| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 05 May 2004 : 22:23:26
|
David said: At least for now, I have no DOB, bank account, SSN etc.
Steve: David or anybody can answer this one. Would it matter if the suitor did have any of the above or would they be proof that the suitor is incompetent? I hear so many conflicting views on this issue. |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 06 May 2004 : 12:42:28
|
Depends on who you are trying to please (hand jurisdiction).
I am in charge of what I have or do not have. That is property rights. But the manager at Social Security told me this is how you get rid of the SSN. They will not do it. You just quit saying it and writing it down, and it's gone.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 06 May 2004 : 15:31:44
|
Hi David,
It would seem that to stop saying and writing the SS# would not be enough. Must not one discontinue any previous arrangements that has a SS# attached? (I.e. - Power contract, bank account, phone, Driver's License, etc). Some say these things are not the issue yet others (many on this list) say that having and using any of these contracts is proof that one is using a SS#. Two different views.
What do you think?
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 - 07 May 2004 : 11:58:03
|
No.
This is the same paradigm shift Moshe experienced. Remember the first time he came off the mountain, he destroyed the remedy? But then he underwent the transformation and understood the remedy was for the Golden Calf imagery. So after a certain maturity, he was able to administer the remedy (accompanied by an additional 613 MITZVOTH lesser laws).
So look to the future and address any assumptions in regards to the Social Security contract as innovations (formerly "novations"). If you do not like the innovation, refuse for cause timely and properly. Put a copy in your evidence repository before the United States.
Recently a licensing board tried telling a woman she had to get a SSN to renew her license. This was an innovation. She refused the proposed novation for cause timely. Having a SSN in no way effects her professional performance anyway.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 07 May 2004 : 18:50:38
|
David,
Thank you for a very clear and concise explaination. I understand where you are coming from now.
Shabbat Shalom,
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 - 07 May 2004 : 19:24:57
|
You are quite welcome;
Another example is that if one invests into Social Security for 40 quarters, they become entitled to benefits at age 65. Sometimes somebody will show this to an employer and stop paying in. But that is rare because the mentality today equates SS with IRS.
So I mentioned to somebody that if Social Security is still around and then I turn 65, since I have invested the 40 quarters I can pull out my SSN and receive bennies on the contract. They said that Congress was upping that 40 quarters; or already had. I don't remember because it is irrelevant:
6. "A cardinal principle, in which the practice of admiralty courts differs from that of courts of common law, permits the parties to a suit to prosecute and defend upon their rights as such rights exist at the institution of the action; the assignment of a right of action being deemed to vest in the assignee all the privileges and remedies possessed by the assignor."
So the new quota of investment quarters does not effect my contract with SSN.
But one might argue that if I will have a SSN in the future, that I have it now. Not according to the Social Security Administration. Anyway, since I have no card, if I do not say or write the number down, I simply do not have one. Period.
Now the provision in the statutory system provides for lawful conduct. From the Colorado Revised Statutes:
"(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), on and after October 1, 2000, an application for a driver's or minor driver's license shall include the applicant's social security number, which shall remain confidential and shall not be placed on the applicant's driver's or minor driver's license unless such applicant has waived such confidentiality; except that such confidentiality shall not extend to the state child support enforcement agency, the department, or a court of competent jurisdiction when requesting information in the course of activities authorized under article 13 of title 26, C.R.S.,or article 14 of title 14, C.R.S. If the applicant does not have a social security number, the applicant shall submit a sworn statement, together with the application, stating that the applicant does not have a social security number. The license issued as a result of said application may, at the applicant's option, contain an identification number, which shall be the applicant's social security number."
What may or may not be inferred however is that one gives up the right to have a SSN in the future by swearing not to have one today. This involves the action of submission by swearing. Remember Yehoshuah said that there was one innovation to the Torah - Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12. So this might effect one's rights if the sworn affidavit subjects to "penalties of perjury" etc. But overall, common law accessed through admiralty, if I do not have a SSN today and say so, that is the truth.
So I can still call up the Administration for the contract obligations due to my former 40 quarters per the contract.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 23:19:19
|
Greetings,
it seem's David Merrill can not understand the difference between DAVID MERRILL v, David Merrill. David has no 40 quarter benefit's, DAVID MERRILL does.
Ah, a double minded man is unstable in all his way's.
A double minded man...is unstable in all HIS way's.
In, or out, is the question.
The answer being...who Am I?
David Merrill has No fourty quarter's. DAVID MERRILL does.
Can The YHWH set a table...in the wilderness?
Me says, "yes".
I pray that the Children of Israel, read, and understand.
The Book was written unto the Children. Dog's and whoremonger's stand without.Oh yeh, and all liar's...you who twist the Word, your "faith" be it unto you.
And on the Third Day... |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 23:44:26
|
The "DAVID MERRILL [FAMILY NAME]" is mine. The nurse gave it to me when she inked my little feet.
You failed to sign, "Robert-James".
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Albeit the extant nervous system is effective reverb (ecko), I will not be spending any time on religious delirium and fanaticism.
The framework is best expressed in a bill of exchange in the District of Columbia that failed. But it is noteworthy that the bill was against State of Oklahoma for $900t and Social Security for another $900t. Rules of admiralty Rule E(5) state that a bond must be for twice the claim. So 2 X $1.8q = $3.6q. Try as he did, the signor could not compete with the true bill which cured September 11, 2001. But I could not help noting that for 6b people about 9/10 are under coherent Social Security systems. So that is 5.4b people. $3.6q/5.4b = $666,666.67 per person. So we have the number of a man uncovered also by the Strawman researchers.
All based on the presumption that you consider the SSN the number of the beast and therefore are attacking me. I must admit that I cannot make out what you are saying really. Have you tried editing your comments before broadcasting? Are you at the keyboard drunk?
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 09 May 2004 08:29:43 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 09:14:00
|
Introducing a perfect example of double-mindedness. Notice the accuser who casts his little pebbles is actually doing himself the very thing he trys to (falsely) accuse somebody else of doing:
On Jan 09 2004 9:50:01 PM Robert-James said: David Merrill is doing nothing other than Being a restorer of the Breach. Very prophetic, in fact.
But on May 08 2004 Robert-James said: it seem's David Merrill can not understand the difference between DAVID MERRILL v, David Merrill. David has no 40 quarter benefit's, DAVID MERRILL does.
Ah, a double minded man is unstable in all his way's. A double minded man...is unstable in all HIS way's.
As it is with self appointed 'priests' with self-proclaimed 'unadultrated walks', they are usually doing themselves the very thing they accuse other's of doing. Robert-James don't you think it might be a little too soon for you to be giving council on double-mindedness given your own statements above?
BatKol |
Edited by - BatKol on 09 May 2004 09:55:27 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 13:22:05
|
[Loy Robert posted a very coherent Reply on the "Circular Reasoning" forum. I replied but state that I wish he would import a copy of his letter here.]
I came back by to say that I do not intend to insult Paul in people's minds. That the historical account speaks for itself, that going into Jerusalem was disobedient.
It is a delight to find such a coherent treatise by Loy Robert. I wish you would export it to the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 forum. I was getting attacked there about SSN contracts and had just about given up getting that thread back to useful to readers.
About the UCC Redemptionists, when they come to me for remedy I tell them that you cannot possibly "accept" a contract for its terms and at the same time "refuse" it. Above you approach this issue:
"It is true that the courts assume a lot concerning jurisdiction, but often our own presumptions have us hung before Caesar’s court can fashion its noose. The courts automatically assume that we are bound, by legal contracts, to their colorable jurisdiction. Most people have no idea that any such contract, or the presumption thereof, even exists. However, there are a few of us who at least know that the “presumption” of a contract(s) exists as a pretense of a court’s assumption of jurisdiction. Understanding the construction of these “implied” contracts is the key to navigating around the assumption of jurisdiction; unfortunately, I have found that the opinions on how to revoke, rebut, and/or void these implied contracts are as numerous as the sands of the sea."
In international law, the mailbox has replaced the district courts of the United States as a forum to file. Think about it, if every issue about debt currency of international banking cartels had to go through the district courthouse, the courthouse would be about the exact same size as the Postal Service.
Refusal for cause is the answer. You have a good grasp on the cause, that the courts of the United States are not party in interest. And also all the assumpsit on debt actions. One has to bring forth the diversity of citizenship by simply avoiding the suits at the mailbox.
Anyway, such coherence is rare. I wish you would export a copy to the other forum. I think you will make sense of the counterclaim (now I call it "Libel of Review (common law counterclaim in admiralty)") at the top of page 4, as I recall.
Your reference to the "evil root" being the Khazarian Elite through its military arm Templars etc. is a bit too western for my agreement. The prophecy of Jacob/Israel had to be fulfilled somehow (Genesis 49:10) and the attitude that the actions are done by others is in my opinion irresponsible. Externalizing "them" hobbles the inherent sovereignty needed to effectively refuse for cause and nip the nuisance suits in the bud at the mailbox. That is experience with over 100 suitors speaking. The attitude comes from a personification of evil (demons, Satan etc.) and this originates in a fantastic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-8 where angels supposedly propogate with human women.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 13:43:45
|
Dear Readers;
I was a friend of James Harlan and we spent a lot of time in his office pondering the machinations of this Libel of Review. Lewis was able to recover the memorandum of law below and also has found the source information, what I recall "The Lamb to the Slaughter" to be a chapter within a book titled, "Are You Lost at "C"?" Jim and I would ponder his frustration about recourse. Remedy was obviously available in common law but everything pointed to the State for recourse. The States followed the United States into the bankruptcy so there was no competence to be found there. So the Libel of Review eventually mutated into the Counterclaim at the top of page 4 herein this forum. So please use a little imagination to restore the format to court presentable.]
James H. Ayres
2016 Condor
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909
Pro se
___________________________________________________________________
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
_________________________________________________________________ )
JAMES H. AYRES )
) Admiralty Case #
)
Petitioner/Claimant, )
) IN ADMIRALTY
) IN RE
VS. ) LIBEL OF REVIEW
) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
) ANSWER OF JAMES H. AYRES
) AND CROSS COMPLAINT
AGENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ) OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
MONETARY FUND INTERNAL REVENUE ) AND PEONAGE. SERVICE;AND THEIR PRINCIPAL )
GOVERNOR OF THE FUND )
) IN RE.,
) ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO
) PROPERTY OF JAMES H. AYRES
) ESTATE AND TRUST
)
Real Party in Interest/ ) Judge:
Respondents/Libelants. )
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM
1. The District Court of the United States is the proper venue and has jurisdiction to hear this libel of review. This is a proceeding in ADMIRALTY, NOT CIVIL OR OTHER TYPE OF ACTION.
"In this country, revenue causes had so long been the subject of admiralty cognizance, that congress considered them as CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION, and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the clause, 'including,' etc. This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used in the sense they bore in this country and not in that which they had in England. The Act gives exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the district court. As a court of the law of nations, .....
THE HUNTRESS, 12 Fed.Case 984 @ 992 & 989, (Case No. 6,914) (D.Me. 1840):
2. As further evidence that the action before the court is in fact an Admiralty action we find in UNITED STATES of America v. $3,976.62 in currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon Serial No. OC66W145329,
"Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as Proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedures control.
3. The Petitioner/Claimant (herein refered to as Claimant) refers
the court to 1 Benedict [6th Edition] § 17, p. 28: which reads in pertinent part: "As no court other than a court of admiralty can enforce maritime liens, no other court can displace, discharge or subordinate them. Neither the State courts nor the United States courts on their common law, equity and bankruptcy sides can divest, transfer to proceeds or adjudicate the maritime liens unless the maritime lienor voluntarily submit themselves to the jurisdiction.” Emphasis added.
4. Pursuant to 28 USC § 2463 "All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States...... shall be deemed in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof."
Emphasis added. Had the United States been a party to the original action, the United States would have observe the law and notified the court of the libel action, at the very least.
See 26 U.S.C. 7401. However since the United States did not commence the action against this Claimant as demonstrated by this courts own record (see Certificate of Search Exhibit D), Claimants’ position is dispositive. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) rule 4( i) the court would lack in personam jurisdiction over this Claimant (defendant in the original) for failure of service and could not render judgement. But a foreign power hiding under a grant of judicial immunity would not refrain from violating Constitutional safeguards as long as it felt it was safe to do so.
5. As a further indication that the issue before the court is a matter of admiralty, Petitioners refer the court again to "Benedict's Admiralty, " 7th ed., Vol. 2 Chapter IV § 51 footnote 7. "....[I]t is now generally held that government tax claims under 26 U.S.C. § 6321 'upon all property and rights of property whether real or personal' rank below all other maritime liens..."
6. "A cardinal principle, in which the practice of admiralty courts differs from that of courts of common law, permits the parties to a suit to prosecute and defend upon their rights as such rights exist at the institution of the action; the assignment of a right of action being deemed to vest in the assignee all the privileges and remedies possessed by the assignor. According to the rule of the common law, the injured party alone is permitted to sue for a trespass, the damages being deemed not legally assignable; and if there be an equitable claimant, he may sue only in the name of the injured party. In admiralty, however, the common practice is to have the suit conducted in the names of the real parties IN INTEREST." 1 R.C.L. § 33, pg. 424 (1914); "...and when a statute of the United States so provides, an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought in the name of the United States." F.R.Civ.P. 17 The district courts are prohibited from granting venue where the United States has less than "one-half of its capital stock...." of the Respondents/Libelants Principal, the Fund and Bank. 28 U.S.C. § 1349; The government by becoming a corporator, (See: 22 U.S.C.A, 286e) lays down its sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen 28 USC § 3002(15)(A)-(C). It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter. (See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; U.S. vs BURR, 309 U.S. 242).
7. The REAL PARTY IN INTEREST is not the de jure "United States of America" or "State," but "The Bank" and "The Fund." (22 U.S.C.A. 286, et seq.). The acts committed under fraud, force and seizures are many times done under "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" i.e., "recapture." (See 31 U.S.C.A. 5323). such principles as "Fraud and Justice never dwell together", Wingate's Maxims 680, and "A right of action cannot arise out of fraud." Broom's Maxims 297, 729. The IMF, the real party in interest, has waived its immunity in this instant action by the act of taking with out just cause. See United States Constitution 5th Amendment and Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter and Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal(crimes against the peace). The taking of property without just cause exceeds the Executive grant of immunity pursuant to Executive Order # 9751, executed on the 11 day of July 1946 and the Bretton Woods Agreements Act of July 1945. Although, the United States turned over some of its debt collection activity to the IMF the Constitution of the United States remains the Supreme Law of the land even though the agents for the IMF may come in the name of the United States. The IMF is not the United States.
8. "According to international law it has long been established that, although a person who claims to be the owner of a ship is bound by the character fastened upon her by the flag, under which he has chosen to let her pass, captors are not affected by the flag, but are entitled to go behind it, and to show the true character of the ship by reference to the substantial interest in it, the effective control over it, and the real proprietorship of it." Prize Law During the World War, James Wilford Garner, MacMillian Co., (1927) § 284 pgs. 378, 379, quote of Sir Samuel in the "Kankakee, Hoching and Genesee," British Prize Court 1918. See 2 Benedict [6th Edition] § 400, pgs. 92 & 93. 254 U.S. 671 @ P. 689 Admiralty Rules of Practice - Claim-How Verified-Rule 25.
9. This court lacks jurisdiction over the Claimant who is appearing specially and not generally. Although in most courts special appearance has been abolished and in this instant case since the issue before the court is admiralty the Claimant points out: "While the modern version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (h) (1) has abolished the distinction between general and special appearances for virtually all suits brought under those rules the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims has preserved two forms of restricted appearance..... Rule E(5)(a)...and Rule E(8)...The rule was fashioned in order to avoid subjecting an in rem party [James H. Ayres ] to the jurisdiction of the court with reference to other claims for which 'such process is not available or has not been served....' ......"U.S. v. Republic Marine, Inc., 829 F.2d. 1399 @ p. 1402., FRCP Rule 4( i).
10. Claimant draws attention to 2 Benedict [6th Edition] § 275, pg. 119, 120: "But where a party discovers that ...he has had no proper notice... and has thereby been deprived of property; or where there has been fraud of any kind...so that no regular remedy is left him, he may obtain redress by filing a libel of review. The subsequent proceedings will be the same as in any suit and the decree of the court will be such as equity demands. There is no corresponding provision in the Civil Rules." Emphasis added.
11. The Claimant prays the indulgence of the court in reviewing 26 USC § 7323 JUDICIAL ACTION TO ENFORCE FORFEITURE. § 7323(a) reads: Nature and Venue. - The proceedings to enforce such forfeitures shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem in the United States District Court for the district where such seizure is made. See Claimant Exhibit D. No action was brought against James H. Ayres in the District Court of the United States. This position is dispositive.
12. The Claimant again directs the attention of the court to 26 USC § 7401 - AUTHORIZATION --No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the Secretary authorizes or sanctions the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced. A review of the record maintained by the Attorney General failed to show any authorization. It is noted that any action brought at this time would be an attempt to conceal the truth from the court and be in fact a construction on the record. See 18 U.S.C. 201 in as much as the public record, this court, and this Claimants are witness to the facts in a Federal action.
13. As a matter of public record contained in the GAO audit of 1993 the Internal Revenue Service falsifies documents routinely in order to meet its goals. See pg. 5 of audit results.
14. Since the statutes themselves declare that seizures and forfeitures are admiralty operations, the property is held by the law and cannot be conveyed unless by court order. 28 U.S.C.2463 covers all Revenue Laws of the United States and at the direction of Congress places such under the supervision of the Court. A question arises based upon the actions of the Respondents/Libelants. Evidently no court of competent jurisdiction has been notified, served or engaged in any fashion or manor. Again see Claimants Exhibit D. This is a clear violation/failure of due process circumventing the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America (taking without just compensation). FRCP Rule 4( i)
15. Through the testimony of witnesses, evidence at hand and to be discovered, evidence of a systematic scheme or enterprise is visible which are predicated acts under R.I.C.O. statutes 18 USC § 1961 et. seq. to wit: three or more parties engaged in an unlawful activity to deprive American citizens of their property without just compensation or due process of law over an extended period of time pursuant to 18 USC §§ 2, 3, 4, and 241.
16. Under 26 USC § 6902(a) burden of proof. "....burden of proof shall be upon the secretary to show that the Claimant [James H. Ayres] is libel as a transferee [or back up withholding agent of tax payer] of property of tax payer, but not show that the tax payer [United States] was libel for the tax. Emphasis added. NOTE: Claimant is not claiming any rights to tax court implied or otherwise.
17. In the above statement the court will note that the term United States was inserted after tax payer. The association between the International Monetary Fund and it's contractual member the United States (for definition see 28 USC § 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C)) present a fortior which demands an examination of the contractual arrangement/agreement that in any way hold the Claimant responsible as co-signor to such instrument. This simply precludes the cavalier use of the term tax payer and demands a narrow interpretation of same. The term tax payer for the purposes of this document is not those associated with the common English language. Very simply put, the term tax payer does not apply to Mr. Ayres in this instant action but refers to the United States in it's corporate capacity in all instances. Pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code monies collected by the IRS are to be deposited into the Treasury of the United States daily, however no record of the deposit of “income taxes” was discovered by the Government Accounting Office. See GAO audit supra. At Sec. 6 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act of 1945, the United States has allowed the deposit of funds collected by the IRS in the service of the IMF to be deposited to any (private) Federal Reserve Bank. It can be noted on the back of the checks deposited to the Bank the following:
PAY ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AGAINST US OBLIGATIONS.
18. No indication of any bond or surety has been made by the International Monetary Fund or it's agents. As a matter of fact, no action has been filed before any court of competent jurisdiction. See Exhibit D. The Attorney General (A.G.) for the United States as indicated in the documents before this court is unaware of any action civil, criminal or otherwise, pending pursuant to 26 USC § 7401. See Exhibit D. A possibility exists that property may be concealed, converted or destroyed to preclude the intervention of this Honorable Court. In such instances the prohibitions contained in 26 USC § 7421 do not apply. It was not the intention of Congress to circumvent the safe guards contained in the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution for the United States of America and therefore, enacted 5 USC § 706 for the purposes of review of administrative agencies. Pursuant to the United States Attorney's Manual (USAM) § 6-5.330 INJUNCTION ACTIONS: Section 7421(a), provides, generally that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment of any tax shall be maintained by any person in any court, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed. In light of 26 U.S.C. § 7421, injunctive relief may be had only upon satisfaction of the twofold test laid down in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1 (1962).
19. It is interesting to note that the term BY ANY PERSON IN
ANY COURT is used in the above cite. The law is dispositive in directing that, "ALL Property taken or detained UNDER ANY REVENUE LAW of the United States ... shall be deemed in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof." Emphasis added. Since no court order issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction is evident a question is raised, who receives the property and where did the money go that was in the custody of the law? See 28 USC § 2463. Did the governor of the International Monitary Fund or any of his agents post a bond (28 USC § 2464) in order to protect the interest of the United States of America? Is it reasonable to assume that this court is barred by the Anti-injunction Act 26 USC § 7421 in protecting the property that is placed in it's custody by the agents of the International Monetary Fund pursuant to the revenue laws of the corporate United States? This Claimant thinks not. In simple words, the much over used Section 26 USC 7421 is inappropriate as generally applied by the Internal Revenue Service.
This is not a tax being deposited to the Treasury but part of the obligations to the Fund to defer the quota imposed by the IMF on the United States by agreement. Injunction against this type of transfer of property taken without just cause is proper and falls outside the prohibition pursuant to IRC 7421.
20. Upon review of the Unification Act of 1964 and interesting comment was made which bares light on this instant case. This following is not a direct quotation but is simply paraphrased:
Most attorneys and for that matter most courts are singularly lacking expertise in Admiralty/Maritime Law.
Judicial Canon #1 is extremely important. Due diligence and a complete review of the merits of the case are necessary in the interest of justice. These Pro se litigant is not knowledgeable in the law and relys upon the discretion of the court to apply justice fairly and evenly pursuant to 28 USC § 471, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- Rule 81 and rights and safe guards paid for in the highest premium, the blood of patriots, for the people of the United States of America and their posterity.
Respectfully,
________________________________________
James H. Ayres Pro se
On _____ day of _____________ 1995 in the State of ______________
in the county of _______________________________;
___________________________________ did appear before me with
sufficient identification and signed in my presence the above
document.
___________________________________
Notary
seal
______________________________
My commission expires
|
|
|
|
loybost
Regular Member
USA
29 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 21:16:58
|
At the request of David Merrill I am placing a copy of this post from another thread, on circular reasoning, to this thread. I hope that it will give newcomers to this forum a fairly simplistic overview of the legal mechanics of our present legal system. The Valkenburg v. Brown link below will have to be typed in manually. For some reason I couldn't insert a complete working hyperlink for it.
Greetings All,
Hello Brother Robert; here I am. I apologize that I haven’t been posting many responses as of late; between school and work I’m tying up about 90 hrs. a week of my time. Home work (from school) and maintaining a home seems to soak up the rest of my time. I do read the various forum threads as much as possible, but it is a rare occasion that I have the time available to respond intelligently. This post is somewhat inconsistent with the present direction of this thread; however, I think that you will find it on topic as far as circular reasoning and presumption is concerned.
It is true that the courts assume a lot concerning jurisdiction, but often our own presumptions have us hung before Caesar’s court can fashion its noose. The courts automatically assume that we are bound, by legal contracts, to their colorable jurisdiction. Most people have no idea that any such contract, or the presumption thereof, even exists. However, there are a few of us who at least know that the “presumption” of a contract(s) exists as a pretense of a court’s assumption of jurisdiction. Understanding the construction of these “implied” contracts is the key to navigating around the assumption of jurisdiction; unfortunately, I have found that the opinions on how to revoke, rebut, and/or void these implied contracts are as numerous as the sands of the sea.
Most of the “BUY YOUR FREEDOM HERE” merchants prefer using the Uniform Commercial Code to rebut the implied contracts under International law. Many of these tactics are moderately successful, but all seem to fall short of the promised “REDEMPTION” that many of them offer. Their “GET OUT OF HELL FREE” information packets are generally quite expensive as well. Been there, done that….in spades. I believe that the reason these tactics eventually fail, from the standpoint of legal mechanics, is that most of the people who realize the existence of these implied contracts presume that there is more validity to the essence of the contracts presumed than the supposed contracts deserve. The only way to rebut a contract is to destroy it from its inception. In order to dissolve a contract, other than by mutual consent, one must find a flaw in its essence. It is also important to understand that implied contracts are stacked one upon another. The assumption of one contract, by you or I, supports the presumed foundation for subsequent contracts by the courts. If one does not rebut the original contract, the foundation of the legalistic pyramid, then his chance for success over their courts is greatly diminished. If one can kill the root, the plant will die.
This evil root that these implied contracts sprouted from isn’t too difficult to trace. The seed to this evil root was awakened in this Country with Lincoln’s Civil (law) War. Contrary to popular belief, this war had nothing to do with abolishing slavery; all but one or two states had abolished slavery and amended their state Constitutions prior to the war; the others were likely being amended when war broke out. I believe that there were two major reasons that caused the Civil (law) war. First, the original Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution had been lawfully ratified. This amendment forbid anyone who retained a title of nobility from holding public office or even being a citizen of the United States. This amendment would have forced the esquire attorneys to renounce their ties to the (Templar) Bar Association or lose their citizenship; it drew the line in the sand for the legalists who had invaded our government, and let’s not forget that Lincoln was a lawyer; his job was on the line. Miraculously, the original Thirteenth Amendment disappeared immediately after the war, and the hull of the evil seed was cracked. Secondly, the legalists in this Civil (law) War needed to “create” a second class citizenry for them to rule over. The united, free state republics made this impossible, for upon them were the sovereign people. The present Fourteenth Amendment accomplished the goal of creating a second class citizenry, though its scope was quite limited at its inception. This second class citizenry was extended only to the newly freed slaves, descendants of slaves, and first generation immigrants. Remember the four to one vote that the black men had after the war? The seed had begun to sprout.
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/The_Crown_Temple.htm
The white male populous was still considered to have unalienable Rights granted by YHWH (God) and protected by the Constitution, while newly freed slaves, their offspring, and first generation immigrants were considered to have civil rights granted as privileges that resembled the unalienable Rights of the white men. The white men still had recourse and remedy to the common law, whereas the Fourteenth Amendment citizenry only had recourse and remedy through the civil law as the voluntary property of the federal government. (see Supreme Court case Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 1872) http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/VanValkenburgVBrown-43Cal43.htm
This sprout rooted deeply into our free republic in 1933 when the federal government went bankrupt. Through the new deal congress that F.D. Roosevelt instigated, the labor, the gold, and the property of the American People was hypothecated to the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank as collateral for the national debt. We the People were “given the option” of being a second class citizen equal to that of the ex-slaves, our gold backed currency was no more, and the law was changed to accommodate the fiat currency. This was the beginning of the legalistic thicket that has snared the American People. By late 1937 the dejure Common law courts were, essentially, no more; they were replaced by defacto civil corporate courts. These are equity courts enforced through admiralty; they abrogate the Common Law through adhesion (implied) contract(s). Understanding why this legal change had to take place is the key to effectively nullifying the alleged contracts that keep us under the green thumb of civil law.
The Common Law is based on value. For example, If I do a certain amount of work for you, and you pay for my labor with gold then the gold represents the intrinsic value of my labor in that instance. If I use that gold to but buy a house then the house would represent the value of my labor. If you intentionally burned down my house then you would be liable under the Common Law to compensate me for the full intrinsic value of my house. With the Federal Reserve Notes in circulation today this scenario changes drastically. If I do a certain amount of work for you, and you write on a piece of paper “500,000 DOLLARS” and hand me this slip of paper instead of payment for my labor then that slip of paper is still worthless, and it does not represent the intrinsic value of my labor. If I take that slip of paper and coerce someone into letting me trade it for a house then that house does not represent the value of my labor. Now, if you burned down my house I would have no recourse to lawful compensation [gold or silver] from you under the Common Law. I had invested nothing of intrinsic value in the house. Therefore, I could not lawfully reap a gain from having lost the house. The law was changed from Common Law to civil law so that persons would have legal recourse in the courts to regain the worthless slips of paper that they had lost through the neglectful acts of others. This gives the Federal Reserve Notes the “appearance” of worth. The Fed Notes are not backed by gold or silver; these notes do not promise to be redeemable for gold, silver or any other thing. These are worthless pieces of commercial paper; these are bad checks written on a closed account. The primary function of the civil law system is to promote the assumption of worth to these fiat notes; this is essential, since these notes are the basis for all commercial contract civil law. Under the civil law, all law is contract; when there is no contract then there isn’t any jurisdictional authority for a civil court to hear or judge a matter.
The critical thing is to understand what the difference between a valid contract and an invalid contract is. The number one aspect that a valid contract must contain is mutual interest. All parties in a contract must have a vested interest of some type of lawful consideration. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. To attempt to gain a profit through a contract in which one has no vested interest in is called fraud. It doesn’t matter who agreed to what, if there is not a mutual base of lawful consideration by all parties then no contract legally exists. However, if one does not complain about the structure of a contract then the courts will assume that most presumed contracts are valid.
Most of the Uniform Commercial Code proponents concentrate on gaining legal possession of the all capitalized NAME or legal persona found on ones birth certificate. The theory being that the birth certificate is the beginning of the root of the contractual thicket when it is surrendered by the STATE as collateral for the national debt. To accomplish this end, Federal Reserve Notes are used to discharge (not pay) the fees for filing the UCC-1 Financing Statement, and to discharge the fees for a Common Law Copyright on the all capitalized commercial name listed on the birth certificate and all ID. Once these notes have been voluntarily offered to discharge a debt concerning a Common Law matter, Common Law has been legally nullified. If one uses colorable currency in legal matters then colorable law instantly becomes the jurisdiction. Further, if one legally recognizes a colorable persona as anything other than a fictitious entity then one accepts the assumption that the legal system has the power of creation within its grasp. This further supports the court’s legal assumption that the commercial law courts have jurisdiction over such a person. I fail to see how one can purchase a fictitious entity with a worthless currency and gain a foothold on a Common law jurisdiction through such an act. I believe the occasional success story in this process is due to the ignorance of a few judges, not from an intelligent defense.
Many people believe that the Common law is dead in this country; this is a false assumption. Common law is only dormant, not dead. According to the (Talmudic) Uniform Commercial Code, Common law remains in full effect unless it is displaced by the code. The only way to displace the Common law with the UCC is through a valid contract. Proving that no valid contract exists is the first logical step toward a Common law jurisdiction. There are many who claim that a lack of disclosure on the part of a government agency is the best way to nullify the appearance of a contractual agreement with such an agency. The problem with this theory is that the government never offers contracts to the people. Notice that all contracts with the government are written in the first person. These contracts, though written by the government, are offered by us to the government. They require us to swear under oath to some stipulation of a compelled performance. The argument that full disclosure was not given by the acceptor (government) of the contract is a legal absurdity. We are presumed to have had the opportunity to amend any contract that we have offered to anyone else prior to having offered such contract. Thus, the lack of disclosure argument is generally ineffective. The government protects themselves through the construction of the presumed contracts, and they secure a superior protection by the courts by being the acceptor of the contracts.
I surmise that pointing out that the government has no vested interest in any contract with any person is the very best way to nullify the presumption of a contract and to secure a Common Law venue for the settlement of lawful matters. In 1968, a landmark court case illustrates the validity of this theory. The case was the First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly. Justice Martin V. Mahoney determined that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money, and these notes cannot be used as lawful consideration in any contract: ( http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/the-mahoney-case.html ). Since all of the alleged contracts that the people have supposedly made with the government are based on the acceptance of alleged benefits that are funded with Fed Notes, all of these alleged contracts are nullified due to a lack of lawful consideration on the part of the government.
The court system uses circular reasoning and presumption of contracts to convict people. In truth, the circle is incomplete; the supposed contracts do not exist in fact or in Law. If enough people can challenge these presumed contracts by hacking at the legal roots of it then the legal thicket will soon wither and die, and America can return to a Lawful system of justice. Of course, developing a strategy that will avoid the legal snares of the present legal system is extremely difficult, and it will likely take a very organized effort to implement effectively. I have been making efforts in this direction; however, I would welcome any constructive reasoning as to a proper and effective way of challenging these alleged contracts.
Loy Robert: Bost, III |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 May 2004 : 10:41:30
|
Thanks Loy Robert;
I am tying some things together on an open email group of suitors and dropped in to quote item 6 of the memo. The METRO (municipal and police powers; home rule) link is important to understanding the presumptions taken by positive law jural society; under what doctrine and charter. I will get back with a carbon copy when that letter is finished.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 May 2004 : 12:13:42
|
[My apologies that I cannot include the graphics.]
Dear Suitors;
Hopefully I am able to connect some otherwise disjointed pieces to understanding the prosecution as conveyance of property.
For instance a few years ago, I was taken to jail and my motorscooter impounded for not having a residential address and current registration placards. At about 1AM deputy Smith #84001 woke me and told me to sign the bond agreement exactly as the (legal) name on its face. After a couple attempts, Smith accepted the words written with a colon between my name and my family's. But Smith never wrote the time and date of the contract in the space by his signature. Try as I did, I could not get Smith to the stand to prove there was no probable cause; no agreement before I had alread spent twelve hours in jail and had my property taken.
I bring this up because there seems to be some falsification on Chet's papers about his Writ of Execution. But there are a few pieces that must be considered in conjunction to comprehend the infrastructure in place and the conveyance of property and rights thereto. First notice that judicial authority of the State is replaced by municipal and police powers granted by home rule: (scanned page from Article VI of the State constitution).
The difficulty is to present three or four items of equal importance and fit them together. If I could download the concepts simultaneously I would. So the next item is from Jim's memo on that 1995 Libel of Review:
"A cardinal principle, in which the practice of admiralty courts differs from that of courts of common law, permits the parties to a suit to prosecute and defend upon their rights as such rights exist at the institution of the action; the assignment of a right of action being deemed to vest in the assignee all the privileges and remedies possessed by the assignor. According to the rule of the common law, the injured party alone is permitted to sue for a trespass, the damages being deemed not legally assignable; and if there be an equitable claimant, he may sue only in the name of the injured party. In admiralty, however, the common practice is to have the suit conducted in the names of the real parties IN INTEREST." 1 R.C.L. § 33, pg. 424 (1914)"
So in my consistent striving to make sense in law of the actions, pieces come together. There is nearly always, when push comes to shove, obfuscation about the precise moment of agreement (attached "Timing in Strategy" - Miyamoto Musashi). Margo, character slaughtered by the district court clerk and a "legal expert"; meaning the clerk hired an attorney for her which is in itself, legal advice, is subject to that term while she "accepted for value" - in the mind of the attorney in the black robe. The States and U.S. went bankrupt in 1933 so I will not be calling any of them Judges from now on; active attorneys or not. But for precision; the party will construe the timing of the 'agreement' to his or her favor - to the moment that appearance cured the presumption of jurisdiction.
Chet is dealing with the "chief judge" obfuscating dates and manipulating timelines in order to "make it appear" there is justification to order the Writ of Execution purged from the United States Courthouse. Well imagine that! The Writ obviously struck a nerve. Why purge it from the cognizance of the United States otherwise? Good work Chet. So get the evidence of the obfuscation right back there under a $39 Article III case jacket - now that will really make Haggerty squirm a bit.
The main point I noticed about the "order" was "WARNING: CASE CLOSED FEBRUARY 21, 2004". This would be "case dismissed" not case closed except for forgiveness or other resolution of the national debt. So Haggerty himself, the chief judge admits there is no bond against Chester Evans. However, the story is different for [legal name - First Middle Last]. Therefore Haggerty properly closes the case (falsifying dates aside for the moment), in order to preserve the illusion that the man behind the legal entity is the debtor, not the creditor. So in opening that case jacket Chet, throw in a certified copy of the Credit River Money Decision (1968); (719) 520-6200 ask Cecilia for #203290555. Now you are armed to defeat that debtor/creditor convolution.
None of the "prophecies" of the METRO 1313 article published in three parts in the American's Bulletin (1995) came true due in my opinion to the paranoid slant of the authors. They did not understand the role of the Thirteenth Tribe/"Khazarian Elite" and Protocols; originally doctrine of the Priory of Sion before butchered by a Bolshevik counterintelligence maniac. Read Genesis 49:10 for some insight. This is as always prophecied by Jacob/Israel.
I am direct descendant of Teunis Jansen Laenen, one of the original Manhattan Island Patroons. From METRO 1313:
"To start one must go back to June 7, 1629... Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions Granted to Patroons... They shall forever possess and enjoy all lands... (copy of page 1 attached).
The conviction of the court clerks for malfeasance is happening. On one hand is the fact there is no national debt bond, and that played against obligations through common law notice and grace (thus falsifying notification dates). John Snow's return of Bill of Indictment is on my bench and I am preparing to properly hear it. It was like pulling teeth but Vern has acquired positive proof of service on his default judgment and now filed it at the county clerk. Vern is Hapsburg - the Bloodline claim - Kings of Jerusalem. So unless you know the key (James 4:10-12) to unlock the parabola the Market is an extremely volatile place to be right now. As the trustee, this Thirteenth Tribe claims ownership of the assets [my motorscooter, Vern's car, Margo's home, several bank accounts and employee garnishments etc.] on Schedule A, the trust is disrupted (alter ego) and the assets become available for the heirs apparent.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 08:17:32
|
Greetings David,
I have been pondering your concept and have a question.
You had mentioned, regardless of what others consistently put forth on this forum, that having a DL, BANK ACCOUNT, etc. in no way impedes the suitor's Lawful status (if I understood you correctly). From what I can gather, you are putting forth a way to stop suits altogether from the mailbox.
My question is this: Would not the numbered address and zip code
the mail is delivered at provide prima facie evidence that the recipient is within the JURISDICTION of the COURT?
As you know many put forth that having a current ADDRESS, DL, BANK ACCOUNT, etc. is also prima facie evidence that one is within the JURISDICTION of the COURT. I guess what I need to understand is 'how' and 'why' this is incorrect. It seems to make sense on the surface.
Use any FICTIONAL instrument and automatically you are in FICTIONAL JURISDICTION. Please explain the fault in that concept.
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 - 11 May 2004 : 09:13:23
|
Dear Steve;
You partially understand correctly. I have no bank account, no SSN, no DOB etc. So you must figure this into your comprehension of what I say.
Through a carefully orchestrated relief valve system, prior knowledge psychometrics based in advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics, confidence and security building measures in the bill of exchange that cured September 11, 2001 I am releasing the stress on a highly compressed information infrastructure. Stellionation is the foundation. 'Selling something twice'. Fractional Reserve Banking is how it is best understood but basically banker's greed would have them hide the amount of substance (gold, silver, jewelry) that the village people have trusted to their safebox for safekeeping so that they may write more notes than the substance if a "run" were to occur, can cover. That is the highly compressed information infrastructure in a nutshell.
So the money has been replaced by SDR (Special Drawing Rights on the Strawman/Birth Certificate bond) based legal tender. The land is also "represented" at the county clerk in common law through Real Estate. People are pulled into the illusion of jurisdiction through identity crisis. There is no bearing if one is unclear on identity so name has been replaced by artificial entity (legal name/STRAWMAN, nom de guerre etc.). Without this calibration standard a society goes into anomia (namelessness/lawlessness). If the New Deal lead the people together, the lifestyle supported the illusion that reducing people to chattel was the right thing to do. People, completely competent and coherent looking on the surface will fight tooth and nail to support the illusion and colors of authority. That is why the bill of exchange is such a miracle and sign that the Holy Bible is true.
Back in the Nixon Administration, the Post Office was shut down for at least one day for an unexplainable emergency. For the duration of the (albeit short) emergency, the Post Office was placed under the Department of the Navy and reopened under the Postal SERVICE. I have never read the account from reliable sources so I would advise you to research this for yourself.
That Postal SERVICE is the process of international law. A process server needs only to be over 18 and uninterested in the suit. Thus the postman and clerk is the process server in international law.
People come to me for the counterclaim on page 4 of the thread. The paper does not work. It is the transformation in the mind of the man or woman, curing remedy that works. I have never advertized. I gouge the pre-suitor for $500 so that he becomes vested in making the transition - becoming a suitor; a court of competent jurisdiction.
Often these folks wonder what to do with all these trusts they have created. I tell them the trust that would be best, if they do not want to operate in true name (quit-claim to the true name and publish this) then use the birth certificate name. That is the idiocy of the Strawman/UCC Redemption - "Redemption". Why redeem something that is already yours? You have your little ink footprints on the formation of the artificial entity (vessel in commerce) to prove it's yours.
So the high tide mark is lapping at the front of your house right up to the mailbox. That is how big the district court would have to be to accomodate the requirement of agents of a foriegn principal. "Last known address" is there in the F.R.C.P. "Was the defendant properly notified?" seems the only pertinent question in tax court. So know and understand how to properly say "no thank you." in international law timely. Refusal for Cause.
A realistic way to look at this is that the artificial entity is your ship and you, the true name are the captain. So we declare in the Libel of Review the law of the flag. We, the sovereign grantors of government are men and women created in the image of God. We can throw that away but being unalienable God-given right, we can also recover it at any time. Especially considering that since Bretton Woods and Jamaica/Rambouillet, we are obviously the creditor based in good faith and trust. If the other party, the Bank and Fund violates our trust, even if we just do not trust as a verb, the trust (as a noun) is gone.
So why entertain that the trust still exists? Because collapsing the confidence in the dollar would collapse the Market. That may be happening right now. Werner Maximilian (Vern above) observes that the downturn is now effecting almost all forums simultaneously. This is very rare except in a full or partial crash. So the most sensible behavior is to simply manage your affairs from within your household. "Return to Sender" "Not Residing Here" mail material that is not to your true name. Material that may be important; open and Refuse for Cause timely. It will cost you $25 for the intelligence - $12 to return the presentment Registered Mail and likewise to put a copy in your evidence repository (case jacket) in the cognizance of the United States (U.S. Courthouse).
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 10:54:44
|
David,
Thank you for the detailed exlaination. You know, when I first heard about the CAPMAN concept my first instant thought was, "Wow. This is YHWH's way of offering protection seeing as it is not the real Me that pertains to these ALL CAP accounts." It seems perhaps my first instinct was correct although I did not know the 'how' or 'why'. I see what the religionists do is turn this all around and actually take the STRAWMAN to be themselves 'if' they continue to engage
"it". It is never "you", never can be "you" unless "you" believe it is. With that understanding, it seems one can engage the FICTION correctly, knowing IT'S true NATURE. Heck, even the allegorcal "corporate body of Christ" could be looked at in similar fashion.
Also, Torah provides for the ownership of slaves. Perhaps the CAPMAN can be looked at as my personal SLAVE?
I will look forward to learning more about your ideas.
Thanks again,
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) |
Edited by - BatKol on 11 May 2004 14:59:52 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2004 : 11:10:06
|
[Dear Ecclesia readers; I thought this may be helpful. Again I apologize that I speak of attachments that are not convenient to show.]
Dear Suitors;
Alan Greenspan makes several good points, both supporting and indicting for the appropriation of property on presumed forfeiture as a Taxpayer:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200402272/default.htm. So I will let you read that for yourself. But I hope that you do because I am building on it here. As time moves on the counterclaim, the intellectual property that I charge for, is becoming public domain. The ability to respond properly to a contract proposal in international law is presumed a right. So for some time now, I simply charge for my time and to get the man or woman into position of suitor.
However there is more to this when viewed as a network. And Chet commented directly to me about my ability to spot the distinction between "dismissed" and "WARNING: CASE CLOSED FEBRUARY 21, 2004". Abeit I read a paper from the Internet that explained this very clearly, I have for some time considered it obvious. View the FRN as an unpaid claim against a Federal Reserve insurance policy. The "Elizabeths" (inside term for blind protection of presumed IRS right of siezure) are in perpetual adjustment of claim biased toward the IMF. So the dispute for the Taxpayer is not resolved until true payment is made. That will not happen until some kind of resolution of the national debt. So therefore all cases involving Taxpayers can only be "shelved" until that resolution - dismissed, not closed. Ancer Haggerty, chief judge was cornered into recognizing the sovereign Chester Evans (true name) and his peculiar character in relation to the legal entity (First Middle Last) under attack (attachment). What tickles me the most is that the objective was obviously to expurgate the papers, Writ of Execution, from the U.S. Courthouse. I doubt Chet will let that happen.
So this makes me think some continuity will help. I try to put myself in your I/O, there on the other side of your keyboard, trying to understand the bill of exchange and how Werner Maximilian as cohen among the Habsburgs could be related to the IRS knocking at the door.
I hope that it does not put anybody off that I live my life in prayer. Years ago I found the name of God in the Table of Relative Weights of naturally occuring isotopes after tweaking the standard for optimum resonance. I acquired "the faith of Jesus Christ" in that awareness that there are no secrets. There are no conspiracies and when instead of getting me killed, the Jamaica/Rambouillet Accord has been published in the State Department Bulletin since 1975, I began to see the fallicy of conspiracy theory and the pitfalls of paranoia. "The World" in my daily life has been bombarding me with confirmations ever since.
Yesterday I walked into Bijou Books and saw the Urantia Book for sale. I pulled it off the shelf and it fell open to the index card/bookmark on page 800, Paper 71, The Formation of the State. The first sentence (two pages) prompted me to buy the copy. Furthermore, I acquired a concordance for the same and I was waiting for Vern to show for a Mexican lunch and opened the book and concordance to see how these worked together. At random I opened the book and selected a word. Vern arrived to the table as I opened the concordance and was on the correct page. These are both big books, thousands of pages. So I briefly accepted that these things, once again are way beyond mathematical probability. No secrets here - God is watching.
Anyway, the pages attached from the Urantia Book expose some things I have suspected about America and Israel and I will speak of these things in two aspects. The first is human life redacted to chattel as a life annuity or insurance policy in a tontine. Encyclopedias will tell you the Habsburg Dynasty fell in 1917 or so with the assassination of Francis Ferdinand in Kosovo. Now I wish I could download all the pieces simultaneously so hang with me. Franklin D. Roosevelt adopted the Trading with the Enemy Act (1917) in 1933 in a 'war measure tantamount to foreign invasion'. Reread your counterclaim and maybe you will see why try as I may, certain clauses about War Powers had to stay in. Why I tell you that reading is for you, not the U.S. Attorneys. Now read the first sentence on page 800 - Formation of the State:
"The State is a useful evolution of civilization; it represents society's net gain from the ravages and sufferings of war."
Now Winston Churchill said something, "...[WWI] a war to end all wars." But consider that the Habsburg dynasty informally survived through Khazarian/Ashkenazim bloodlines. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Random House 1938) does not start with 1933 The Year of Crisis. The first book on the Administration goes into the details of Roosevelt being the governor of New York. In comes METRO 1313.
But notice the continuity. Doctrine from 1917 is 'revived' into a domestic war and the State has already at this time overdeveloped into an insurance system (New Deal was not all that new) where the signors on the tontine are accruing the wealth of debt/death. So we see the theater dressed out for WWII, both here with Roosevelt and his Zionist (Brandeis) stacked Court and in Germany (the vacuum created by the "fall" of the Habsburgs) Adolf Hitler is positioning himself to rise into maniacal ambitions.
Now we get to the distinction between "closed" and "dismissed". Morelike its effects on the mindset/paradigm. Referring to Daniel's Calender (attached). The event on the top timeline that I have not mentioned is brought up in the Urantia Book:
"Their [native North Americans] nearest approach [to Statehood] was the Iriquois federation..."
DeSoto explored into the Tennessee Valley and discovered that the Cherokee (Iriquiois) were Hebrew/Jews. The similarities of civil/religious structures were very convincing. Vatican records indicate that Jewish voyages left toward the New World around 100 AD, never to be heard from again. The Bat Creek Stone, among organic remains in a monument is dated at about 200 AD. This stone was first thought to be the writing of the Cherokee but then it was discovered that they had no real alphabet anyway. So a hundred years after discovery, somebody turned it over to discover it was Sumarian Ostraca (Paleo-Hebrew) and a Messianic reference to the Star of Judah at that!*
Notice that the macroeconomic cycle of 2520 year/days is Seven. 360 X 7 = MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. MENE = 1000 gerahs X 2; TEKEL = 20 gerahs; UPHARSIN (PEREZ) is to divide = 500 gerahs. So the cycle I have always been bringing to your attention is the "closure" of my case by guess who, "Judge Daniel" that cured on March 17, 1997 - exactly 1290 days prior to Ariel Sharon on the Temple Mount cancelling Tabernacles (Matthew 24:15; Daniel 12:11). But the event I have never spoken of is at the 2300 year mark after MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. Prophet Daniel says this will be the cleansing of the sanctuary - 1776. So I took a look at the process of eight days and this is circumcision, the dedication of a living temple unto God - eight days after birth. We also find this is dedicating altars and the Temple etc. The Treaty at Fort Stanwix was eight years later; 1784. Maybe some ignorance in geography at play here but the Iriquiois federation granted ownership of all lands west of an eastern seaboard river to the United States. See Matthew 21:43.
The timeline that I did not include on the attachment is the conversion of the Khazars (to Judaism). This, according to The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler was in 740 AD. Three and a half years after MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN; Darius taking Belshezzar in 524 BC ("520/519 BC" The World of the Scythians by Rene Rolle), Darius attacked the Scythian peoples, (Assyrians) with the Northern Ten Tribes amongst them. This drove the Jews northward into the Caucusus Mountains where they were convenient when the Khazars were looking for a state religion - exactly 1260 years later! Then go another 1260 years and we are at 2000 AD. The completion of Daniel's week.
So now maybe with some prayerful pondering of the timelines, you will understand your role in the Tikkun - the Restoration anthology - the Messianic Age as courts of competent jurisdiction.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Reverend Perry Stone speaks about DeSoto's convictions and the Bat Creek Stone in a video have since lost. "Stange Prophetic Cycles" maybe.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2004 : 09:22:00
|
[Dear Suitors;
When it began to sink in what had occurred, I felt almost ill about this "letter". I left early to digest what was causing my indigestion. You know, when you know something is wrong but are trying to identify it. Not just for this couple suitors, but that this may be undermining property rights quite often among you suitors without you ever telling me. I feel it is worth sanitizing this email to this man and wife, very new suitors and sharing it with the group. It is possible that this kind of initiation of collateral actions has been hobbling many of you and I just never hear about it (extraneous letters you may be sending). I hope not.
We are done arguing merits. This is all about process. Arguing merits in a collateral letter circumvents the Restricted Appearance by Rule E(8). All the attorneys will see is that they prompted a distinctly separate response (appearance) and that they now have a new action and proof (a letter) of that distinct and separate action. Many of you have been writing letters for years only to be labeled "Tax Evader". To the stack of hearsay you have tried to put in the IRS's mouth now on the prosecutor's table in Tax Court, "You know, your honor, I am not required to read any of that garbage." So I pretty much figured you know that courthouse/mailbox works both ways.
An expert and published macroeconomist suitor among you agrees. The main reason for misspelling just one letter of the all-caps NAME, or bringing forth a different amount, or changing to new years under review and assessment; any of these "typos" earmarks a new and distinctly different action. Our mindsets state that this has something to do with what was going on six weeks ago - that action. Not true. If you R4C'd that action properly, it is dead. Thus the new and distinct action.
David Merrill.]
Dear (new suitor and wife);
In telling me about your situation over yesterday's lunch party, with so many distractions, I may have missed some things. But it seems that you may have written a letter (process) in which you told MLM Products that you were not going to return or cut a check on the IRS pretended claim - you were not going to return the funds they had mailed you by "mistake".
You must keep in mind that you generated new process. The Libel of Review in the U.S. Courthouse says the same thing to MLM Products but leaves the fact in international law, all future funds due you must be sent in the customary amount and fashion. By generating a specific and subsequent letter, in response to their attorneys calling and making demands, you acknowledged authority in the phone calls prodding you to return the funds. Thus they have started diversion on that authority. You informed their attorneys not to be contacting you with the de jure 13th Amendment and now you are acknowledging their phone calls open court with written testimony in response.
Over lunch, with all the conversations and other interruptions it was perhaps unwise to try to get my counsel. So I may have gotten this wrong. But you should have consulted me before starting any collateral process, if you wrote a letter. Just as the mailbox is a process server; when you mail things out, you initiate process in international law. The Libel of Review is all that I would allow MLM Products to see on this matter. In other words, by initiating a subsequent action, you have destroyed the counterclaim. The attorneys are only looking at the new action you initiated with your letter.
Now do not despair. You are set up for subsequent notices. Law requires that once this lien is covered, they (IMF) must begin the next action anew. They cannot as one might expect just send a notice of lien and expect immediate diversion of funds. "Next time", now that you have an evidence repository, you are much better equipped to stultify process of curing lien. However, the attorneys at MLM Products will probably ride the precedent, utilizing the letter you sent collateral to your Libel of Review.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I am going to sanitize this letter of personal specifics and broadcast it. This sort of thing has happened once or twice with others so I think it would be helpful to the group. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2004 : 19:54:50
|
Dear Readers;
I am not sure what to say when nobody replies.
From another thread:
"Loy Robert's treatise was timely encouragement. I will probably be over on the 'saving to suitors' forum for a bit. I pasted one of the original memos from a decade ago and it should bring in some interesting conversation."
I hope you found James Harlan's memorandum of law stimulating.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"saving to suitors" clause of 1789
Topic Locked
