| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Dec 2003 : 20:02:21
|
So Lewis, maybe I have been projecting the box. It is just the things you say seem so predictable. The UCC can only function within certain parameters and if you are trying something new it must be understood as functional. For instance to the attorney in the black robe.
Maybe you should inquire and find out if this “judge” is inactive or active? If he is active the court is recused because the clerk lied to you. I hope you asked at judge assignment, “Is this an Article III judge?”
But I really am stereotyping you because I have been cleaning up after people like you. So I will tone that down. I do not see any purpose in convincing any further. I should have avoided pushing the paranoia bit. It just set you two to trying to convince me there is a huge conspiracy.
I wonder though. Did either of you call for the documents?
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2003 : 20:30:14
|
Reading back, Rich. About the Patriot Act. That is a myth. Pull it and look at “Jurisdiction” and you will see that if it applies to you, you are secretively manipulating financial instruments. In which case Ashcroft can have at you. But you are an honest man so don’t get carried away with the bandwagon.
Regarding the Catholics owning Washington DC. A local cult seemed bent on convincing me about this doctrine. I am not sure what was with them so I got some reference librarians to research it out with the Library of Congress and the State of Maryland Archives. There is no substance at all. Since then I bought “Our Country” a huge 1877 two-volume history book. I have read through the period for that part of the country and the Lord’s Baltimore and George Calvert are all players. Being 1877 copyright there really is a lot of details that are since weeded out by time. But all I could do was convince these good folks to stop inviting me to their meetings.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2003 : 21:40:00
|
Hello David,
Well, you have finally shown your true colors. You describe it as paranoid. I describe it as delusion of grandeur. You wrote:
>But I really am stereotyping you because I have been cleaning up after people like you.
>
Sorry buddy, but you have not been cleaning up behind me. I have left no messes to be cleaned up. Get a clue here!
Also you wrote:
>I wonder though. Did either of you call for the documents?
>
Tell me David, why should I call for them? I have had a copy of the Credit River Decision for over a year. I have had a copy of the 13th amendment ever since David Dodge made copies available.
But, I am sure that is not the answer you were looking for or expecting. That is just a small example of how you don't have a clue of who I am or what I am about.
So, have a good life pedaling your propaganda of this magic bullet will solve all your problems. Good luck on ever getting it admitted into a court hearing.
In the meantime, I have other things to do, and new ideas to try.
See ya,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2003 : 23:46:56
|
Greetings brethern,
seems to anyone who can read that those Patriot acts are intended for U.S. citizens, i.e. the ALL CAP creations. Yahushua {aka Jesus} was, and is, the ultimate wordsmith. Those who print and publish Blacks law Dictionary, also write the proper wording for all CONGRESSIONAL laws. English-american, is the pure language the Most High will speak with, in the last days of the old age, and into the beginnings of His new Day.
I am on record stating that the U.C.C. REDEMPTIONS process is akin to a partial birth abortion. Then again, some of us speak in tongues, and the likes of a Lee Bost can interrupt, if, he sees fit. It should be utterly repungant for a Blood bought...hmmm, child, to even think for a moment that tricks of the U.C.C. can redeem anyOne. We, are redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb {go ask Abel} and...the word of our testimony, and We love not our lives {old man} even unto the death. Why not suffer a civil death? And be born again into Kingdom life? Come on, do it, NIKE, which means overcomer, in greek. Testimony...the word, invokes, stones, i.e. balls. Seems to me, reading these threads, we got a whole lotta Brides out there. Well girls, the Son is Coming. In fact, He is here, for those with eyes to see, and ears to hear.
Father, give Us this Day, Our Daily Bread. Don't forget to giggle, between the tears! For IT is Finished. AnyOne with Faith, that YaHuWeH reighs? |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2003 : 00:36:53
|
Dear Lewis;
You should call for them (the two documents) because they are authenticated. The one's that you have will not stand in judicio.
People have gone through the trouble to get these documents authenticated. You keep saying they will not hold up in court and that is where we agree. I keep saying serve the papers; do not file them into the case.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 26 Dec 2003 00:42:10 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2003 : 01:40:56
|
Dear Lewis;
I would accept your invitation to go into private and for the reason you express; that we might scare all the others with what we know. But I think now I have had a closer examination of the spirit behind your process, these people should be scared.
For a couple weeks folks were threatening to mob me. I severely restrict contact because I like to treat people my best. But it must have been four or five folks in a row who had the same story…. “I did that Droit/Droit process where you accept for value and….”
See, Lewis, this is not a career choice for me. But when somebody is desperate and at wit’s end because every knock on the door could be the sheriff, it is hard to say, “I cannot help you.” when I can. Of course it is grandeur; but not delusion. Helping people keep their homes after your attempted partial-birth abortion. It is a grand feeling indeed.
So here I am offering some authenticated documentation that substantiates true common law. Thank you for your wise words. It is plain English that holds authority and power. So come on back and be civil. Now we got this out into the light we may be able to talk some sense.
Don’t be at all surprised in January. These attorneys general are wrestling with the silver bullet and this moves boundaries. They press envelopes and push buttons so that you will not know what risks they are willing to take. I teach them a lot. So you may walk in to see a pile of your papers on the table and the attorney says, “Your honor, you know I don’t have to read any of that garbage.”
Regards.
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2003 : 01:49:01
|
David, your arrogance is quite amazing. You assume you know everything about me and my business and that I couldn't have anything as important or valid as what you recommend everyone to call and get.
Once again you assume I am doing what everyone else is. I have preached against Droit/Droit since I first examined it. I have seen family after family loose their homes because they would not listen to me. Droit/Droit is fraud and will not hold up in court. If you think that is where I am at, well, go stuff your delusions of grandeur in a place where the sun doesn't shine.
For everyone else's benefit, here is a little more info on the Credit River case.
I sent an e-mail to my best researcher and asked him to comment on the Credit River Decision. Here is his reply.....
>Jerome Daly was a friend of this one and we worked together on several cases before he died.
>
>a good lawyer and a better man who had the courage as a jurist to take a stand for the Constitution in the midst of
>a den of thieves (lawyers). In fact, Justice Mahonoey was also a straight shooter. when Jerome brought him up to
>speed on the nature and character of the FRNs, Mahoney went ballistic. When the bank president got on the witness
>stand Daly, cross examined him along this line:
>
>Mr. Bank President, are you telling this court that you can open a bank today without any deposit of any kind in the
>vault and still make a loan to me of 14,800.00 dollars. Is that correct?
>
>Bank President: That is correct.
>
>Daly: And just how are you going to do that, are you going to create the money right out of the atmosphere?
>
>BP: Yeah.
>
>Justice Mahoney: Sounds like fraud to me. I've heard enought.
>
>then down with the gavel, case dismissed.
>
>After which the bank appealed and tendered to FRNs to cover appeal cost. However, Mahoney refused to accept
>worthless securities (see IRC 165g) and informed the BP's attorney that if they wanted to appeal they would have to
>tender lawful money of account, i.e. silver dollars.
>
>Now the bank was in a quandry, because to do an appeal by posting the appeal cost in silver would have proved the
>point in the trial. so they never did. no doubt they just accepted the trial for value and monetized the judgment
>and moved on. you know the same crap that is done routinely these days by those in the know.
>
Just thought I would share that for the enlightenment of all readers.
Peace be with you all,
Lewis |
Edited by - Lewish on 26 Dec 2003 01:54:10 |
|
|
|
PopeSquasher
Senior Member
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2003 : 11:43:00
|
That was very interesting, Lewis,
Whenever I see these discussions though, I always seem to notice one thing: They always seem to punish the hapless participants who were just following the system; and doing what the systems laws said, and in most instances, those people dont know any better- they're just following the law. It should be the authors and enforcers of those unjust laws who should be punished.
This reminds me of a case that I heard George Gordon discussing, in which one of his students sued Toxic Hell (Taco Bell) because they fired him for not furnishing an SSN. I felt that such a suit was very unjust- Taco Bell was just following the law that requires employers to obtain an SSN. In the case, the judge ruled that the plaintiff had a right not to furnish an SSN if he not possess a SSN.
But Taco Bell was just doing what the laws which are imposed upon them require- why should they be punished, when it was the law that was faulty and unconstitutional? That is a great evil.
Since that time, though, (since quite a few people started taking advantage ofthe loop-hole, and suing) the Beast rectified the legal loophole, so that now they can require an SSN, with no recourse.
Such a system of law that allows this is very unjust- that is why I think it best to steer clear of her legal system, unless forced to participate in defense, because one only ends up furthing of unjust laws upon often hapless victims- and perhaps, this is the very existence for such a system of law- that the peons should use it to fight amongst themselves, while the real criminals sit back and laugh?
"Thy Word is Truth" |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2003 : 12:38:52
|
General intelligence indicates you tell the truth and are trying something new. Why? Because the Droit/Droit process is failed. However you are in close contact with these leaders to be integrating experience into your project (which really is not new considering the “good little people” last week). You referred to the incident as “We had a case…”.
So you are experimenting desperately with the UCC and pressing into new sections to find out what is honored and dishonored. The Achilles heel here is when you convert UCC into the equivalent State statute.
“Thanks for the clarification … If they refuse your offer, especially if it is during the hearing for foreclosure, which must preceed a FED, then under UCC 3-603, (but use the equivalent State Statute here), then the debt is discharged.” and you admitted it again subsequently. There is no State statute. Only Revised Statutes, which do not hold the force of law. They are nothing better than guidelines and after hiring the attorney in the black robe, become quite arbitrary in a blended law/equity forum.
I got information some time ago. Maybe not but the attorneys general are monitoring this UCC redemption (by whatever name you and your friends give it) and conducting the success rate while finding the fomenters of this private banking competition. No conspiracy…. Just business to them.
You are not trying anything new. You have admitted to being in immediate “speed-dial” with all the experts, including the Montana Freemen. So I suppose were I to believe you, I would risk my estate on your one case coming up next month? Or weigh last week’s “good little people” case, in which case, you are doing nothing new?
Lewis is telling you about the Credit River Decision as some kind of aspersion to my arrogance. What is that? That is a slap in the face. Not to me. To you. He is playing on your dopey-mopey acquiescent laziness; That you would rather read what he has to say about it than to acquire some authenticated documentation that can be used in common law by serving the truth (don’t file it in the case) on the players. See? It is no skin off my back if you do or don’t order authenticated documentation.
I once had the documentation about that Taco Bell case. It is not really a win. The young man’s dad and Taco Bell had a few settlement letters back and forth and when it was time for the young man to start college, Taco Bell paid him for the summer as though he had worked to be rid of them. It never got to a ‘courtroom’.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2003 : 14:02:23
|
Hi Rich,
I think you may not have the facts quite in order on the Taco Bell case. There was not and is not a law requiring employers to obtain your SSN. I don't require it from my employees, and never have. If they want to fill out a W-4, I will provide it, but don't require it. Under the "identity theft" laws, no one outside of a bank (funny how everything gets back to a bank) can demand to know your SSN.
Oh, thought of one more. The FAA can require your SSN.
This guy David has got to be an agent of Babylon. He does such an interesting job of twisting what I have said. Then he wants everyone to get the "certified documentation" of which he speaks so that they will all be safe. So, tell my what you think about this: "The Sheriff comes to your home to evict you under a Order from an actor in a funny black dress. The actor works for the same boss that the Sheriff works for. You run out and 'serve' your 'certified documentation' on this rent-a-badge." Now, what do you think he is going to do? (A) Is he magically gonna go away because you 'served' him with a certified copy of some long ago court case in some far away state? (B) Or is he gonna do what the people who pay his salary have ordered him to do? You get to choose either A or B.
Me, I am just gonna keep on doing what I am doing. Let those who have eyes see and those who have ears hear.
Peace to you all,
Lewis
|
Edited by - Lewish on 26 Dec 2003 14:04:17 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2003 : 15:11:46
|
quote:
Me, I am just gonna keep on doing what I am doing.
That’s a problem.
You keep saying you are doing something different:
quote:
We had a case last week where the bank actually produced the "Original Note" in court, complete with the deposit stamps on the back. Our good little people whipped out there red pen and wrote "Accepted for Value, Returned for Value, Discharge and Closure. You are authorized to use my exemption." in Red ink. Then signed their names in Blue ink, dated it, and wrote out their exemption number. Then took it over to the clerk and said "Here, the matter is settled!" The Judge and the Bank attorney about had a hissy, but the Judge ruled, "Case settled. Reconvey their deed.
That is the Strawman Redemption. Or the Droit/Droit process. You have a UCC twist about the offsets and adjustments where you have acquired an exemption number. But then you try to sell it as something different. Its still the Strawman Redemption which mutates over the years. You know this is the same repeated success story; it is not literally some “good little people” last week.
So you should all ask, “What harm is there in having some authenticated documentation?” I am not pushing it on you. But Lewis seems to be bent out of shape over it being available. The documents are for victims of this failed UCC scheme. That's gotta hurt.
“Why are they getting to the point where someone is getting a FED against them? I just don't understand.” There you have it. Lewis has no clue.
The Strawman Redemption (by any name) is failing to prevent FEDs (Forceable Entry and Detainer). Lewis is living his project in denial. And paranoia; “agent of Babylon”.
Regards,
David Merrill |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2003 : 10:25:13
|
Dear Readers;
Here I imagine Lewis has been advised by the other leaders to quit speaking about this. He already showed the latest mutations of code being applied and deeply regrets his over-confidence and exuberance.
Whether I offer a viable remedy has no bearing on the failure rate of this, let’s call it “UCC Redemption“. I like that term. Sort of like “chess”. We know there are a lot of permutations allowed in the forum, however with chess we have some set metaphysical standards called rules. These rules cannot be broken.
Same with the UCC except that every now and again, the attorney in the black robe gets opinionated and realizes that equity has been blended into law since 1938 so that this crackerjack UCC whiz has no place to appeal if he bends the rules a little. Maybe that is what is going on.
You see, I have not really analyzed the UCC Redemption. Why study what does not function. Lately, the FEDs are generated off the ‘public trustee’ refusal to accept payment letter. In Colorado there are genuine Public Trustees. In other States they just hire a bank employee and convey the same title.
I am already cleaning up after these UCC Redemption leaders’ messes more than I care to be. The proper usage of common law remedy is integrated into my comments:
“… saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it, and [the district courts] shall also have exclusive original cognizance [and culpability of the United States to protect your property rights] of all seizures on land…” First Judiciary Act; chapter 20, page 77.
I suppose if any of you readers were facing an FED you would have spoken up. As well if any of you had evidence the UCC Redemptions actually work. I see they do not so I have never pressed any of these people. Usually they just sheepishly admit they went on enthusiasm not evidence.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2004 : 21:27:52
|
It has been so long I had to try a password or two to get logged on.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 11 Apr 2004 17:01:44 |
|
|
|
Earl
Junior Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2004 : 09:33:06
|
This is Earl. I am a newcomer to this forum. Everything is very interesting, but most of you are missing one thing when talking about promissory notes, FRN's and the like.I spent 10 years in banking, the last two in the Foreclosure arean. The info that I was able to gather is there are two types of money: Money of Account and Money of Exchange. Money of account is that medium that spends like money but is not money itself. Within this catagory are the following: Bank checks, Drafts, Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Bonds. Money of Exchange is Federal Reserve Notes, Gold, Silver, a commidity, corn, wheat, etc. Thise items can be exchanged for any of the items in this catagory. However, when one gives a promissory note (money of account) to the bank, the bank in turn gives back a bank check (money of account). The fraud takes place in two areas. 1. When they deposit the note they have altered it by the addition of the allonge placed on the note. This now voids the note since it was done without your knowledge and permission. Note the following:
The Bank has altered the instrument and made a material alteration to the terms and conditions of the contract agreement pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code § 3-407 Alteration.
§ 3.407. Alteration (a) "Alteration" means:
(1) an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party; or
(2) an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party.
(b) Except as provided in Subsection (c), an alteration fraudulently made discharges a party whose obligation is affected by the alteration unless that party assents or is precluded from asserting the alteration. No other alteration discharges a party, and the instrument may be enforced according to its original terms (See Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code, Volume 6). and
2. The Bank then demands repayment of the alleged loan with Money of Exchange, (Lawful money of the United States) Federal Reserve notes. This in in violation of HJR 192; No one can demand payment in any particular form of money.
Earl
|
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2004 : 09:55:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Earl
This is Earl. I am a newcomer to this forum. Everything is very interesting, but most of you are missing one thing when talking about promissory notes, FRN's and the like.I spent 10 years in banking, the last two in the Foreclosure arean. The info that I was able to gather is there are two types of money: Money of Account and Money of Exchange. Money of account is that medium that spends like money but is not money itself. Within this catagory are the following: Bank checks, Drafts, Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Bonds. Money of Exchange is Federal Reserve Notes, Gold, Silver, a commidity, corn, wheat, etc. Thise items can be exchanged for any of the items in this catagory. However, when one gives a promissory note (money of account) to the bank, the bank in turn gives back a bank check (money of account). The fraud takes place in two areas. 1. When they deposit the note they have altered it by the addition of the allonge placed on the note. This now voids the note since it was done without your knowledge and permission. Note the following:
The Bank has altered the instrument and made a material alteration to the terms and conditions of the contract agreement pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code § 3-407 Alteration.
§ 3.407. Alteration (a) "Alteration" means:
(1) an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party; or
(2) an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party.
(b) Except as provided in Subsection (c), an alteration fraudulently made discharges a party whose obligation is affected by the alteration unless that party assents or is precluded from asserting the alteration. No other alteration discharges a party, and the instrument may be enforced according to its original terms (See Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code, Volume 6). and
2. The Bank then demands repayment of the alleged loan with Money of Exchange, (Lawful money of the United States) Federal Reserve notes. This in in violation of HJR 192; No one can demand payment in any particular form of money.
Earl
I looked up "allonge" since it is a new word for me; I'll post the definition for others who may not know what it is:
ALLONGE - from Black's 3rd
A piece of paper annexed to a bill of exchange or promissory note, on which to write endorsements for which there is no room on the instrument itself. (Cites omitted.)
Also,
ANNEX - Black's 3rd
To add to; to unite; to attach one thing permanently to another. The word expresses the idea of joining a smaller or subordinate thing with another, larger, or of high importance. (Cites and remaining text omitted.)
Thanks Earl.
If you would be so kind, could you please explain a little bit more about the process whereby the allonge is added to the note - the purpose and usage and all. This is something I know next to nothing about. I'm sure others would like to learn about this also. Thanks.
Walter |
|
|
|
Earl
Junior Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2004 : 10:17:37
|
Walter
All the allonge is is any writting that is attached to an instrument. In the case of the promissory note, it is the stamp or writing that says "Pay to the Order of Without Recourse". When you look at any promissory note that has beed deposited, it will say the same thing. When you take a regular check to the bank and deposit it into your account, they stamp ir "Pay to the Order of (Name of bank) and that transfers the value of the check to the ownership of the bank. Now you are a creditor of the bank for that amount of money. The same is true for the Promissory Note. When it is deposited, you now are a creditorof the bank for the amount of the bank, and the ledger of the account that is created will show that fact. When they issue a check to pay the seller of the property, the check comes from the account that was created by the deposit of the Promissory Note. The bookeeping entry will now show that the account is balanced any you now owe them nothing. This is high school accounting. Double entru bookeeping. The reason for the promissory note is to creat the money. If they really lent you their money, they don't need the promissory note since they have the property as security. If I purchased a property from you and you carried the mortgage, (I have a situation like this) I would receive a promissory note and a mortgage, but the promissory note is unaltered. If I were to foreclose on the property, and then sell the property and receive less than the the amount contracted for, I could then use the promissory not to receive any deficiencies. Although there are only a few states where this is allowed. Most states don't allow deficiency judgments on residential properties. As I said in my first posting, I exchanged Money fo Exchange (My property) for (Money of Exchange) Federal Reserve Notes. In credit card accounts, the application is used as the Promissory Note.
Earl |
|
|
|
Earl
Junior Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2004 : 10:23:12
|
Another thing,When one gets a mortgage and is at the title company, the applicant is the only one that signs the promissory note other than the person witinesing the signiature. The allonge will have a signature of a Bank Officer, endorcing it before deposit. )I was an Assistant Secretary)
Earl |
|
|
|
I. Scriabin
Senior Member
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2004 : 19:20:19
|
This entire thread has been a fascinating read!! I am new to the Forum and am greatly impressed by the nature of the exchanges. Are there any updates to be proffered by any of the principal participatants in this topic? I would be greatly interested in news of an outcome of the cases in the works as this thread was developing.
Scriabin
|
|
|
|
Man of Knowledge
Regular Member
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2004 : 03:52:34
|
I have not only used the de jure Thirteenth Amendment served upon the court, but also incorporated the Common Law Credit River Decision to prove the Fraud of the Federal Reserve, along with the Fed's own publication 'Money Mechanics' to prove the fraud. Additionally, none has mentioned the most important cite after 1938, (which is all you can use nowadays), of the Clearfield Decision. Mr. Merrill is not in error.
For your edification and education:
"Governments decend to the level of a mere corporation,
and take on the characteristics of a mere private
citizen ... where private corporate commercial paper [Federal
Reserve notes] and securities [checks] is concerned ...
For the purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals
are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
Clearfield v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371
This strips immunity from the Municipal/STATE/FEDERAL Corporation and allows for unlimited liability, in defiance of HJR 192, (although it was rendered moot by Public Law, and gold can once again be used to PAY, not discharge debts, codified in 1977, and this is where it all fails. HJR-192 was tacitly repealed by Public Law, and gave them a way out. You can PAY, instead of Discharge once again! Nobody believes so, nor knew about it, so they believe they must "pay",<discharge> with FRN's! Wake up!). The catch is the constructive fraud, and the Corp. cannot stand upon any immunity statute, no matter where published in their copyrighted Codes, per West Publishing.
Positive Law cannot be copyrighted.
Also, take not offence when you see the words 'Belligerent Claimant', as it is directed at the De Facto, and never any De Jure agency. I sign everything in this way, and those ignorant of the Law seem to become offended. It has never been my intent.
"The right against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person" 540 United States Vs Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 (1947)
Remember to say NOTHING if arrested. Only this,
"I respectfully refuse to answer any questions, or follow any instructions without Assistance of Counsel."
When denied, then say nothing. They will use every tactic to contract with you. Don't fall for it, until they ask you to sign for this or that. Always sign your Christian name, "without prejudice", TDC (Threat, Duress, and Coercion). THEN, bond out, as it is established you have been deprived of your rights, and have declared all paperwork to be 'non-assumsit'.
"It may however, be considered settled that letters or admissions containing the expression in substance that they are to be "without prejudice" will not be admitted in evidence ... an arrangement stating the letter was without prejudice was held to be inadmissible as evidence ... not only will the letter bearing the words, "without prejudice" but also the answer thereto, which was not so guarded, was inadmissible." Ferry v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 323; Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass 55, Molyneaux v. Collier, 13 Ga. 406. When correspondence had commenced "without prejudice" but afterwards those words were dropped, it was immaterial, 6 Ont. 719.
Use all recourse and remedy at your disposal. I have backed down several Court and Agency actions by this means. I do not advocate it's usage, and don't attempt to hold me liable, as it is up to you to research and answer any questions about this. I just point the way, and ONE possible solution, but only YOU can prepare yourself.
Daniel Frank
Without Prejudice
Belligerent Claimant
sui Juris
|
Edited by - Man of Knowledge on 23 May 2004 20:11:51 |
|
|
|
Man of Knowledge
Regular Member
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2004 : 22:11:18
|
| Attention David Merrill. Read above Post. Written before our engagement upon the "Saving to Suitors" thread. I think you will find ineptitude is not what I can be accused of. There is so much more. Earl is exactly correct in his assertions of how it is done. Modern Money Mechanics is a prime example of 'Evidence of a Fraud'. I possess original printing, and the transcripts of the Congressional Record of Congressman Thomas McFadden from 1932-1936, explain the Fraud in detail of the Federal Reserve. Apply principles generally. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Credit River Money Decision
