quote:

---

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.


Regards,

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.]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+28USC1333

When I first began writing on the ecclesia.org 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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielCalendar.jpg


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.]


Regards,

David Merrill.


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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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).

---

quote:

---

"David,

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."

---

quote:

---

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.

Regards

---

quote:

---

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

---