ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 The Common Law
 "saving to suitors" clause of 1789
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 03 Jan 2004 :  15:15:58  Show Profile
True North: another approach, if you choose to forfeit the default judgment in common law, is to open a miscellaneous case jacket in the U.S. Courthouse for around $30. Open it with a current refusal for cause. Then you just maintain an evidence repository. Also, some suitors wish to keep the initial case clean so they open a miscellaneous case jacket after the initial civil suit in Admiralty comes to cure for subsequent refusals.

Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I am looking for an IP "Home Page" buffer to store .JPEG images in. Most of you have these but circumstances have it that I do not. Is somebody willing to let me email you images to post links to? That way I can illustrate points.

Edited by - David Merrill on 03 Jan 2004 17:35:43
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 04 Jan 2004 :  00:59:33  Show Profile
David,

I will have space available in a few days. I will post a URL here so that anyone can download the images.

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 07 Jan 2004 :  18:28:09  Show Profile
Hello All,

I have created a Yahoo group and uploaded all the stuff David has sent me. The group is open to anyone. In the Files folder "David Merrill, is David files and images. In the folder "Lewis" is a copy of a pleading in a case done by my law researcher, in which he involved the "Savings to Suitor" clause. I do not have all of the case file, so that is as much as I could post. This case was in about 1992.

I hope this is helpful to all in the forum.

Here is the link to the yahoo group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SavingstoSuitor/files/


Peace to all,

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 07 Jan 2004 :  21:37:24  Show Profile
A very generous thank you is on order for both of you David and Lewis.

I havn't got the chance to view the jpegs and gifs yet but I intend to spend much time getting the process down in deep where comprehension is.

I don't have a current application (other than property tax relief) but everything I can understand helps to comprehend the whole.

I had someone ask me what items (5 ?) should be included in the verification request as a result of a presentment from a third party. I searched the FDCPA (fair debt collection practices act) but only have suggestions for him. Would either of you have knowledge of what should or should not be included?

Thanks again

TN
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 07 Jan 2004 :  22:07:06  Show Profile

True North;

You are welcome. I do not know any of the process you are speaking of. My counsel is much simpler. If you appear and do not like the presentment, the contract offer, refuse for cause timely. Sometimes it is hard to discern who the presenter is, deciding if the attorney is an agent, things like that. But I have never considered a "third party presenter".


Regards,

David Merrill.
Go to Top of Page

richjordan
Junior Member

USA
23 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2004 :  03:51:23  Show Profile
Dear David:
With others, I have been looking at the saving to suitor clause as a means to justice for about the past 18 months and your familiarity with its use (with apparent success) appears to be a possible answer to my prayers. While I appreciate your mathamatical expertise and the spiritual comments of forum participants, I wish to ask a series of more specific questions regarding the process discussed. Perhaps this will clarify its utility for others as well as myself.

Go to Top of Page

richjordan
Junior Member

USA
23 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2004 :  04:18:24  Show Profile
With respect to Livefree 12/29 note: I could not locate the quote:
"The Court will not pass upon the constitutionalty of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits." Gt Falls Mfg Co. v Atty Gen. 124us581. I did find a very close quote: "...one who accepts the benefit of a statute cannot be heard to question its constitutionality..." Ashwander v Tennessee Valley Authority 466us1936 which refers to Gt.Falls Mfg. Co. v. Atty Gen Id. I mention this to correct the matter & also to point out in the context of a citizens ability to seek a common law remedy appears to be a matter of law based upon where the individual lies with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment. If the individual presents as an incorporated US citizen in full complicity with the "voluntary benefits" offered by US Inc., its difficult to understand how the individual can have it both ways. On the one hand, he's effectively operating as a subsidary corporation within the corporate pecking order, under color of law with revised statutes & revised constitutions & on the other, he's a sovereign American Citizen, operating under the law of statutes at large and organic constitutions. Before a judge or a judge under color of law you, under the doctrine of estoppel lies either as one or the other, but not both.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2004 :  06:51:14  Show Profile
Dear Rich;

That is a very interesting discussion. It is called "benefit of discussion" and by entertaining a police officer with information you have effectively, within the scope of War and Emergency 1933, become arraigned. I do not have a date of birth, Social Security Number, bank account etc. That works for me but I am unique. I have a certificate of search from the district court on "David Merrill" and just show that. In about twenty minutes of trying to get a DOB with idle threats the officer hands it back and mumbles off. There was no arraignment. Further detainment becomes kidnap and a certificate on the VIN offers subsequent grand larceny charges for impound (presumed forfeiture of wreck).

I know where you are coming from with your questions and presumptions. A good source for history is good. Ask around in your local library system for something called "Government Documents", or a federal depository (to me, and hopefully to you that's REpository because it is our stuff there). Get the history correct and your concerns dissipate with the dispelling of illusion. The Fourteenth Amendment for all intents and purposes does not exist. On March 28, 1861 Congress adjourned sine die and never has reconvened de jure. Fact. So the certified true and correct copy of the de jure Thirteenth Amendement published that same year is the last proper draft of the de jure Bill of Rights available (on the De Jure 13th Amendment thread you may order yours). That document is on the back of every counterclaim; read it again carefully. That document alleviates a lot of the dogma that encumbers the thought process, but mostly I see that you are looking for external approval in your application of the 'saving to suitors' clause. That is a fatal mistake.

Quoting Mr. Rarick (S-LA) before the "Congress" in 1967:

"The purported 14th Amendment to the United Sates Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:..."

A cursory history of the Fourteenth Amendment is that the black man, only 3/5 a person could not have the same citizenship as a state Citizen. Therefore the benefits given federal employees were granted instead. "Every citizen of the United States is a federal employee." quoting an IRS agent a decade ago. Read Acts 19-23 and study the dynamics of Paul declaring his municipal (Tarsus, not Cilicia) METRO citizenship in order to launch his religion Christianity as a (passive resistance)weapon in the heart of the enemy, Rome. You are the citizen you claim to be if you have the entitlement by birth or naturalization. But not before declaration. That is why the policeman says, "Everybody has a social security number." until he realizes that he just sounds like a moron. Everybody obviously does not. I am right there, living proof of that. Try and find a date of birth on me. It has to come out of my mouth to be. No man can be compelled to incriminate himself so why make the officer a holder in due course of a Strawman I have not contracted with? That is contracting. I prefer the policeman to just mumble his distaste for me and my ilk and drive away than to subject myself as chattel against the national debt; a voluntary compliance contract.

You are appearing and you are arraigned before my court. We all expect courteous behavior as well as give it. Sure, I get passionate when somebody defends the UCC Redemption, but there is no defense when there are victims lining up. But for what it is worth I regret attacking people here. I get passionate and that is part of the entertainment value of learning here in the forum. When paranoid people defend mental illness by trying to convince me of ludicrous conspiracies, I go off. It is that kind of externalization of responsibility that causes one to stay 'within the box (debtor's prison)' - "Before a judge or a judge under color of law you, under the doctrine of estoppel lies either as one or the other, but not both."

I will move on now. To right of arrest.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SavingtoSuitor/files/; click on "page.JPEG" and "page 2.JPEG"

I have been waiting for graphics because it was right of arrest that stopped the Salem Witchhunts. Click on "page 2.JPEG". Otherwise "page.JPEG" is Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) Arrest Warrant and is the mechanism for effecting arrest. John Snow is currently under indictment for his malfeasant clerks in Portland, Denver and DC not honoring this rule for what it says. They think it is for federal judges, magistrates and attorneys when it clearly says, "plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney...". I think it is ignorance stemming from the clerk's erroneous and false branding the plaintiff pro se.

United States District Court
for the District of Colorado

Order for Arrest Warrants in personam

Pursuant to Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) the recent holding of funds after proper remedial action and default judgment in the district court is ample evidence the district court process is impracticable. Therefore:
“If the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must promptly issue a summons and a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action. The plaintiff has the burden in any post arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.” Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) – Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims.

And it is clear that legal name Respondent and titles JOB TITLE respectively are subject to the stipulation that in rem property seizure may easily extend to arrests in personam:
“Except as otherwise provided by law a party who may proceed in rem may also, or in the alternative, proceed in personam against any person who may be liable.” Same Rule C.

Respondent is agent of the International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service and therefore no exemptions or immunities exist preventing immediate arrest by U.S. Marshal. The United Nations and its organ IMF have never been approved to operate in this land pursuant to Title 22 of the United States Codes but these agents enforce false claims of the IMF. The stipulation quoted below cannot apply (by substituting in personam for in rem) to an agent of a foreign principal:
“Statutory provisions exempting vessels or other property owned or possessed by or operated by or for the United States from arrest or seizure are not affected by this rule.” Same Rule C.

Therefore the clerk of the district court, Gregory Langham must issue arrest warrant for Respondent; Address respectively and tender said warrant to the U.S. Marshal for immediate execution. Regular business hours are the best time for execution of arrest because the above physical address is a workplace.



Petitioner
address
Colorado Springs, Colorado. [zip]

United States District Court
for the District of Colorado

Petitioner civil action in admiralty No.

v.

Respondent


Arrest Warrant in personam


To: United States Marshals Service or its representatives – Greetings:

Pursuant to the Order for Arrest Warrant in personam issued by this Court, you are hereby commanded to arrest and seize Respondent from place of work (during business hours), found at Address respectively and make your return that this person of the defendant is in vinculus and federal custody as provided by law;
To promptly make your return of this Arrest Warrant with the Court; and
To give due written and oral notice to Respondent about right to a post arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims during which Petitioner will be required to show burden why the district court failed to properly protect his property and unalienable rights from false claims, according to law.

Done at Denver, Colorado, this _____ day of _______________, 2003.


Gregory Langham
Clerk of the United States District Court



By: ____________________________
Deputy Clerk

____________________________________________________________


So thanks for keeping this discussion here where others may benefit. I am hoping that some of you are willing to let the Lord handle the risk management and learn from your mistakes. Every day that you deny yourself cured remedy is another day among these 14th Amendment concerns.


Regards,

David Merrill.


Edited by - David Merrill on 08 Jan 2004 11:45:10
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2004 :  10:48:59  Show Profile
[I have posted a new topic, "USA v. CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS".

Here is a great conduit action; using the U.S. Courthouse to access the law of the land through the Article III “admiralty and maritime jurisdiction” clause - the ‘saving to suitors’ clause of 1789. The Verified Statement of Right.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SavingtoSuitor/files/ ; click “Lawful Prosecution.exe”

In March of last year I was faxed the warrant tendered to the U.S. Marshal in Denver within an hour after Ronald Dean rattled it loose from the U.S. Attorney by badgering the bank president. Rumor was there was a turbulent panic in Denver amongst the U.S. attorneys and courthouse. The warrant as you can read was “FILED UNDER SEAL”.

Ron had three trusts in operation and they were all cleaned out by the warrant. The (professional) trustee, John, had about twenty of the trusts he managed cleaned out also. I contacted Ron after seeing the warrant and quickly convinced him to fire John and take possession of the funds with a Verified Statement of Right. John and other trustees effected by the warrant are having some hit-and-miss success getting funds restored their beneficiaries. Ron is a non-501(C)(3) Christian preacher with a following that warranted the IMFIRS generate a $1.5 million alleged debt. Ron was easily convinced his life savings would be absorbed into that alleged and capricious debt if he tried to play trustee John’s way.

A few weeks after filing on April 4, 2003, Ron had trouble with his ATM card. He went into the bank to find every last penny in his account. The card burped because the bank wanted Ron to sign a waiver of indemnity. Ron probably laughed out loud but the lady informing him about this saw how ridiculous it was as she explained, “We stole your money but will not give it back until you promise not to be mad at us.” So the bank wrote letters of apology and made good any and all bad checks Ron had bounce.

Another rumor, because I never verified the intelligence, fit’s the scenario. John Ashcroft was planning to prosecute four “sovereign” trust accounts to which he probably had solid evidence of alter ego tax dodging. A zealot at US Bank decided he or she was doing Ashcroft a favor by pilfering any and all “Patriot” and “sovereign” looking tax shelters. Thus a terrible fiasco that had to be swept under the rug. John has tried to get Ron’s filing and is told the case does not exist.

I have seen the bond principle work for $11 trillion on March 14, 2001.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SavingtoSuitor/files/ ; click “ARIPP.exe”

So expect that the bond has been posted and that the Bretton Woods Agreements will be effectively sunset by April 4, 2006. Vern, Werner Maximilian tells me he hears Internet murmurs that this is already going down.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. ARIPP was authored prior to Lawful Prosecution. The end of ARIPP has the warrant in Lawful Prosecution.

Edited by - David Merrill on 08 Jan 2004 17:45:21
Go to Top of Page

DanielJacob
Advanced Member

USA
138 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2004 :  17:47:12  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage
Greetings David,

Having read with interest your posts on Credit River and Saving to Suitors I think I am beginning to get my mind around this thing. Sometimes old dogs are hard to change. Correct my thinking if I am wrong, but it would appear that this 'Saving to Suitors' process will open the door to the Suits at Law; Detinue, Replevin, Trespass, etc., Yes? Thank you for your labors.

May our Lord and Saviour bless you richly...
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2004 :  19:38:26  Show Profile
Yes! "...where the common law is competent to give it..."

These writs are alive but not in banking practice. For instance under the War and Emergency doctine of 1933 a silently declared "theater of war" can suspend habeas corpus.

The concepts are idealistic and highly theoretical. However when based in truth these things can become practicable. It really is no surprise how well this works.

You, the court of competent jurisdiction, should publish your rulings, opinions and judgments on the county level with the county clerk. The parish and township are still fairly popular in the eastern United States but for the most part conform with METRO uniformity (standardized home rule). So remember "competence" is "confidence". Do what you know is right regardless of how popular.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. I filed the Writ of Return on Robert E. Rubin's indictment at about 11 AM on May 12, 1999. He announced his resignation by the five o'clock news. You can order the document (719)520-6200 at reception number 99075970.

Edited by - David Merrill on 08 Jan 2004 22:09:31
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2004 :  22:21:51  Show Profile


There you have it folks. I see no sense getting back on the subject of paranoia.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2004 :  22:24:42  Show Profile

I was a victim of your paranoid anti-government movement Livefree. That was the last jab I will be reading.

Edited by - David Merrill on 08 Jan 2004 23:19:57
Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2004 :  21:50:01  Show Profile
Greetings to the Elect.
Since We have read Livefree's words lately, that include the words of advise concerning DRIVE and LUCK, to believers looking for guidance, let Us all move on.
Zion is a place of Being. My pilgrim forefathers came to America, looking for a place free of POPE's and LEGAL KINGS.
It is impossible to get rid of the Landmarks, and for those who try, you have already been warned. David Merrill is doing nothing other than Being a restorer of the Breach. Very prophetic, in fact.
Just because one may not see the Landmarks, does not mean that the Landmarks do not exist! Thorns-brambles and Bush-es keep things hidden. Oh yes, paranoia is a dis-ease. Isaiah 33:22. Those who doubt...livefree in doubt. The Government shall be upon His shoulder. {but ya gotta stick your neck out to receive it}. Paul the seer-prophet, hand picked by Yahushuah Himself, humbled his-self, to receive the revelation that the Son was also in him. Pronouns confuse many. If I am to read the last passover message correctly { John 13-17} He is We, that We might all be echad. How many One's does it take? 153.
I am Robert, your friend, companion in travail, fellow soujourner, and................
Go to Top of Page

DanielJacob
Advanced Member

USA
138 Posts

Posted - 11 Jan 2004 :  21:29:56  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage
Greetings Da'vid,

Once again I have re-read your postings trying to assimilate the information contained therein. As I read the info it became more and more familiar to me, then I realized that you are using Randy's abatement process and service methods with the addition of establishing a evidentiary Repository at the district court. The copies of instructions to the clerk mailed with the refusals act as substantive support of your intent to defend your un-alien-able rights. True? Your statement about the fluff now seems most apropos. Now that I consider it, why go through all the gyrations of trying to educate the dead with verbose lines of scripture to make a simple point of refusing their presentments for just cause. Excellent!

Please continue with your input.

God bless…
Go to Top of Page

n/a
deleted

1 Posts

Posted - 12 Jan 2004 :  08:39:16  Show Profile
Greetings all. I discovered this forum a few days ago, and for the most part I am very impressed with the information that is being made available. I'm glad I found my way here.

I've read about many of the different 'paytriot' approaches to law with reservations over the years. Virtually everyone of them have always just seemed to not be quite right to me. (Lately I have been seriously researching the whole ucc redemption issue.) People seem to just get put into the whole banking law debtors box and then dilligently struggle to fight their way out of it using the laws of the bankers. That strategy never really made sense to me. Those laws are ever changing, definitely not that kind of law that God makes. I simply want to be able to do what I do and live my life simply, not be bound by some enormous contractual obligation that requires a team of lawyers to figure out and puts me in harms way when there is no Real injured party.

Not to get off the topic. One of the main reasons I joined was I wanted to let David Merrill know that I really appreciated his contributions the last few days. This is the first I have heard of Law being applied this way (I especially like the way he puts things), and about the first application of law that makes sense to me (well to a degree - I'll have to reread it a few times!). This isn't to detract from any of the other contributors on the forum. I really appreciate many of the posts made here. I would certainly like to see the injustices that many here have suffered because of the current legal system come to an end. Hopefully with proper applicaton and understanding positive changes can be made. It feels like it is very important at this point in time to come for all to come to a full understanding of the Law. It is time for the people to wake up and take our place as stewards of the land, of this earth, seriously.

David - You spoke of not having a ssn and bank account as well as a few other things. I would really enjoy hearing more about that.

David's posts brings up a few questions that I have had for a while now: What steps does one have to take to cease being considered a 14th amendment citizen in the eyes of the court? Expatriation? UCC 1?

What sort of tools can one use to perform simple functions in society like cashing a check, or renting a place to live? It is getting harder and harder to simply exist without a number these days.

What steps does one need to do to step away from the 'strawman', if any?

Is it necessary to rescind ssn, or signatures made on prior forms?

Thanks again for all the information provided by those on this forum.

Matthew
Go to Top of Page

Jaywood216
Occasional Poster

USA
13 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2004 :  00:08:20  Show Profile
David, thanks for all your expertise. Could you explain in a little more detail what was in that memo that Jim drafted?
Go to Top of Page

DanielJacob
Advanced Member

USA
138 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2004 :  01:16:28  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage
David's last post was nearly a week ago. I was hoping to get a little more clarity on a few points but it appears that he has stopped posting here.

Peace brothers...
Go to Top of Page

richjordan
Junior Member

USA
23 Posts

Posted - 18 Jan 2004 :  11:15:46  Show Profile
Respondent, acting as "City METRO officer – TITLE HERE" city of Washington, District of Columbia is agent of a foreign principal, a "foreign state" defined at Title 28 of the United States Codes §1603, and Title 22 U.S.C. §611 the Division of enforcement for the Department of revenue (for example C.R.S. §24-1-117 [Colorado]) under principal State Governor in convention with METRO organization a.k.a. Public Administrative Services Headquarters (PASHQ - signed for example by Edwin C. Johnson by John T. Bartlett; The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, The Year of Crisis 1933 Random House p. 21.) The Department of Revenue of course being the execution of bankruptcy proceedings against the citizens of the United States since 1933 currently formed "International Monetary Fund" and "World Bank" etc. - the State, City METRO municipal and police powers under United Nations charter law - protected by the same alleged positive law jural society (international treaty)
Dear David:
I just reviewed Title 22USCASec.611 and it does not define "foreign state"
It pertiently defines in subsection (e)The term"government of a foreign country" includes any person or group of persons exercising sovereign de facto or dejure political jurisdiction over any country, other than the United States, or over any part of such country, and includes any subdivision of any such group and any group or agency to which such sovereign de facto or dejure authority or functions are directly or indirectly delegated. Such term shall include any faction or body of insurgents within a country assuming to exercise governmental authority whether such faction or body of insurgents has or has not been recognized by the United States;

Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 18 Jan 2004 :  12:19:05  Show Profile
Hi Rich,

May I pose a question here about what 22USC 611 may be saying. Is it referring to the united States, or to the United States? The united States being the true government of this land, and the United States being the D.C. Corporation now running the current police state.

Just a thought. I think it is referring to the united States.

Lewis
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © 2003-2020 Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.16 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000