to be a part of the body politic and want the Constitution as your God and then claim that you are free from the tether of government. IT AIN"T GONNA HAPPEN AND YOU HAVE BEEN SUCKERED IN HOOK, LINE AND SINKER WHEN CLAIMING SO AND ARE COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY THEM.
50. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 332; 92’ ld. 554; United States v. Harris, 106 id. 629; Civil Rights Cases, 109 id. 3. A state may in a sense fall under the designation, and laws be directed against states; but as the state acts by individuals, in the same manner it is operated upon through individuals.
51. Observe the word "chose," which will be explained hereafter. Its meaning has an important bearing on the modified meaning of both "person" and "things." Vol. XII 12
§ 104. The people: Identity. In the United States the people are brought on the stage as an acting political entity, acting, it is true, always through representatives. As expressed by Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence: "In free states the people form an artificial person or body politic, the highest and noblest that can be known" (1 Wilson’s Works).
By "the people" of a state is meant all of the (members) which compose that state and are integral parts of it, together making a body politic (2 Penhollowv Doane, 3 Dall. 55, 93).
The people as a corporate unit form an artificial person or body politic; thus constituted they form a moral person". "It is this person we call a state. (4 1 Wilson’s Works 321-325: 2 Wilson’s Works 321)" "There is no distinction between the people and the state" (5 Penhollow v Doane, 3 Dall 93).
It must not be forgotten that, in using the expression "the people," there is a distinction between the population of the nation, as individuals, and the same population organized under a constitution. By "the people," in this connection, we intend a body politic, a corporate unity. Because of the quality of singleness we may properly use the pronoun "it," though, this is not usual. It is hard for the citizen to lose sight of the individuals in the body; but correctly viewed, as drops of water lose their forms as drops when they mingle with the whole and become not drops, but one body, even so the citizen in his political capacity loses the civil capacity of an individual when viewed as a part of that great unit "the people."
It is the whole mass, and not a majority of the individuals composing it, which constitutes the people, and the people are to be regarded, not as an unorganized mob, but as a corporate unity composing a society (6). There are dicta to the effect that the people, when spoken of in the political sense, means only those persons having the right to vote, that is, the electors; and it is at the same time said that in the electors is vested the sovereignty (7). Thus stated, the idea does not, as we shall see, properly obtain, and is contrary to the principles of American institutions (8). Voters are but parts of the machinery of government (9). In the constitution "the people, is sometimes used to indicate persons or individuals. So in all provisions in reference to unreasonable seizures and searches. In such provision it is identical with the use in Blackstone.
6. Jameson, Const. Con. (4th ed.), pp. q8, 19, notes: Von Holst’s Con.
Law, 48, 49; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 92.
"A distinction was taken at the bar between a state and the people of the state. It is a distinction I am not capable of comprehending. By a state forming a republic (speaking of it as a moral person), I do not mean the legislature of the state, the executive of the state, or the judiciary, but all the citizens who compose the state, and are, if I may so express myself, integral parts of it; all together forming a body politic. The great distinction between monarchies and republics (at least our republic) in general is, that in the former the monarch is considered as the sovereign, and each individual of his nation as a subject to him, though in some countries with many important special limitations. This, I say, is generally the ease, for it has not been so universally. But in a republic, all the citizens as such, are equal, and no citizen can rightfully exercise any authority over another but in virtue of a power constitutionally given by the whole community, and such authority, when exercised, is In effect an act of the whole community, which forms such body politic. In such governments, therefore, the sovereignty resides in the great body of the people, but it resides in them not as so many distinct individuals, but in their political capacity only. Thus A., B., C., and D. are citizens of Pennsylvania, and as such, together with all the citizens of Pennsylvania, share in the sovereignty of the state. Suppose a state to consist exactly of the number of 100,000 citizens, and it were practicable for them all to assemble at one time and in one place, and that 99,999 did actually assemble. The state would not be in fact assembled. Why? Because the state in fact is composed of all the citizens, not of a part only, however large the part may be, and one is wanting." Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 93.
7. Cooley’s Const. Lira. 40, citing Blair v. Rldgely, 41 Mo. 63; 97 Am:Dec. 248
.8. Wilson’s Works, App’x A, IX 566; McOrary on Elections (4th ed.), sec 13.
9. State v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 498.

§105. Capacity. Power. Sovereignty. We may now examine the powers of the people, and in the course of this examination but little time need be spent upon theory or metaphysical discussion of what ought to be the law governing the matter, but will, as far as possible, be conferred to the practical, visible facts.
The discussion of the capacities of that person we term "the people" necessarily involves the discussion of What is termed sovereignty. Let no one suppose that this question is an impracticable one and that it has no further.
"To fully appreciate the idea of sovereignty and the federal court has appellate jurisdiction of a suit by a state against an individual (13). The palpable injustice of the rule has led to several ingenious devices to avoid its application (14), such for example as the assignment of the cause of action to a person competent to sue, (e.g. a state), which, however, must be a real assignment (15).
The sufficient reason for the rule is found in the expression, "it is the written law"; the motive for it throws no light on its application (16).
§ 133. An individual contracts with a state at his peril.
It is now well settled that there is no judicial remedy in favor of an individual against a state to compel the performance of a contract (17), though it is settled that a state can pass no law impairing the obligation of a contract once made (18). The only security for state loans rests on the plighted faith of the state as a political community; that is, upon the same basis as contracts with independent governments (19). States are not, like nations, independent of each other, and are not permitted to allow the use of state names for the purpose of enforcing claims really owned by individuals.
As to torts and injuries: It is no answer to a tort or an active infringement of a right or a threatened injury that the action was taken or is proceeding under supposed official duty or by virtue of official power: such cases are not damnum absque injuria.

There you have it people. I did not highlight anything in the main text that was not already there or italicized. This is devastating against the Government of State and Federal. Do you want to find out how corrupt "your" government is? Well after this hits the net the Government will pull from the shelves of all the libraries and law schools where some of these volumes might be, just as Hitler did to the German people so they would not learn the truth. What makes you think this country’s slime balls, called government officials and the lawyers that run this country,--count the number of executive and legislative persons there are that are lawyers,-- are any different? They are not. In those countries it was brutality, here it is legality with words, but the results are the same, -- complete control of the Men and Women. But of late it has become apparent that brutality is showing its ugly head starting with IRS, ATF and DEA abuse of the people under the directives of upper level "persons" that legally can’t throw enough men and women in jail fast enough.
I’ll tell you that the law professors know this and they taught it. They can’t teach it now , by government dictate. Lawyers are only taught what the establishment wants taught. The legal profession has so much moral turpitude oozing from their pores that compared to a chicken house that hasn't been cleaned in a month, on a 100 degree day, make it smell like a bed of roses.
As Shakespeare said very eloquently, "The first thing we do is hang all the lawyers." Yes, and Virginia Colony was correct back in the 1700’s that the practice of lawyering was an offense punishable by death. They sure dropped the ball on that one.
So the problem at hand is that every statute is written with the term "person" in mind. Why, you ask? Well as I quoted in my book "The New History of America," the case of Cruden v Neale, where the court states a principle of natural law so clear that it cannot be twisted by any lawyer, that man is only bound by the laws of nature. Here is what the court stated;
" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.
By this very principle espoused by the court you cannot be made to "retire elsewhere" because, if anything, you retire from the corporate STATE and live upon the land of the Lord in the geographical place called North Carolina rather than the State of North Carolina. Go back and look at the Hamilton case where they said that you "* * * shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State." Let them keep their corporate State; depart out of it. Isn't that what the Bible tells you "Come out of her?" What do you need it for? To continually be robbed by legal plunder? Not that they are going to stop if you do, because maybe, just maybe, the masses will wake up and want out also, thereby destroying the State’s power over you.
You see, the whole game is to control you by making you, the man, into a artificial entity called a "person." In ordinary street language you can use the term person. But the minute you step into ANY legal arena you CANNOT use the term "person." For to do so the other artificial person, the State, can come after another artificial character. As the court stated above "man" is not bound by other men’s laws unless he consents. You consent when you answer to any statute containing any reference to person. The clever trick is that the statute 26 USC 7701(a) of the IRC is the definition part and it says "person" means; an individual, partnership, corporation, association. Notice that all terms defining the word "person are corporate fictions. BUT, you say, individual is not a corporate fiction because am I not an individual? Yes you are in average common street terms, but in the legal arena "individual is corporate or artificial by legal definition, because "individual," in and of itself is defining an artificial thing as a "person." So how can it be a natural man? It goes against all reason and logic. The IRC Code Statute only pertains to man, who as stated above by the Professor, takes on the artificial character and becomes a "person" by legal definition. Therefore he is subject to all the legal disabilities that come with the term person and that means being subject to all the laws of the parent corporation. The parent corporation is the United States, the State is the artificial child and you are the artificial grand child. That is the best way to describe it so you can start to equate terms and meanings.
In Anderson’s Business law on the Uniform Commercial Code, I think around the sixth edition, it states that when a statute refers to artificial beings, natural people are not to be included. So, 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) uses all artificial characters to describe the artificial "person" and individual. By all reason and logic it has to be an artificial term. Just like a third grade reader shows 5 pictures and asks which one does not belong. The pictures are, a baseball, a bat, a base, a glove and a football uniform. You circle the football uniform as not fitting the idea, but the football clothes is a uniform, the same as baseball clothes is a uniform. Only one uniform fits the scheme while the other is left out, but both are uniforms. The same as individual. It is a "leading word" as the professor stated and has to be further defined the same as individual or person has to be defined. Did not the professor state the term individual and person are one in the same? Did he not also state that it is well settled in law that "person" is always an artificial person? Refresh your memory by finding that part of his statement.
The Informer

Edited by - source on 29 Dec 2004 13:51:06
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

1147 Posts

Posted - 08 Dec 2004 :  00:27:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Edward Jay Robin;

You might be under the impression from other Internet conversations that you cannot edit once submitted. You can edit the above Post here. The icon with the notepad and pencil; then you may bold and place in quotes etc.

I am having a little difficulty understanding where you are speaking and where the Informer is speaking and when quotes end etc. Also, you speak of bold lettering that seems to have been lost during submission.

Could you please spend a few minutes editing the above Post? It looks very informative.


David Merrill.

P.S. And please tell us how old that clip from Informer is.

Edited by - David Merrill on 08 Dec 2004 02:45:21
Go to Top of Page

Regular Member

29 Posts

Posted - 08 Dec 2004 :  06:13:09  Show Profile  Click to see halbertson's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
Greetings David and all ... may YHWH Bless you and your search for TRUTH!

The Informer is a prolific writer. His online writings are published at AgainstTheGrainPress -


Never let a Minimum-Wage Person upset your day!!
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

833 Posts

Posted - 08 Dec 2004 :  08:16:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, source:
Peace be unto the house.
Though, as David points out, that piece is a bit disconnected, much of the information needed to understand "person" is there, and we thank your for your input and welcome you.
Upon looking at your profile we see that your favourite quote is "Think", so as a wecoming gift we give you this (presuming, of course, that you do not already have it.)
The Captain
Captain, What do You think, I asked,
of the part your soldiers play?
The captain answered,
I do not think, I do not think, I obey!
Do you think you should shoot a brother down
& help a tyrant slay?
The captain answered,
I do not think, I do not think, I obey!
Do you think your conscience was meant to die
& your brains to rot away?
The captain answered,
I do not think, I do not think, I obey!
Then if this is your soldiers code,
I cried, your a mean unmanly crew,
and for all of your equipment, guns, and braid,
I'm more of a man than you.
For what ever my lot on earth may be
and whether I swim or sink,
I can say with pride,
I do not obey-I do not obey-I think!

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 08 Dec 2004 08:31:45
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

1147 Posts

Posted - 08 Dec 2004 :  09:33:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Informer's gist is that one will understand the formula for using the word "person" by gleaning a thorough undestanding of its flexible definition. That is what I make of it; the beginning holds a promise of a method that will prevent bad case law but the conclusion does not concisely describe the method. So I surmise the following:

"Person" is a facade. A mask or title. This can also be found from Strong's if you look closely at the lexicon(s).

So back to the functionality of true name v. legal identity. Any falsification creates artifice. That is the open door for deception, especially if the man or woman is under the delusion the incorrect name is the correct one. Deuteronomy 20:23 and 15:1-3 describe a 'stranger' and 'foreigner' to the forgiveness policies Nakar and Nokriy. One blurb to describe the noun in English "feign self to be another".

So I think a good conclusion for the Informer would be that identity is the key to developing a working methodology. To be functional at not becoming a 'person' in the eyes of those who construe your presence as an appearance, one has to stay on point about misnomer. Arguing about semantics only cures defects in jurisdiction.


David Merrill.

P.S. The reason I inquire about the dating on the Informer is that it smacks of the same 'prophetic' doctrine I found in a three-part article Metro 1313; Head of the Beast? In 1995 the "Fax Tree" was still in vogue; since replaced by the Internet. The authors were foretelling how this knowledge was going to change things. But the change in social paradigm is much more sluggish than these optimists forecast.

So I propose that what I often deem 'paranoia' about this all being conducted by a bunch of rich people, is a dysfunctional perspective. There are better perspectives that properly analyze banking policy and bring it into a functional and interactive perspective.

Edited by - David Merrill on 08 Dec 2004 09:40:06
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

833 Posts

Posted - 08 Dec 2004 :  12:16:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
But we think you will agree David, that if we do a search of the Scripture regarding "rich men" we will find that they do not enjoy a good rapport with either Yahowah, the Supreme Suveran or Yahowshua, His Anointed King and Principal Officer.
The name [authority/jurisdiction] of Yahowah is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.
The rich man's wealth is his strong city, and as an high wall in his own conceit.

"Strong city" is oz qiryah, which is oz city or city of oz [strength sybolized by wealth ("yellow brick road" = gold)], and qiryah or more complete, iysh qiryah is the surname of Judah the treachor, called Judas Iscariot, who put his trust in "thirty pieces of silver". (Some things never change: And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites...)
And the rich [man's] "high wall" in Hebrew is [his] "inaccessable wall of protection" is his own "figure (carved on stone, the wall, or any object)", i.e. the machinations of his imagination, his image in the nation. In the image(s) of his mind he is above the Law, untouchable as it were, simply because of his wealth. He might picture [imagine] himself a Bald Eagle for example [B. Franklin's idea of a Turkey was there's a POWER SYMBOL (IMAGE). LOL], or perhaps a Bear, or a Deadly Poison Snake, etc.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them...
...because they "represent" other 'elohiym, known deceivingly in the English as "gods".

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 08 Dec 2004 14:23:28
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

1147 Posts

Posted - 08 Dec 2004 :  12:52:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My point is functionality v. dysfunctional.

Judas the Man of the City eeysh keriot. Municipal banking policy. I saw the other day a treatise, I only caught a snippet, that "internal" means "municipal" in legaleze. So that is the mechanism; global unification of municipal METRO policies and that begins to sound a lot like the City of Babylon depicted as a harlot in Revelation 17. So I agree.

The bill of exchange I cured September 11, 2001 was independently appraised beforehand to be $3.6q in wealth value.

Bill of Exchange Image 1
Bill of Exchange Image 2

Then somebody pointed out if there were 6 billion people and 9/10 of them were involved in the Birth Certificate tontine, $3.6q/5.4 billion is $666,666.67 per person. I was not surprised.

Verified Statement of Right Page 4
Verified Statement of Right Page 5

The point I am making in one way or another all the time is that viewing this mechanism through the Book of Enoch, that a third of the angels fell from heaven, the misinterpretation of Genesis 6 to mean angelic beings could have copulated with human women, and so forth creates a Satanic conspiracy. I often speak of it as paranoia and it really puts people off who were taught differently.

The doctrine creates obstacles that only God can cure by direct intervention. So many await the kingdom of heaven until the Second Advent of Jesus Christ in a supernatural debacle. Until that happens, and I doubt it will, people await in a state dysfunctional.


David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 08 Dec 2004 12:54:47
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 11 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © 2003-2020 Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.26 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000