| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 24 May 2004 : 08:12:33
|
Greetings,
If one is in a situation with the cops, and they also posses a DRIVER'S LICENSE, is not one already agreeing in advance that they are obligated to cooperate? I have heard it said (and this info could be wrong) that once one has accepted a DL that one has no rights any longer. If this concept is wrong please explain in detail why this would be wrong. David, I know we touched on this a bit already but I do not fully understand the 'why' to your answer. I have been pondering it so please don't give up on me yet!
It seems there are two mindsets here on Ecclesia: One which believes that remedy can be found by properly using 'man's law' and one that believes that ultimately no remedy can be found in man's law: If satan
be against satan, how would his house stand.
Anyway, I have been following these threads and am still not clear on the some of the details. I have seen so many concepts through the years on these issues that they seem to blur together. Some only just re-worded with a few added ingredients.
Peace,
Steve
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2004 : 09:02:43
|
Dear Steve;
Several dichotomies exist symptomatic of pseudonomania.
Shema, Yisrael Yodi-Hehe-Wavo-Heya eloheynu
Yodi-Hehe-Wavo-Heha echad.
Hear Oh, Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9)
And so in His image be careful to know your only true name. But what is sad is that nobody regards my challenge here to use our true names worthwhile. I have started a new thread "advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics" and would be thrilled if we could place that for the criteria to speak into the peculiar forum.
Lawful remedy is not "man's" law as opposed to "God's" law. There is only one law. Any revenue agent [do not be concerned about his or her license - that is externalizing; like the Montana Freemen] who would enforce non-law like the STATE Revised Statutes is only implementing international law through banker's policy under the necessity of War and Emergency Powers. Look right there in the signature box. If it were law would they want you to sign a contract agreeing to appear? Look on the back of the registration/tax receipt to your car. If it were law, would they tell you to sign a contract saying you have voluntarily agreed to have "compulsory" insurance? Its the contract you are lawfully held to.... that is why the policeman will get so bent out of shape if you just alter the agreement and then sign it.
About the existence of Satan, as a personality and anything but our choice to do evil or good, when we choose evil instead, that is a common misreading of Genesis 6:1-8. In a book Ritual Magic; Magic in History the author explains this wild interpretation, that angels make whoopi with human women is the earliest origins of the Qabbalah. At any rate it was picked up big time in Israel with the book of Chanoch (Enoch) and all reference to a third of the angels falling from heaven is Qabbalah.
It took me a while to find this question. That is because I am frankly bored with people trying to convince me there are conspiracies. People in identity crisis and denial of such have nothing worthwhile to say. So I have better things to read.
http://www.bis.org/bcbs/cp3full.pdf
The same people have simply a different definition for name than what your parents decided. That's all.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 05 Jun 2004 09:09:50 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2004 : 18:24:31
|
Hello Rich,
I am relatively new to this area of knowledge but based on my research there are some presumptions in your argument which are incorrect.quote:
Originally posted by PopeSquasher
Hello, everybody,
Again, this whole discussion is flawed because of an inaccurate stating of the facts.
1. The bank does not "convert your promissory note into cash".
FACT: It does give you cash (with which to pay the seller)in exchange for that promissory note, which is your promise to repay the bank.
You are incorrect, the bank does not give you cash. They give you a check. A check is evidence of a bank liability. Futhermore, they give you a check for money of account, not money of exchange. In other words there was an __exchange__ between the bank and the alleged borrower in money of account, (i.e. notes.) Money of exchange is by law only gold or silver, or paper that can be exchanged for gold or silver.quote:
Originally posted by PopeSquasher
2. Even if the bank does trade your note to the FED, or anyone else for cash, so what? You still owe that debt, regardless of what anyone does with it. The FED or the other institution that the bank trades that note to has essentially paid the bank for you, so now your debt is transferred to the new holder of the note. This is not fraud- to NOT pay the note is fraud!
If the transaction was actually an exchange of notes, was there really a loan? And is it conscionable to
consider the cost of the exchange as being 100% + n%, where 'n' is the ostensible interest?quote:
Originally posted by PopeSquasher
FACT: A promissory note is not the same as cash. It may be used in the same manner as cash, but it is not the actual item, but rather a promise of paying the ammount in legal tender at a future date.
The promisory notes value is in the repayment- not in the actual note itself.
If I gave you a promissory note for $10, and you traded that promissory note for a few gallons of gasoline, you are not spending "my" money, because the debt (promise of me pating) of $10 is owed to you. If you choose to spend that ten dollars, by spending the promissory note, I still owe the $10 to the holder of that note. If I just give you $10 instead of a promissory note, and you take that $10 and buy gasoline, have you spent "my" money? Of course not! When I pay you the money, it becomes your money, and you can do with it as you please. Same thing with the note- you can "spend" the $10 promissory note any way you choose- or just hold it until I repay it and then spend the money- either way it's the same thing.
What the proponents of these crazy fraud schemes are saying, basically, that if you take my promissory note for the $10 (which is a promise to pay ten dollars to you or the holder of the note) and spend it on gas, that you are spending my money, and have thus "defrauded" me. But as shown above, that is not true- you have spent your own money, as the $10 debt is owed to you- you are just transferring your right to collect that debt when you pass the note, but the debt is still owed.
Your argument about promissory notes is sound in its logic. Unfortunately, it does not take into account that the transaction called a loan was substantively an exchange of one prommisory note for another, or more precisely for an order which could be used to obtain another note(s).
I may be mistaken, but I think you have not fully realized that we don't use real money anymore, that is money of exchange. And, that our money of account has been collaterized by our legal name through legal machinations which I have yet to understand the details of, although I have read some of the theories.
So, I would agree and sympathize with your general sense of outrage and honor if the alleged loans were actually loans. Since they are in fact exchanges, and the alleged borrower is being defrauded my conscience and sense of honor remain comfortable and intact. My only hope is that through forums like this we can support each other and others to not have to be victims of fraud. Was it Churchill who said, "Evil succeeds when good men do nothing."
Shalom,
Ishmael Aylwin
------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
Edited by - iammai on 03 Jul 2004 18:25:44 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2004 : 21:36:22
|
Hello Ishmael,
Your answers show a very good understanding of what is happening when the bank makes you a loan. I would like to add one thing to it, look up the legal definition of "cash" and you will find that "cash" is "money or its equivalent, especially notes" - Black's Law.
Then, you simply need to understand what money has been made into in our present day system. Money is simply a promise to pay. Nothing more or nothing less.
There was a court case in Texas about 10 days ago, where the mortgage company was trying to foreclose on a man's home. Some weeks prior to the trial, the man had sent a promissory note to the mortgage company to satisfy the mortgage. The mortgage company pretended they didn't get it, as the often do, and proceeded to foreclose.
Part way thru the trial, the man asked the judge if he could ask the attorney for the mortgage company a question. While he was asking the judge that question, he was doing something the attorney couldn't see. He said "I want to tender full satisfaction of the alledged debt; will your client accept a promissory note drawn on a private bank?" The attorney said "Of course not! You have already tried that!"
Wherewith the judge said "The mortgage company is ordered to release the lien against this man, and to reconvey his deed." Of course the attorney was outraged and demanded an explanation. What the judge could see, but the attorney couldn't, was that the man was holding a fist full of Federal Reserve Notes - - Otherwise known as promissory notes drawn on a private bank. Also, under UCC 3-603(b) you will find that a tender offered but refused is a debt discharged.
And if you look at McCay vs Capital Resources which is 940 S.W.2d 869 will find that the UCC overrides the statutes and codes.
Peace,
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 13:00:26
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
Experience tells me that the above event did not happen. I have long given up even asking if someone like Lewis was actually there or has an official transcript.
I chalk it up to a tendency in human nature to prove out the theoretical. Severe wishful thinking. So when somebody tells the old worn out story, which has been the exact same story for years, we tend to believe it because it gives us hope. We all want our hopes to be real.
quote:
I am editing the message because of a recent last-minute ditch to common law by a couple in Washington state who were lured into this insidious UCC Redemption. Lewis seems to jump up and down in frustration when I call what he is doing the "UCC Redemption" because he thinks he has fashioned a couple new twists and turns into it. But read his account and the first accounts on the thread where we were debating this same old issue late last year. [The 'saving to suitors' and "Credit River" threads.] It is UCC Redemption and under the penumbra of that codified Law Merchant.
Both the county Sheriff and the attorney-in-the-black-robe suddenly are on vacation while executing a Writ of Restitution that allegedly came due Thursday. We put together this couple's counterclaim and it was served upon both the sudden vacationers Tuesday. They got the 13th Amendment and Credit River Money Decision (certified copies) plus Verified Statement of Right sent Registered Mail to the case jacket in Spokane, served on the same absentees Thursday and prepared arrest warrants to show the deputy sheriffs before sealing the envelopes and mailing them to the U.S. district court (same thing as the District Court of the United States) in Spokane.
Due mostly to these two jokers off on a fishing trip together, the deputies came to claim the property yesterday, Friday. I got several calls but one scared me. The man called and informed me that they were not going to take him to jail but were offering a summons to appear (for trespassing I presume). They were giving him the name of the mover the sheriff's office was hiring. I reminded the man that if he allowed the sheriff to remove his things from his land property, he was relenquishing claim to the property. [If the man owns the land, he can keep his things on it.] Also I reminded the wife a moment later that the summons was a completely voluntary presentment and could be altered or refused for cause.
So things transpired and the man ended up in the jail (I presume for simply refusing to contract through the "summons") with a hearing early today (Saturday). It seems he must promise not to execute peaceable reentry before they will release him from jail. He has a new-founded but I hope sound sense of identity and is advised that all he has to say is already said in the cognizance of the United States. Therefore all he is to say in any of these hearings is to ask for the attorney-in-the-black-robe's registration number (instant recusal for collusion and revokation of citizenship).
But the objective is obviously to break him into conforming with abandoning claim before the jokers get back from vacation. He is advised the moment he is released from jail, to make peaceable reentry under common law (go back home and move his things [which the Sheriff paid to store at a neighbor's home]) back into his home and outbuildings. But it is his first time in jail so I presuming he is filled with doubts about the papers we put in place. But why would papers by a false claimant titled "Writ of Restitution" hold any more weight than the papers in the district court? See?
But my presumption they will break this man so that he hands over his entire livelihood farm really gets me angry that this same old story about conveying the mortgage under the UCC, with minor variations is still being propegated. If the couple in Washington had ditched the UCC for common law three weeks ago, the man might not be getting battered by jail over the weekend while the culprits are out fishing or whatever.
I doubt more than a few of you understand this site as a binary tapeworm conduit to the organic webcrawler. The echo chamber. But I sent this subsequently to the wife, staying at a friend's home while her husband is in jail.
quote:
Dear Wife;
Please get a look at http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=303&whichpage=5, last entry.
Understand that I do not get involved emotionally. It would seem that you and your husband have decided to keep the farm. The banking policy currently will wear Husband down to get his consent to substantiate yesterday's actions. [I almost called it "repossession" but the bank or lending institution never "possessed" it.]
So you and or Husband are free to give up your farm. But if you wish to ride this out, convey to Husband all he is to say are things like:
"I gave my correct name to the arresting officer. If you have lost it, do not expect me to rebuild your paperwork."
"No man can be compelled to incriminate himself."
"What is your attorney registration number?"
"Everything I have to say is already before the United States in Spokane."
The system needs your consent to justify yesterdays seizure. Comfort him that jail is not the worst thing that could be happening. When the Sheriff and [attorney-in-the-black-robe] return from vacation, Also, they are using the weekend to wear him down. Listen... get real! If he bails on keeping the farm, he has no home to return to anyway! He should just get comfortable and find a couple books and take up chess. If you have hopes of returning home next week, you have to ride out these joker's vacations.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Regards,
David Merrill
Update: The Sheriff was "unavailable" to the deputies at the farm, which may have started the rumor the Sheriff is on a vacation. The Sheriff was not named on the counterclaim but was served a blue ink "FILED" copy by process server.
Like I suspected, when the husband tried to fire the movers, they took him into custody. The "carrot" of only issuing a summons failed.
Mathematically the two players in executing the seizure both being unavailable is unacceptable to chance. I am comfortable calling both absences "vacations". To just let the drone deputies use 'process as usual' to wear this couple into abandoning claim to their home. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 17 Jul 2004 11:08:34 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2004 : 14:02:27
|
Dear Readers,
Well, as usual David is trying to denigrate anything I say relative to events happening in courts. While I do not yet have a copy of the Texas case, I personally know the man who was serving as non-Bar counsel to the homeowner.
I do have a copy of McKay vs Capitol Resources from WestLaw, and if anyone wants a copy of that, send me a Private Message.
And, until I see something from David that will actually stop the gun-toting pirates from making inland seizures, and I have now seen a number of David's failures which he blames on the suitor, he couldn't possibly be at fault, I will keep doing what I am doing, and he can keep on ridiculing it. No ill will intended. Just the facts of life.
David, if you really want to prove the worth of your course of action, then go help Rick Stanley there in Denver. The gun-toters don't even uphold their own oaths or laws. Let's see your remedy work in such a case.
For those of you who don't know about Rick Stanley, he was arrested and convicted of violating a Home Rule law, which is not lawful, as it violates a State guaranteed right. He was openly carrying a firearm, which is a guaranteed right under Colorado Statutes.
Peace to all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2004 : 14:16:02
|
Dear Lewis;
I remember Rick Stanley. I think so. There was a newspaper article that referred to his attorney who was collecting donations. I sent a letter but since remedy in common law would require firing the attorney, it does not surprise me the attorney would discard the letter without showing the client. [Also I doubt that the newpapers assassinated the RICK STANLEY's character. He probably did that himself - subjecting himself to City of Denver/METRO home rule.] Since then I have quit looking for suitors. I only sent the letter because I knew common law remedy was what would help. If the man or woman is not serious, there is little chance of success anyway.
I figure what you call my failures are instances where the man never takes the counterclaim to the district court, like yourself. Who I classify "researchers" or "academicians". Without evidence of being a court of competent jurisdiction, it is quite arguable that you are not one. Or maybe you mean when the people just start packing without sticking to the paperwork in the district court and lawfully recognized right to common law remedy. Anyway, I am not trying to denigrate anything you say. I am convinced that the vast majority of these cases are untrue and the ones like your Texas friend will result in a Writ of Restitution anyway. After all, that was just an attorney-in-the-black-robe speaking, granting that it was actually said. But I explain my passion and frustration when somebody comes to me eleventh hour after another failed UCC Redemption. I was once accused of putting people at risk. Your advocation of this consistently failing UCC Redemption is proof that accusation is better directed at you, Lewis.
But I am openly sharing this event with you readers as it happens. Whichever way it goes. If you would just imagine these people in Washington state next week cleaning and remodeling their empty farmhouse and outbuildings, getting ready for the Sheriff to move their property back from the neighbor's place, that might help. I suppose you may call it prayer but I feel there is some serious physics behind our nervous systems as jurists. The image of God is the same within each of us because there is only one God. We are all jurists whether we feel like it or not.
Readers; I suggest that you would want to acquire cases from WestLaw or court clerks instead of pursuing any Internet source. I should stipulate that the arguments behind the UCC Redemption are quite sound. It is the forum shopping that is completely flawed.
And I do not consider it my failure when one fails to mop up cleanly after another failed UCC Redemption.
Regards,
David Merrill
P.S. Thank you Lewis. It took a moment but I just realized you made a marvelous point for me. You are saying that I have to take responsibility for a process system that has been in place since 1789 - to demonstrate it works. The reason there are no complaints about failures is that almost all these grownups know about responsibility. You clearly say that for the law to be valid, I must show you that I can control others with it.
You missed the entire point. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 17 Jul 2004 17:55:42 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2004 : 03:44:48
|
Dear David,
I have been trained in remote energetic healing modalities, so I have no doubt about our nervous
system's ability to have an affect on others in the world of the five senses at a distance. I
can promise nothing, but I am willing to "pray" for them. The models I have been taught do expect
that I would have a name and geographical location. Their true name would be sufficient, and may
still leave some privacy, or maybe you can PM me with the information. I would be happy to participate
in their jury.
Love and Blessings!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2004 : 05:26:15
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
I have linked the "Wife" to this page in the email carbon copied. If she would like to register, she can share so much information as she is comfortable with. Or she may write me an email and specify. I suggest that she would share their Verified Statement of Right here, especially since it is published at the county clerk already.
But I am proposing new models in prayer to fit the times - thus "echo chamber" and "advanced resonance" - terms like that. It may seem a little cold but bringing forth testimony before competent witnesses is my objective. Not saving their farm. Gentle pressure to reform risk management algorithms in a carefully orchestrated pressure release valve system so that the adjustments to the highly compressed information infrastructure can bend instead of break.
There is a lot of talk in certain circles about risk management. And you may see the obvious. This is while a man sits in jail with a perfectly valid claim that he is creditor, not debtor. Through collect calls from the jail, my hope is that he is comfortable letting the papers properly in the cognizance of the United States play their role.
www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040716/default.htm
Saving the farm for these folks is more up to you, in prayer - the organic webcrawler is your awareness and compassion for this family under persecution.
Paranoia makes one group this seizure with all the others. I have a lot of experience with the paranoid delirium. The sudden "vacationers" in the mix is what makes this peculiar. See? I have a sense for process, not paying much attention to merits. The players think they can avoid culpability. Even the Wife admits that people go on vacation and this may be a coincidence. But the Sheriff being also notified, and also "unavailable" adds up to foulplay in my mind. The "carrot" was to present these deputies like nice people just doing their jobs and unable to clear up the inconsistencies with their boss. Then offering a way that the Husband would not have to be jailed; just let us pay [highly irregular in itself] to move your things. And that move, wherever you specify (consent to the "forfeiture"*). [There is a worthy objective of your prayers. Comprehend how experienced these bank agents are at psychological warfare tactics, counterintelligence etc. Fortify the Husband in your prayers.]~ Therefore I am encouraging since their entire livelihood is on the table, for these folks to stick to their testimony backed mainly by the authenticated Credit River Money Decision and properly before the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States. Now do you see it? Competent witnesses bringing forth uncoerced (no entrapment) testimony so that it is the United States^ through agency (Piercing the Corporate Veil and Instrumentality Rule) facing Judgment.
That brings back to mind once when the warrant was specially tailored with an upper and lower case legal name I thought at the time was mine. I did not know about true name enough so I spent a week in jail. Well, sort of. I left at six in the morning and went back at bedtime to a comfortable and isolated cell. [I reported in one night and the "bully" on duty razzed me for being so late (6:00 pm deadline). He got fired for strip-searching me.] At first they informed me since they had to call me by phone to get me to report to jail that there was absolutely no chance for work release. I had already notified the attorney-in-the-black-robe that he would be billed $1000/day for any time I spent in jail over the matter. I began trying collect calls to the courthouse but they never connected. However every morning I was released for work. I reported the attorney-in-the-black-robe as my employer and that he was paying $1000/day; then went in pursuit of his signature, day after day, for a week. A friend in the courthouse reported that he got a phone call on his bench, then went up and down the hall looking for somebody to take his docket. When that failed he was suddenly sick and could hardly speak. He went on "vacation" too.
I was supposed to pay $7/day for the privilege of work release. I discharged that against a Public Office Money Certificate, written by hand at the counter. They told me that I did not have to pay the usual fees.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* A proper lawful forfeiture must demonstrate that a crime was being committed which removed the forfeiting party from the law.
~ Once under similar circumstances, that man was awaiting his arrest warrant against the attorney in the black robe. About ten days of jail and they were using another inmate's phone conversations with his attorney. They informed the other inmate over the phone in a realistic news bulletin format, "At 1:00 pm this afternoon three U.S. Marshals stormed into Judge XXXXX's courtroom and informed all present, 'This court is adjourned'. Then they gave Judge XXXXX a notice that if (the Man) was not released from jail in 24 hours, they would be back with a warrant for immediate arrest and Judge XXXXX would be taken into federal custody."
Well the Man called his Wife and she was in the same small town only an hour earlier and there was a crowded courthouse about that Hayman Fire anyway. She called me with the joyous bulletin. Well I did not see the flaws in the intelligence and started telling people. [From her earlier call, in which she speculated the News coverage may be related to her husband's case, I presumed that she got the report from around the courthouse; not her husband in the jail.] The next day the hoax was revealed and I was apologizing for reporting without verifying the source. But the Man was so devastated, he caved; Giving up his true identity to get out of the jail. He lost confidence.
And all that with the Finish Line in sight! Judge XXXXX had written a polite letter to the Wife admitting all (inadvertently) about legal name and true name. When the Wife was trying to get a certified copy of the letter from the County court clerk to the U.S. case jacket for evidence, the clerk would not comply. She had a the letter in her hand she got in the mail and they would not produce a certified copy! [The letter came improperly sealed, Scotch Tape only, and so without authentication... well that may have been part of the strategy. To get her to try using her letter instead of a certified copy from the County Court clerk.] Albeit genius (or maybe better "slick"), the counterintelligence through the unwitting inmate from his attorney was truly an act of desperation. The Man was probably within a day or two of being released and from all the worldly contract assumpsit too. Twelve days of false imprisonment and Judge XXXXX fully culpable for kidnap.
^ And being that the States and United States operate in bankruptcy, the true principal is the Bank and Fund.
P.S. This is a good point to explain why Lewis’ criticism above is so constructive.
Years ago one man was stuck under the impression we were trying to get a judgment out of the federal “judge” in Denver. Maybe I did not explain it thoroughly but in my defense, that is where I learned to explain that thoroughly. I also was in the process of learning not to take payments. It is important to get the suitor-to-be vested in results. This early suitor threw the final payment at me after getting laid off and began the same party line of, “If you want to prove your system works, then go help so-and-so…” like you read above with Lewis.
The next time I detected that single-mindedness; I suppose the man could see how well this was working from the responsible suitor who recommended he contact me, I said No. The guy was crying ‘discrimination’ any way he could so I caved and made it clear that when we were through his default judgment, we were through talking. A week later he had not produced the presentment he was refusing for cause so I wrote an email requesting that I destroy the work I had done for him. He wrote back what a nasty little angry man I am and that he would destroy all his files too. He tried to refashion the counterclaim to look like his own work and went to Denver to file it. The deputy clerk took a brief look and said, “This is a different David Merrill document.” Understand the deputy clerks are stuck in the impression these men and women must be looking for authority from the States and United States – both bankrupt. So the things the deputy clerk then told the man led him to transmit a nasty-gram at me when he was not able to coerce the federal authorities into saying he was the creditor. He was just trying to sharpen up a UCC Redemption all along, so I said no.
Then I came here for an assessment of where Christians fit into the title of heirs apparent. Reluctantly I drafted remedy for Lewis and maybe one other man to cure. I believe they may be friends but that may be an impression because neither one even got to the district court to open that conduit into the admiralty. Prior to coming here to ecclesia.org I was on another site more oriented to ministering to home church ministries and got kicked off because of my fairly unique interpretation of the New Covenant. I am still sending images to explain myself better, like over on the “right of arrest” thread http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=393. But I accept that any posting of images is a special privilege granted to me on your behalf.
So understand that criticism is not taken as a personal offense, but rather I seek ways to edify out of the middle of it. But I warn you: there are lines we can cross and because of the sensitivity and volatile real-time nature of the topics I bring to the forum, Admin can be a little abrupt. Even unpredictable. One Poster retaliated to moderation and has not been heard from since. So if you want to criticize me, please be thoughtful and take time to edit before you let it lay Posted. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 19 Jul 2004 08:16:23 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2004 : 14:08:55
|
Dear David Merrill,
I read the article pointed to in your post above form the Federal Reserve.
Do you think it will happen that BOE, like some you have written, will become
an acknowledged feature of corporate risk models ? Can the system bend that
much, and maintain it's paradigm ? It is hard for me to imagine it. At the
same time, I don't want the system to break either. Intelligent, educated,
people's responses to my sharing aspects of the truth with them, have made me
realize that irrespective of their intellectual capacity, most people aren't
emotionally prepared to receive the truth. This has forced me to realize that
we truly do get the govenrment we choose. Granted a lot of energy is expended
to insure that people are kept ignorant, and our educational system is as much a
deliberate exercise in propoganda as an education, but it still shocks me. It is
one of those things, that I will need to mature into. I even know of a person who
has implemented remedy, but does't believe it can last.
My experience has taught me to believe in the truth of the law though, so I can't
not have genuine hope for truly positive changes. The internet "tape worm" allows
information to spread and combine in ways no one can predict. However, people's
ability to genuinely take it in and apply it is also much slower than I would have
guessed. I wonder if at some level I have been innoculated with remedy :), so that
truer calibrations just literally feel better to me. Thank you again for this
exercise in advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics.
Sincerest Blessings!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2004 : 15:27:25
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
I believe you are pointing out what a confidence game all this is. In your poetic lesson you like to trail with, "The story you're living is the story you're telling yourself." ... The bill of exchange for all the money in the world, representing all the energy and even unexploited natural resources, now that is the biggest con ever and it borders on unimaginable if not incredible.
But every time I hand some worthless paper to a clerk behind the cash register I am conning with debt currency. The value is built into the dollar or whatever with each transaction. I remember somebody was handing $200 bills to teenagers at drive-up windows and driving away with a burger and about $197 change in Federal Reserve Notes. Nothing illegal about it. All anyone could do was notify people through the News that no such denomination exists and they will probably lose thier job for changing it. Educate.
So I have full confidence after reading the Holy Bible several times. The bill of exchange is not only sound but properly served to the proper parties. Werner Maximilian, who has some kind of family ties into the Habsburgs agrees. I even suspect that Richard Grasso was fired from his position as Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange and never replaced so that bill sits in his former and now locked office. Like the (now destroyed) marker on top of Mt. Hermon here in Colorado. Somebody thinks I have to start from scratch to conform to Rules of Evidence.
So in context with your above Reply, I think the BOE may serve as notice and to exert pressure while the Bretton Woods Agreements are sunset.
By the way, with the folks in Washington. The neighbor wife told me Sunday that she went to the jail and took the farmowner's, the Husband's glasses. They got upset with her about "Not playing that game." when she used his true name. He was to go to a hearing today but I advise that he not respond to any name but the true name he gave the arresting officer, even when they try to get him down out of the ward to TV court (advisement/arraignment).
So that is a good sign that this sort of thing is making folks nervous. But the down side is that the deputies will call the family name and this fellow may respond to get his glasses. Little things are amplified in jail. It's like being in an information vacuum. One is easily manipulated, especially the first time.
But the nightmare breaks for the guards. One man with the truth in that incubator can teach others their names. Then if people are saying they want the court to address them without misnomer, the guards will get edgy. They are severely outnumbered. So suppose they try to use the other prisoners. They could yell, "FAMILY NAME!!!" and then pretend they have an escape because a prisoner is missing. "LOCK DOWN!!!" So after three hours the other guys are tired of missing TV because of this one joker's name game. Imagine how easily this could backfire; specially if the deputies are actually considering the other inmates can rough up the true name Husband? Think of that. The deputy might realize he just considered allowing violence among the "population". Next you will see them coming in fatigued because there is no sleep at night. Well, the nightmare breaks... you can probably understand why the folks at the courthouse are honoring my abatement for misnomer. I am like a walking mind bomb.
I remember wondering if I and "my type" might be behind a news clip about the Sheriff wanting to form a "Controversial Issues Ward" at the jail. Well the motivation was tension from overcrowding, so forming a new ward sounded a little ludicrous to me. But imagine what could come of the Sheriff forming law clubs right there inside the jail? See? These are the kinds of pressures I am talking about. And never underestimate the Lord's ability to guide His people out of the darkness in His timing.
Anyway, I advised the Husband remove his bracelet in front of the deputies to encourage 'Criminal Impersonation' charges. That will be interesting to see if the Sheriff and the attorney-in-the-black-robe have the authority to rename a man.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. On this topic I remember a stint in jail in '96 for trying to bankrupt the United States (like that was novel). In there I met a counterfeiter who made up "money" on his computer with an expensive printer. Somebody he gave a $20 to went to a gas station with a special Treasury bill scanner and found the S/N was supposed to be on a $5 bill. So there he sat at the steel table across from me and I told him to ask his attorney to ask the court, "How do you counterfeit counterfeit money?" Well this guy went to the attorney phone and in a day or two got called to the courthouse for a hearing.
About 18 months before he got into a traffic problem and spent a week in jail. But that was over. The guy got to the courthouse and found he had been called before that judge in County, not State District court, on that old case. The attorney-in-the-black-robe gave him 30 additional days on his week sentence from 18 months before! And on the way back his attorney informed him that the District Attorney had lost all his computer equipment and was dropping the counterfeiting charge for lack of evidence. That had to smart. Letting that bird fly.
After his 30 days, the man went free. I suppose they wanted some time to try and figure out how to save the cause. My police scanner indicates that nobody is getting charged with counterfeiting anymore. Now it is always "forgery". Forging the authentication of the Federal Reserve Bank on a bill of exchange.
So you see Ishmael Aylwin, I am not ashamed to use Federal Reserve Notes. [Albeit I would not endorse a check even to my true name for a million dollars.] It is comforting that the currencies of the world are resilient against "collapse". There are market controls in place that clip sudden drops and rises called "stops". Also, currency is way too convenient for trading purposes to do away with. There may be some major crashes in the fictional and speculative aspects of the macroeconomic venue and this may shake social structuring of classes, but I doubt that the value of the dollar will decline so fast that we will quit picking them up off the ground as one blows past.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 19 Jul 2004 22:45:03 |
|
|
|
Luallen
Junior Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2004 : 20:01:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree
quote:
Originally posted by PopeSquasher
Uhhh....
Something is missing from this scenario!
Here is the missing something:
HOW DO YOU ALREADY OWN THE HOME? Simple. You signed the promissory note. The BANK used your promissory note to convert into CASH. They used YOUR cash to then pay the seller off. When you walk into the closing, the cash that came from YOU is sent to the seller and you sign a "mortgage" obligating you to pay the bank for 30 years.
The bank did NOT "give" you or anybody any house. It is YOUR house...always has been since you signed the promissory note. Only, the bank NEVER tells you this, do they?
You went to the bank to get a loan. You did NOT get a loan! The bank converted your promissory note (which is legal money) into cash at the Federal Reserve. They gave that same cash (that came from you) to the seller. The bank NEVER owned the house to be in a position to "give" it to you in the first place. The money used to buy the house was YOURS! Not one dime of the bank's money (from depositors or investors) is ever used in mortgage transactions!
Banks are scamming consumers. Consumers go to banks to get loans. Instead, they get scammed. No legitimate loan ever exists because the bank never uses ANY of its own money...they use YOURS! Thus, the bank's money is NEVER at risk. No risk = no "loan"! That is the law. Since banks have NO risk in the transaction, it canNOT be a LEGAL loan. An exchange was made, but the banks never inform the consumer of this. They lie and say it is a "loan", when it isn't. That is FRAUD!
There is a legitimate remedy for this fraud that does NOT involve court action. It is purely administrative and the homeowner is NEVER at any risk of losing their home. The debt is completely, legally, morally and ethically discharged and the deed is reconveyed back to the rightful owner.....YOU. You have ZERO debt against the property when the discharge is complete. You get NO negative entries on your credit report, either. You receive a letter from the bank informing you that the debt has been satisfied and paid in full early.
If I'm lyin' I'm dyin'.....and I ain't!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, David, I want to know why the promissory note too..i.e., if the house is already ours, why the promissory note.
It looks like no one on this forum has the answers. So I guess take my questions elsewhere.
Merry Christmas everyone,
Alisa
Please tell me how to get the house, etc. without going to court. I don't understand this. I don't know how I missed this explanation. I have been religiously reading these posts. Thanks for your help.
Lu Allen |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2004 : 20:39:16
|
Dear Lu Allen;
Be the court.
Regards,
David Merrill
P.S. It is nice to hear from someone who has been reading. I have not really endeavored into the UCC Redemption any more than Verified Statement of Right upon property owned by people who have failed UCC Redemptions.
My objective is always to draft curable remedy. Never to "...get the house, etc." There are many pages I have never read, even in topics I create. But that is generally the message I am hoping you pick up as a common denominator:
Be the court.
P.P.S. I will elaborate in context of the Husband with the seized farm above. The character assassination and mild torture of jail is imposing the illusion that the attorney-in-the-black-robe and Sheriff are "the court". The presumption being made that is "the court" you want to avoid and get "the house, etc."
The papers in the district court are signed true name with a thumbprint instead of notary. This is a man expressing his court. It is only in the district courts of the United States because of the diversity between the characters of the seizing parties and himself.
I have heard nothing more about the seizure. So I will gradually adopt the presumption he agreed not to execute peacable reentry and bailed out against a generous offer from the DA to drop the entire matter. Also, that "generous offer" came from the man adopting the illusion that because he was pulled into a hearing, that was a court (of competent jurisdiction). Not himself.
Be the court. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 22 Jul 2004 10:39:50 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2004 : 15:47:25
|
Dear Lewish,
I was reading 12 USCA 83 yesterday, to see if I could understand
your comment below that loans against the banks' capital stock
included deposits of it's customers. I could not find it, or it
was written in legalese that I did not understand. It is possible
that it is also due to a difference in versions of the USCA. I
did not think to check the USCS. If you could elaborate on this
point, or provide the citation that supported your statement, I
would greatly appreciate it. This point is not crucial to my
case, which is Tuesday Sept. 7th, but it would certainly support it.
Many Thanks In Advance & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
How about taking a look at the United States Code. Reproduced here for your convenience.
"TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 83.
Sec. 83. - Loans by bank on its own stock
(a) General prohibition
No national bank shall make any loan or discount on the security of
the shares of its own capital stock. "
Capital stock in this Code cite includes depositors FRNs deposited with the bank. Expounded upon in USCA TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 83.
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story you're living is the story you're telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2004 : 13:13:57
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
It looks like you answered the question. The banks do not loan out the "money" in the vault. Fractional reserve only demands that there be some fraction of the loan amount in the vault. That reserve is never drawn on for making the loan. See STELLIONATION. The bank basically sells the funds in the vault about 10 times (10% reserves to loan ratio) to collect the usury (interest).
I am not sure what Lewis was saying or the context he meant it but he is very familiar with the Credit River Money Decision and was likely telling you the same thing the code says. The bank cannot loan out its "vault money" because that backs a fraction of the total loans out at any particular time. Fractional reserve banking has been accepted policy but to go below about 10% coverage of the loaned sum is considered dishonest. Yeah I know how it sounds when said in plain English... talk about it with a bank president if you want to make him uncomfortable. You can order up comic books from the Federal Reserve Bank in New York that explain this to children. If you teach, they will send you 30 for each class of students.
The entire loan amount is created off the credit of the legal name/birth certificate. Read the last paragraph on the first page of the authenticated CRMD. (I call the four authenticated pages the "Credit River Money Decision" even though there are a lot more pages.)
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 06 Sep 2004 13:36:31 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2004 : 16:27:42
|
Popesquasher,
Please do your research. Here are some facts for you to finally understand,
instead of go into denial about because of the cognitive dissonance which they
create. If you really understood the facts, you would realize there is no lawful
money involved in the exchange, and that the alleged lender is not fully informed
of all the material elements of the agreement. Some call the latter fraudulent
concealment, maybe that is OK with you. Here are some facts:
quote:
Research by Ishmael Aylwin
My claims are further supported by the Federal Reserve publications,
"Money, Banking and Monetary Policy, " exhibit F, a publication on the
World Wide Web at http://www.dallasfed.org/educate/everyday/ev9.html.
It clearly states on p2, "Banks create money when they lend it." This
is expanded upon in the publication "Two Faces of Debt." This publication
not only states, "It, [debt,] also provides a means of creating entirely
new funds... ," but it goes to explain that a depositor's account is
credited, "in exhchange for [a] note or security." Both of these quotes
are on p19 of the document, and the final page of exhibit F.
"Two Faces of Debt" suggests the reader read "Modern Money Mechanics,"
(see exhibt G,) another Federal Reserve publication for the creation of
money. "Modern Money Mechanics," on p2 clearly states that its purpose is,
"to describe the basic process of money creation in a 'fractional reserve'
banking system." On p3 it explains that checkable liabilities increase
when loans are made to customers." This page also explains that bank notes
are banks promise to pay, and that, "Transaction deposits are the modern
couterpart of bank notes." On p6 it explains that banks, "do not really
pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits." Instead, "What
they do when they make loans is accept promissory notes in exchange for
credits to the borrower's transaction accounts." This clearly states that
the nature of the transaction is actually an exchange of notes, as p3 had
already made it clear that transaction deposits are the modern counterpart
of bank notes, or promises to pay. "Modern Money Mechanics" also shows
how the bookkeepig entries of the bank reveal the truth of the exchange.
The textbook for bankers by the American Bamkers Association, __Money &
Banking__, (see exhibit H,) very clearly explains on p 81 that, "When a
commercial bank makes a loan, it monetizes a private debt. It accepts
as an asset the debt obligation of the borrower -- the borrower's promise
to repay -- and creates a liability on its books in the form of a demand
deposit balance in the amount of the loan." Nowhere in my agreement for
a loan from JP Morgan Chase & Co., formerly Chase Manhattan Bank, was this
material difference in the source of the funds for my alleged loans
disclosed. In the figures demonstrating the bookkeeping entries for
when banks create money on p81-85, __Money & Banking__ clearly shows
that demand deposits also include the liabilities created by accepting
promises to repay for home loans or consumer loans. __Money & Banking__
makes it clear on p96 that consumer loans includes, "credit extended on
bank credit cards."
Federal Reserve banks must follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,
(GAAP.) This is made clear at 12USC1831n(a)(2)(A), "the accounting
principles applicable to reports or statements required to be filed with
Federal banking agencies by all insured depository institutions shall be
uniform and consistent with generally accepted accounting principles."
Two elements of GAAP, are the matching principle, and representational
faithfulness. According to __Wiley GAAP 2003__, (see exhibit I,) p29,
"Matching is the simultaneous recognition of of the revenues and expenses
that result directly and jointly from the same transaction or other event."
In banking this would include the recording of assets and liabilities with
deposits into transaction accounts. On p305 __Wiley GAAP 2003__ clearly
states, "management is to choose principles and apply them in a manner
that results in financial statements that are representationally faithful
to economic substance over form and fully transparent to the user."
Hence, the bookkeeping entries in being representationally faitful to the
substance of the transaction, clearly show that the bank received an asset
in the amount of the loan from the alleged borrower, before "loaning" the
alleged borrower money. Therefore, objectively, any CPA who saw the
bookkeeping entries, without access to the alleged agreement, would conclude
that there was a loan from the alleged borrower to the bank, that preceeded
the alleged loan from the bank to the alleged borrower.
In First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly Justice Martin V.
Mahoney ruled, "That because of failure of a lawful considerationthe Note
and Mortgage ... are null and void." In this case the agreement was the
loan for a house, puchased by Mr. Daley, and the witness for the bank,
admitted that the bank created the money. (See exhibit J. It is worth
reading all four pages.) Finally, exhibit K is an expert witness testimony
from the case of Bank One, NA v. Dave and Dave. The expert was a former
attorney and legal officer for the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and
Cleveland, (p2.) In his testimony he explains how the cost and risk of
loan agreements is changed unbeknownst to most bank loan borrower's.
It explains how the alleged borrowers' promissory note, money of account,
is received as money by the bank, for which the bank returns an equivalent
promise, also money of account, and then expects to be paid again for the
use of its promise in money of exchange, "which creates at least the
inference of inequality of obligations...," (p8 & p9.) It also
makes clear the distinction between the bank lending its own money as they
imply in the loan agreement, and creating money without a customer's
permission, authorization or knowledge. (p9 & p10.)
I am sorry the truth is so hard for your ego to take in. I recommend
you understand the form and nature of your fear to see if you must
really feel threatened by the changes you will go through when you
can allow yourself to comprehend the truth.
Love & Blessings!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story you're living is the story you're telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2004 : 17:41:44
|
Dear Readers;
I am not familiar with the debate between Popesquasher and iammai but that is certainly a respectably placed argument upon verifiable research. If on point, I would say Ishael Aylwin just won the debate without a doubt.
That leads me to a great lesson to be learned about testimony:
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg
Notice the seal in the center of the bottom of the document. That is from Audrey Brown and she sloppily certified that this is a true and correct copy of the (2) documents in her file in County of Clark, Minnesota (Credit River Township is located there). [Normally a clerk would certify each document and Audrey was paid to do just that but did not. Thus I say "sloppy".] The first time I spoke with her getting the exact costs, hers and filing it with my clerk, she expressly said, "I will not file the papers in any other jurisdiction."
But I sent her the filing fee with her certified true and correct copy fees. Along with the stamped envelope to my clerk. It turned out that I was one page short, ok. She would not disclose the number of pages. So I sent the entire filing fee with her fees again and nothing. I have wasted about seventy bucks trying to get Audrey Brown, the original clerk on the CRMD testimony to be the grantor of the testimony filed with my county clerk.
The CRMD you see in the image was requested by a suitor in Oregon. He then mailed it to a suitor in Colorado Springs who filed it at the County Clerk. Albeit the testimony is authentic, Audrey Brown, the original clerk refused to testify directly. Also note that another Denver suitor filed it there being the de facto capital.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. More on human chattel: http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=381&whichpage=4 |
Edited by - David Merrill on 06 Sep 2004 20:11:25 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
|
|
Jaywood216
Occasional Poster
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2004 : 22:36:04
|
Hi All,
It seems that Modern Money Mechanics and Two Faces of Debt are now unavailable from the FED. I tried and got that response. Does anyone know where a fellow could obtain copies? I just imagine that that would be reason enough for the court to throw it out and call it heresay. But a real copy might yet work, no? Any help would be appreciated. Jim |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Credit River Money Decision
