| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
 Posted - 18 May 2004 : 22:15:48
|
Hello David,
Since you and I are using slightly different processes, I hesitate to muddy the waters.
But, I just thought I would like you know that I have a "libel of review" going for someone else. It was done by the same person who wrote the "libel of review" for Jim Harlan Ayers, back in 1995. It is against a whole flock of attorneys, a judge, a sheriff and a few sheriff deputies. All of them threw some sort of response into the court, but no one addressed the matters in the libel. We did a "refused for cause" on all of their submittals to the court.
We have entered a Default Judgment into the record. So far, no judge has attempted to refute the Default and overturn it. We have an action all prepared and ready to go if someone wants to step up and get hammmered for attempting that.
In the meantime, one of the attorneys wrote a person letter to the judge assigned to the case requesting immediate dismissal of everything. Hmmmm, ain't it interesting that the judge has remained mute on the matter.
We are now preparing actions in Admiralty against all of the attorneys. This is getting to be more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
Regards,
Lewis |
Edited by - Lewish on 18 May 2004 22:18:00 |
 |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 06:43:27
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, David:
Peace be unto the house.
We find your reference to DeSoto believing that the American Indians being of Hebrew origin fascinating.
"DeSoto explored into the Tennessee Valley and discovered that the Cherokee (Iriquiois) were Hebrew/Jews. The similarities of civil/religious structures were very convincing."
Sidenote: the Five Nations which comprised "the confederation of Iroquoian peoples" apparently did not include the Cherokees, it seems they were the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. Later [c.1722] this confederation became the Six Nations and included the Tuscarora tribe. The so-called Five Civilized tribes was apparently made up of the Cherokees, Chicksaws, Choctaws, Creeks and Seminoles.
Putting all that aside here is something of interest on this subject that we have found in Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English under the word SAVAGE:
"The savages of America, when uncorrupted by the vices of civilized men, are remarkable for their hospitality to strangers, and for their truth, fidelity and gratitude to their friends, but implacably cruel and revengeful towards their enemies. From this last trait of the savage character, the word came to signify."
Think about the Scripture while reading the above attributes.
brother Robert-James and family heard a tape in a Native American tongue, while in Iowa, and swears that they heard the name of "their" chief god pronounced ee-ah-oo-wah' el-oh-heem, Yahuwah
'Elohiym, which reportedly, is what Iowa means and how they pronounce it.
Add to this that adam apparently means "red", 'ayil, the foundational Hebrew word for 'el, 'elhoiym, etc., etc., means, according to James Strong, "specifically chief (politically)", they referred to themselves as "the People", Deuteronomy 7:7 Yahuwah did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people..., that they apparently came from Europe via Alaska and on into the "Promised Land", and we begin to see a stronger case for the so-called Native Americans being a part of, if not "the", original Hebrews.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 07:46:00
|
Greetings All,
Yes, very fascinating. The ten commandments were found in Paleo-Hebrew
out west in New Mexico. I have a book called "Discovery of Ancient America" by David Allen Deal which tells the whole story. I was reading some history last night which note that the Assyrian records claim that they not only captured the bulk of Israelites but also captured some of the peoples of Judah. Concerning the Indians I am wondering if there is any connection between the Ash-roth poles spoken of 2 Kings 18 and the totem poles. Perhaps these lost Israelites continued in the practices that got them removed from the land given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Just a thought.
Steve
p.s. - Here is a link to some folk chatting about blonde, blue eye Indians. Some interesting items to be taken with a grain of salt:
http://www.stormfront.org/archive/t-117303
"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 19 May 2004 08:17:37 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 09:53:13
|
Wonderful;
Lewis;
This same silence is what was baffling Jim. Likely this is the State remand (in inaction). After a year of it, I formed a Writ of Absolute Mandamus (twelve jurors in common law assembly) demanding Daniel enter default in my favor. Fourteen months later he construed my Writ a motion and denied it. Thirty days later was the resolution of the national debt; at least within the scope of the case but remember that I filed it December 17, 1995 the same day as the 31 Day Government Shutdown - corporate restructure.
So without knowing the details, you should probably consider the judge closing the case (instead of dismissing) to be State remand to the petitioner. The respondent/false claimants will probably have abandoned their claims and seizures by then (release liens and funds).
After a little study of the linguistics and even Edenics (Isaac Mozeson) I came to the conclusion that Cherokee and Iriquios are the same word. It is the remnant of the federation down south. That may be incorrect but it fits the theories well. OneIsraelite's comment begs the question then, "Is the history of the Cherokee independent of the Iriquois?"
I too have pondered the similarities between the Ashroth poles and Totem poles. I believe the totem poles to be almost exclusively Canadian (northern). I read a book copyright 1877 "Our Country" and it is full of such details. It did not mention totem poles in any of the (domestic U.S.) tribes but that is inconclusive. The Totem pole at the Fine Arts Center here is from Canada (I think).
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. The reference to "Yehuway" would in Hebrew be non-theophoric. See Encyclopedia Judiaca NAME for the rules of YEHU in a prefix and suffix. Therefore it is more likely a reference to the non-theophoric Yehudah (Judah) than to "Yehovah" YHWH - the Name of God. This agrees with the Bat Creek Stone being a Messianic reference to the "Star of Judah".
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 19 May 2004 10:06:52 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2004 : 07:19:01
|
Greetings in the name of the King, brethren:
Peace be unto the house.
We are not so sure that the name Judah is of the Yahu group as the first syllable appears rather to be the Hebrew word yad signifying hand, and comes from the word yadah meaning to throw a stone at or away. The question arrises also,did Leah actually praise Yahuwah when she found out from her midwife that she had "left bearing", i.e. that she could no longer bear sons?
The next question we have is, what relation, if any, is there between the so-called Solomon's Seal and the star of Remphan? And why did the Jews see it necessary to associate this star with David, i.e. Star of David, rather than Solomon?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2004 : 10:13:50
|
Dear OneIsraelite;
You speak of "we". Are you annointed, ordained (ordinary)? Is there a name for the body which or others whom you speak for?
Also more the point I was making is that the Name in its brevity is Yehovah, not Yahuwah. The Name is definitely theophoric, so it is not Yehuway. Look in Strong's, Young's or Richardson's (Encyclopedia Judaica - NAME) and these authorities all agree; Yehovah, not Yahuway. I have had people try to explain the doctrine of mixing Yehudah (Judah) into the Name. And I understand the relationship the folks ("we"?) who presented the theories were hoping to establish; I just will not leave the authoritative research and scientific rigor behind on unsubstantiated whims. I think they ("you"?) were forming a theory and then trying to say Strong's, Young's and Richardson's were all wrong.
Amusing is that the IDMR (Institute for Divine Metaphysical Research) was trying to change the Name too. They really got into it; the central pillar of their religion. I would just point out the truth and they would try to convince me that Strong's was wrong. They had their church between me and the store so I would often drop in and talk. They moved a few miles out of the way.
So I will forward some graphics to Lewis. Thanks in advance for posting a link, Lewis. Some interesting points on the Star of David and pentagram. 5, 72 (360/5) and more. The pentagram was far more likely David's symbol as it was almost certainly Solomon's. But it seems confirmed the pentagram was the symbol for Jerusalem from at least 300-150 BC. But you can judge that for yourself from the .JPG page images - Dictionary of Symbols.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2004 : 19:21:57
|
Hello David,
If neither the judge nor the clerk signs the Default, then we have a plan to force the judgment. If the judge attempts to close the case or dismiss it, we will file criminal charges against the judge for impersonating an Article III judge. BTW, the judge assigned to the case cannot be an Article III judge because he has a bar card and is therefore a foreign agent as defined in the Bar Treaty Act of 1947.
We will give them 30 days to act, and after that we will move with the next action to effect the Judgment as a Summary Judgment rather than a Default.
Regards,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2004 : 20:02:52
|
Greetings All,
If I may put some polish on oneisraelite's quote from me;
The Cherokee museum in Cherokee, North Carolina has a display whereby one put's on headphone's, read the script in English-American, and listen's to the verbal dialect of the Indian folks. When "The Great Spirit" is read, one hear's; ieyahuwah elohim". This was back in 1986 or so, and I about fell over, as the set-apart name of the Most High was just given to me.
Also, the Cherokee's state that "God's" name is one of our state's...Iowa, which means..."This Is the Place".
Also, Cherokee legend has it recorded that the white man walked the mountain's here...[Applacia]before the Cherokee did. The tribe of Dan found copper mine's in Chile. The tribe of Dan were scout's, braving the unknown just for the adventure of it all. And used in a great Way, to claim all the earth for their Father's Kingdom coming.
The Name is four vowels, and when spoken, does not have a break in the sound. It flows, and a V breaks the natural flow of the sound. Some folks say Yahweh as it is two words? Same with Yehovah...sounds like three syllable's?
I kinda know that the [H]ebrew's always know how to write. The Cherokee's didn't. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 10:16:03
|
Dear Ecclesia Readers;
Over the Passover season I was inquiring of the suitors about a definition; an identity. To avoid repeating myself I have joined the suitors on a ‘floating’ forum of an open-faced email list. This turned out to be more valuable in the minds of suitors than I had expected. At least of fifty or sixty folks on the current list (as it exists presently in my directory) only one, and with some good reason, has ever requested to be removed. An identity never formed as a group. I do not ‘own’ the list any more than ability to add or delete addresses in my computer. The same is with all and any of the other people.
The product of the endeavor was a clearer and concise definition of “suitor” to be a man or woman with a properly formed default judgment published in common law. The judgment, reflected in Lewis’ above Reply, is that the agent(s) of a foreign principal never filed in the district courts of the United States before coming above the high-tide mark, making claims to property.
Everything that happened before I was born can only be told in hearsay. All that you read from me on this forum is a fabrication. Granted I can weave that fabrication from fibers that hold true and thus my account and testimony holds up to trial in almost any forum. “The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt” are available on my bookshelf and down at the federal repository (Government Documents section of the Colorado College library). This is a good example. Random House, in 1938 published a hearsay account, a collection of papers allegedly authored and signed by the President himself. Well I believe that to be true and use the collection, specially “1933 – The Year of Crisis” regularly.
My fabrication however should not be built into your belief sets as more than amusing Internet science fiction unless of course you verify things first. Have you called my clerk and ordered the bill of exchange? If you are not exercising Rules of Evidence then you are not really holding court anyway, are you? But just the same, I hope you find the thread entertaining.
George Lippard wrote some books around the 1840’s and these books became a philosophical cornerstone to the revival of the true Rosicrucian Movement. Many similar books have come to the press since but Lippard really invented a new type of poetic expression of patriotism. In a book titled “New York; The Upper Ten and the Lower Million” there is a court of competent jurisdiction, capable of the death penalty, called “The Court of Ten Million Dollars”. That is the bond right there in the name of the forum.
Authority to pass judgment does not exist without the ability to compensate for human error. For instance, the County court “judges” are (after proper arraignment) competent to judge “citizens of the United States” (attorned men and women) based on the bonding, mostly gained through voter registration and primarily through (surprise!) the school district where you “pay” your property taxes. So suppose “judge” Manzanares in traffic court passes a judgment that is in error and sends me to jail for a few months for trying to own a motorcycle. Then suppose I establish this and other errors in judgment in the public conscience through waiver of tort, creating a bill of exchange on the foreign exchange market for $3.6+ quadrillion. The “money” (debt/credit currency) was representative of the present energy situation, reflected in worldwide living conditions.
http://www.trial.com/Blogger/2001_08_01_lightersideblogarchive.htm
http://www.donswaim.com/biercenews.html
But Sylvia Manzanares does not have to pay me from her pocket because she is bonded. So the conveyance happens through confidence and security building measures in the bill of exchange, which came due on August 13, 2001 and cured on September 11, 2001; thirty days later by law. The confirmation is that her error was also being expressed in the Manhattan Judgment. I was filing by mail the default in the same matter. The deputy clerks in Denver were (after filing Werner Maximilian’s $11t bond that came due March 14, 2001 that nearly crashed the Market) troubled about how to mark the subsequent default judgments. They had decided if they marked the papers “Rec’d” and followed by the date (refusing to write “United States” or “District Court”) that they had not really “filed” the papers. The Manhattan Judgment had a cover letter thanking the clerk for putting this judgment where it could be retrieved later – that was in my mind “filing”.
A suitor was filing his default judgment at about that same time so the clerk used his mailing address to return the Manhattan Judgment (it actually contained a map of Manhattan Island from a Jewish encyclopedia marking the Patroon/Ashkenazim claims) to Colorado Springs unfiled but with a sarcastic sticky note, “You are welcome.” The flat was postmarked September 12, 2001. Remember the courthouse and post office were closed down. This indicates that the decision not to file the Manhattan Judgment may have been at the very moment the World Trade Center was under attack.
So Lewis, in all the presumptions I make about what you are doing, I will presume that you have bonding back of this “summary” not “default” judgment you will pursue in criminal court – for 'impersonating an Article III judge'. With suitors, I always advise when filing, at judge assignment to inquire, “Is this an Article III judge?” The clerk will answer in the affirmative. But the clerk is never an attorney. Therefore within the forum of international law and these foreign agents of the IMF, the clerk cannot speak for (represent) the attorney in the black robe anyway. The only purpose is to make it clear to the suitor that when the lie is revealed, the district court is recused self-executing. Recusal usually happens within minutes anyway. The (soon-to-be) suitor calls the State of Colorado Bar (Supreme Court) and inquires to the registration number and status of the “judge” and often finds the attorney is “active”. The mantle of authority then properly is retained upon the suitor’s shoulders; court of competent jurisdiction.
At first glance, you will be hoping for the chief judge to remand the prosecution to the ‘criminal’ side of the clerk’s office. [Experience tells me that the chief judge is always male and “inactive”.] That is how they do it in Denver anyway. All the lowly citizens of the United States get to do is file civil suits (albeit they can be in admiralty/diversity) and if the “judge” sees enough evidence of criminal cause, then it is remanded to the ‘criminal’ side of the clerk’s office. I have often tagged Information onto suitor’s cases to prompt the attorney general (Turnaround Tuesday and Israeli intelligence on Silverstein Properties bonding the WTC) to investigate.
For instance if you are competing with my (our) bill of exchange, good luck. I have 100% confidence in it. The Bretton Woods Agreements are being sunset on schedule and the Club de Paris has forgiven both Niger and Ethiopia their national debts. That is just the beginning. If they would have honored the bill on its original terms, complete forgiveness back in 2001, the economy would have collapsed, I am sure.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. If you are not ordering a certified copy of the bill from Celicia, (719) 520-6200 at Reception #201099293 and 201101604) I hope you find this thread entertaining science fiction.
P.P.S. I will send the 'history of banking' as I call it. This photo is at my clerk's office (county) and depicts U.S., Colorado, El Paso County, Dan, French (Bloodline) and Crown Templar interests. Hopefully Lewis will have these graphics (also the hexagram and pentagram pages from the Dictionary of Symbols) clearly linked soon.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 23 May 2004 17:52:46 |
|
|
|
Man of Knowledge
Regular Member
USA
35 Posts |
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 20:00:37
|
Hello David,
I will get the graphics up as soon as I can. Maybe tomorrow.
As to the action against the judge, should he choose to act: The action will be in the District Court of the United States and not the United States District Court. It will also be IN REM and in Admiralty.
See, the filed Libel of Review is a contract with the court. In the contract, it stipulates that only an Article III judge can review this matter. Well, if he has a BAR card, he ain't no Article III judge. Folks have to remember these guys are your employees in this situation. The suitor is the captain of the ship. Is the captain going to let the crew mutiny? I certainly think not in this case. Therefor, both a criminal action in USDC will be brought, and an IN REM in the DC of the US will be brought. The first against the mutinous crew member, the second against the court which allowed the mutiny to occur.
On a side note, we have done some things which allow us to arrest both the judge and the court and have them tried in another sovereign nation. The arrest to be effected by INTERPOL. Nation of choice at the moment is Zambia. I do not care to go into this any further at this time.
Are we having fun boys and girls? If not, what are you waiting for?
Peace be with you all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 20:36:39
|
David Merrill and Lewish;
I have presented myself to the line of fire and have been shot down.
I need help
I will give a phone number in your private message board.
I have coin and to pay for any help specific to my current situation, please call collect and I will call you back.
I never answer the phone so when the message machine answers it may not let a collect call through but if you say your name, nym I will pick up the phone and call you back on my dime.
TN |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 21:33:05
|
Dear Lewis;
Very dynamic. It will take the tenacity you demonstrate - to execute arrest of federal "judges" etc. through Zambia. But if you have mastered the instrumentation and can guide your cause through this as due course, then it should make a very good point, at the least.
You said:
"The action will be in the District Court of the United States and not the United States District Court."
I have sent a .JPG page that is cover for an old case. I met a fellow from Oklahoma, with that common law jury bunch with Darrel Freck named Duane Smith. I suspect this is the same man who filed the action. Please post it in the graphics but until then I quote the justices of the Tenth Circuit:
"Finally, Mr. Smith makes an elaborate, albeit misguided, argument challenging the jurisdiction of the district court, claiming a "United States District Court" is different in kind from the "district court of the United States". This argument is poppycock."
A few years ago I advocated these things too. Dan Meador's philosophies etc. They would certainly explain a lot if they were true. But they are not. Like the circuit justices say, they are poppycock. Rumor Mill type of Internet sights keep the rumor mill rolling of secret filings and hidden courthouses that have been abandoned by lack of use. Junk.
I once drafted a case in the U.S. Supreme Court based on the rumor there was the Ten Commandments on the wall. Too late did I call to verify what was a very convincing rumor. But the rumor and thus the call paid off. Did you know the proprietor of the phone (by reverse indexing Superpages) to the clerk's office there was actually "THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT"? But I started using that fact around Denver and they have changed it. But that explained a lot. That was great information and intelligence.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Man of Knowledge
Regular Member
USA
35 Posts |
|
|
Man of Knowledge
Regular Member
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2004 : 02:51:52
|
I apologize if this is a closed conversation. I mean not to offend. If it pleases you, then please take a look at UNIDROIT, and understand how we were all had through our CONstitution. We must learn to live by 'HIS' law, and stop falling into the trap of finding a 'Magic Bullet'. The First Judiciary Act was found wanting in it's application, although the 'Saving to Suitors' was not a part of it. Much of it was found to be exceeding it's powers, which were legislative.
I am very interested in the concept, and it's applications....but,
it is still inferior Authority, and smacks of being another 'Magic Bullet'. I do not mean to create controversy, only stimulating conversation, and a better grasp of the essential precepts. I am even considering filing a Federal suit, and opening an evidentiary jacket...only it is because of grevious harms from local agents of a Municipality.
Any help would be appreciated by those whom understand the form of Federal presentation in TITLE 18, 241 & 242 violations. I do this only because I gave my word I would do so, and my Word is all I have been left with. I wish I was as good as the rest of you, and forgive, but, alas, I cannot. My family has been harmed, an it is unforgivable. I am established as sui Juris, by and in the courts, and public record. My name is copyrighted, and my standing is fully acknowledged by the lower court. I also have used the spectre of a Commercial Lien to compel performance of the Judge in his obligations, along with the promise of attaching his bond at the State level insurance corporation. I use all tools in my arsenal, and make no apology for it. I feel this is my calling, so judge me not harshly.
Separate issue.
If interested in the UNIDROIT site, and it's UNIFORM Public and Private Laws, then these two sites will set your blood to a simmer, if not a boil.
http://www.atgpress.com/dtom/dt009.htm
and
http://www.unidroit.org/
The Pope still believes he owns the world, and the Sovereign above all Sovereign Nations, the Isle of Malta, Peter Hans Kolvenbach, has commanded our obediance to not our G-D, or to Jesus, but to the Society of Jesus. Our Corporate Govt.'s have said this is A-OK, and have submitted.
Truly we must combat this, but how? The 'Good Lord' cannot do it for us. 'He' gave us free will, and commanded we be soldiers in 'His' service. If not us, then who?
Sincerely,
Daniel Frank |
Edited by - Man of Knowledge on 22 May 2004 02:54:05 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2004 : 08:41:35
|
Dear Daniel Frank;
Remarkable! I am quite glad you spoke up. Maybe it is due to the almost constant dependency that develops just before a would-be suitor breaks through the paradigm shift. But quite a few people think I am onto some huge complex answer. Really it is a number line based on the Fibonacci Sequence, that is all.
It is the Silver Bullet though. I know that for sure now. What better can a man do in international commerce than to behave properly. It works so well that for a long time I was a little wary and told suitors to be quiet about it. I was concerned that one suitor would tell two and soon I would be facing a mob of people trying to get me to teach them mathematics but unwilling to put the mental effort into it. See MIKVAH. The cleansing bath the Jewish take. Or that any martial arts teacher worth his salt will demote you to white belt upon entering his DOJO for training. Maybe your problem is you know too much.
I almost wrote Lewis' response (he wrote me a note on the address where I transfer graphics for linking) into the above note about district courts:
"And why would you expect them to say anything else? It doesn't seem to matter that this issue was once taught in law school and can be found in old textbooks."
Lewis feels that he has evidence of the existence of this dual and "common law" district court of the United States. But I doubt that. I doubt that he has anything he could overturn the ruling of the Tenth Circuit justices that I forwarded. He can plug a few words into a search engine and make a couple calls to Patrick Fisher (clerk) and get the entire case. The catch is also in that the case is ten years old. So is Jim's Libel of Review. Belief sets are the highest addiction. But Lewis is enjoying the endeavor so we have something in common there.
Because of the antiquity of the concept (supposing for a moment its existence), dual district courts, there is no viability. Lewis cannot find convincing evidence of this alternate system of courts but if he did, what is he supposed to do? Wave papers until the same people inside the "looking glass" system say, "Ok, we are now going to step through the looking glass and hold court in "your" common law." ??
The real problem is externalization. You express your mental conformity to useless systems of thought, "My family has been harmed, an it is unforgivable." There is a "they" in there somewhere, who through the CONstitution have gravely harmed you. That is not true. There are no conspiracies. After a complex externalization of character; trying to convince people you are different somehow you say, "I use all tools in my arsenal, and make no apology for it."
Therein squats the toad.
You have a complex idea of what the answer is. More accurately WHERE the answer is. By externalizing the blame you also externalize the authority in you own sovereignty as the heir apparent. The man created in the image of God. The man must be completely surrendered to the goldsmith's fire for refining before the slag can be pulled and the reflection of Who is really there seen. [Like Daniel in the Lion's Den.]
So no. I am not interested in droit/droit etc. That is an insideous injury. There is a maturity that comes with properly publishing a true judgment in common law. Suitors know not to call me for counsel (after a couple calls) because I just spout the same old simple mathematics of refusal for cause and make sure to remind them that timing is everything. But it is just getting control of the suits that develop around your home. That's all.
"The Pope still believes he owns the world, and the Sovereign above all Sovereign Nations, the Isle of Malta, Peter Hans Kolvenbach, has commanded our obediance to not our G-D, or to Jesus, but to the Society of Jesus. Our Corporate Govt.'s have said this is A-OK, and have submitted."
That is just not true. [Understanding I am not the Pope - maybe he really does believe he owns the world - and?] Some people were into that Internet rumor around town here. They wanted quite seriously to convince me. All they had was Internet junk. Sure the Treaty of 1213 makes the insinuation but like the dual district court, who has heard of the Treaty of 1213? I was able to make a believable link to the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Crown Templars vieing for an anti-reformative maneuver though. But then again, who has heard of the Magna Carta? See my point. You will have a much better chance convincing me the Magna Carta holds water in western law than the treaty of 1213.
But I checked with the State Archives in Maryland and West Virginia. I checked with the National Archives. The history of the Pope's land claim on Washington DC is non-extant. The Library of Congress was kind enough to send a package and I forwarded it to the spokesperson of the group trying to convince me. I have heard nothing since. I read "Our Country" and early Catholic periodicals for extensive entries about the Lord's Baltimore etc. Nothing.
There was a Rumor Mill style specialist named "Dove of Oneness" who was applying metaphysics to NESARA (National Economic Stability (later Security) and Recovery Act. This bill never even made it to Congress. But she somehow was able to convince her Internet cult following that it was ratified to be "Secret Law" by the Clinton Administration. And that it said outrageous things at that. But there is no secret law, because if secret how can it be custom and usage of the society, regardless of size? Dove admits in some of her journal entries that she is metaphysically applying the power of prayer to the Act to make it into what she wants it to be. She even metaphysically creates an imaginary buddy/bodyguard, the White Knights who help her cause.
I used to recommend people watch "Pi - Faith in Chaos" by Darren Aronofsky. But people kept trying to identify me with Maximilian Cohen and would ask me where I kept my power drill. So I stopped. Max sees patterns in nature and so do I. So do not worry; I am not Max. But the subject is paranoid scizophrenia (dual court systems too).
After that I met on a chat a physics graduate student from Maryland we will call "Joe". I asked Joe to analyze some advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics in light of prior knowledge psychometrics - equations around the fine structure constant. Next thing is Joe is in a leading mental institution in Bethesda. So I began screening through the delirium; a mixture of created and real memories that Joe is dumping into his keyboard at the hospital. I prescribed when, what time of the day, to drink water and what time of the day to sit at the keyboard so that I could get some scientific rigor into the psychotropic delusions being induced by the pharmaceuticals. Joe thought I was a computer program most of the time. No pattern. [The doctors were good to Joe by the way. He is stabilized and moved back with family and was planning last we talked, to continue his studies in physics.] I sent him "Pi" on DVD and asked him his thoughts. Nice psychodrama/science fiction.
But Saul, in Pi, tries to dissuade Max from pursuing the 216 digit Name of God. However, Saul drives himself to death by a second stroke getting it to him. "You will now find 216 everywhere Max! 216 steps to the elevator. 216 letters in a newpaper article..."
I am sure the package from the "Library of Congress" did nothing to dissuade these folks that the Pope owns Washington. Belief sets are the most difficult addiction.
So I am not exactly sure why the Ten Commandments case would inspire such amusement:
"HAHAHAHAHA! I would almost pay to see this lawsuit. Go, David, Go! You have a sense of humor, and guts to spare! Thank you for this, as it made me smile for the first time in a while."
But I see the "I would almost pay..." And so be it expressed plainly. If you have not the gumption to actually call Cecilia and get the bill of exchange (certified copy) into your hands, this is just for amusement. That may be difficult to understand; cyberspace. It is new*. Start at the beginning of this thread and read the entire thing. See?
Even pondering the bill, my signature notarized on its face, it will take a while to realize that I am them.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Just read your note in back. I think you, with your experience in commercial liens have a sense of the threat to banking policy you are imposing on the debt currency system. So do not be surprised if this is considered by paramilitary forces acting under War and Emergency Powers to be probable cause.
* Good reading is "Rethinking Boundaries in Cyberspace" by Erez Kalir and Elliot E. Maxwell - a Report of the Aspen Institute; Internet Policy Project.
I would of course notice that you sign, "Daniel Frank" here but in the email you sent, "Daniel Franklin". This retiscence to spell your name fully is dampening resonance. It should be pondered at length. I would like to see the effects if everyone were to sign with true name and even change handles to true name. Hyphens indicate scizophrenia too; like Hamilton-Avnet is obviously two parties conjoinded.
My theory is that macrocosms in cyberspace, being made of "1"s and "0"s are highly resonant medium. However when we get into microcosms like this forum, we must consciously build (tweak) resonance.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 22 May 2004 10:37:32 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2004 : 13:16:25
|
Dear David,
And why would you expect them to say anything else?
It doesn't seem to matter that this issue was once taught in law school and can be found in old textbooks. I know that up until about 10 years ago this was taught at Walla Walla University Law School here in Washington State. I am personally acquainted with a professor who taught it and told me where to look to find it.
But, no matter how they try, they can't get around the fact that the USDC is a court of the corporation and a District Court of the United States is de jure in venue.
Just my 2 copper coins worth.
Lewis
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2004 : 17:15:48
|
Dear Lewis;
I admire the chutzpa it takes, the tact that these are a mutinous crew. Then in the international waters involving Interpol for a criminal prosecution out of any neutral but sovereign nation. But it is not me you would ever convince of the dual nature, de facto and de jure, of the district courts. You certainly have not presented the evidence convincingly here, but then this is not the forum (cyberspace) to present it either.
So it is only rhetorical that I do not believe what you are telling me about two district courts. I am not asking you to convince me. I used to believe it myself before I learned better.
But to:
"But, no matter how they try, they can't get around the fact that the USDC is a court of the corporation and a District Court of the United States is de jure in venue."
Because you keep to nonsensical arguments, "poppycock" in fact, I just did.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Maybe you need to read Section 34 of the Act. An Act to Provide for the Payment of Debts of the United States. August of 1790 I believe. There is only one district court system (of the United States) established.
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2004 : 21:47:53
|
Hi David,
While I welcome your disagreement about the courts, I will offer the following:
No. CIV. S-01-1480 WBS DAD PS, District Court of the United States for Eastern Judicial District of California
Now, maybe this is only an aberation, but there doesn't seem to be any denial in the case as to what court it is in.
Regards,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Man of Knowledge
Regular Member
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2004 : 22:23:56
|
I hereby rebut your presumptions, Mr. Merrill, in hopes of rendering non-assumpsit your erroneous claims.
"The real problem is externalization. You express your mental conformity to useless systems of thought, "My family has been harmed, an it is unforgivable." There is a "they" in there somewhere, who through the CONstitution have gravely harmed you. That is not true. There are no conspiracies. After a complex externalization of character; trying to convince people you are different somehow you say, "I use all tools in my arsenal, and make no apology for it."
Therein squats the toad."
I agree I am not different, and have not once made such a claim. Actually, I was quite the normal(?) one, until I was attacked without provocation.
Unfortunately, externalization is the only logical answer as to my personal experience. I was threatened, beaten, kidnapped, and wrongfully imprisoned, until I taught them a simplistic lesson. Your presumptions are not always true, nor do necessarily apply to sovereigns. That is what I did through my usage of Affidavits. I also made mistakes, but recovered from them. I have done this all on my own, and am only now beginning to read the Rice, and Barton's, and so many other PAY-triots. Maybe this is the difference you speak of?
As a result of my intensive investigations, in just about every Law Library, and State Agency; I developed the knowledge to clumsily combat them. Is this learning process the difference you speak of? I figure many others out of neccessity have done the same.
I am now treated in the highest regards, by the Municipal Corporation, but the tin badges have a bone to pick, although, they do not harass me at all anymore in public, instead, preferring to do so anonymously. Death threats are an everyday reality for me now. So, please, David Merrill explain to me how it could be any other thing than an externalized situation. I do not indulge in self-flagellation, and I am not the one's whom were engaged in terrorizing my wife and children, while I was absent.
I did not break into a disabled man's home, without a warrant at hand, and attack him once again, and causing said disabled man to be rushed to the hospital. (Of course this is me.) It is the sign of an unstable mind to make such presumptions, and I believe you just did.
"You have a complex idea of what the answer is. More accurately WHERE the answer is. By externalizing the blame you also externalize the authority in you own sovereignty as the heir apparent. The man created in the image of God. The man must be completely surrendered to the goldsmith's fire for refining before the slag can be pulled and the reflection of Who is really there seen. [Like Daniel in the Lion's Den.]"
I cannot, and shall not blame myself for the actions of others, but I agree in toto with the above paragraph.
"So no. I am not interested in droit/droit etc. That is an insideous injury. There is a maturity that comes with properly publishing a true judgment in common law. Suitors know not to call me for counsel (after a couple calls) because I just spout the same old simple mathematics of refusal for cause and make sure to remind them that timing is everything. But it is just getting control of the suits that develop around your home. That's all."
Once again, you make a presumption, and show immaturity in the responsive. You have committed the cardinal sin of a researcher. Verification, instead of false assumptions. I do not speak of any Droit/Droit process 'Accepting for Value' anything, as it seems you are seeking to imply, sir. I am speaking of heirarchy of law, in Man's world, to fully understand the mechanisms that got us into this sorry mess. If you only used the left clicker, a wealth of information would have revealed itself to you. I am disappointed in your erroneous presumptions. There is benefit in even the most infinitesimal scrap of information. It would be acceptable on a Libel of Review. No, this is no stranger to me either. What one can discover, so can another. Such hubris, sir.
I want to know how the 'Saving to Suitors' applies to police powers, once their assumptions lead them to the door unlawfully, and take possession of my body without right. Will Admiralty allow instant rebuttal in an instant case?
Excerpt:
"UNIDROIT is the acronym for "International Institute for the Unification of Private Law".
The website states that UNIDROIT was "set up in 1926 as an auxiliary organ of the League of Nations."
Further, when the League folded, it was "reestablished in 1940 on the basis of a multilateral agreement, the UNIDROIT Statute."
The term "Statute" is very interesting. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines Statute as "A formal written enactment of a legislative body, whether federal, state, city, or county." It goes on to say that a statute is made a law of the state, and that it may be public or private.
There are 59 member "States" to the Statute, and the United States Of America is one of those "States."
The website lays out the objectives. Of particular interest to me is the statement that UNIDROIT applies to primarily "private law", "However, experience has demonstrated the necessity of permitting occasional incursions into public law,..........".
OK, folks, let's see where this portion has taken.
First, let me bring to your attention the fact that we have here an international legislative body making statutory law and applying same to the United States of America, albeit through agreement.
Second, we have the correlation with the language found in the United Nations Publication "System of National Accounts 1993", page xxxvii, "Forerunners of the System National Accounts", which ties that accounting system methodology back to the League of Nations, and decrees the way the member States, including the United States of America, should view accounting in conjunction with the European Community, the I.M.F. (See 12 USC 286), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and others.
For those of you who haven't studied that book, and you should, if you can get your hands on a copy, the concept labels all of you as institutional units to be controlled by governmental units.
The UNIDROIT site also shows Co-operation with other international "Organizations". This gives rise to the uneasy feeling that out there in the world, there are at least a couple of "Organizations" who are cooperating and legislating laws to be applied here, in America.
No conspiracy here, is there? We'll see."
Now, I have rebutted your presumption that I am speaking of the failed droit/droit processes.
There are conspiracies in this world, Mr. Merrill, and all your talk of it being nonsensical cannot abrogate that very dynamic fact. I will not insult your intelligence by providing you with definition of conspiracy. When three corporation coppo's stand in front of you, and bandy back and forth over what they might be able to make stick, if they can get their stories together, then that is conspiracy. I believe you to be overbroad in your assertions. When you went to jail for your motor-scooter, it was because of a conflict. I went for want of one. I did not give them the street arraignment they desired. I gave them no jurisdiction.This angered them, so they did what they did. All I ever said was, "I refuse to answer any questions, or follow any instructions without assistance of counsel." I did so in the calmest of manner.
Now to cover their brutal ineptitude, they came up with an even more spurious charge, Obstruction of Service, without standing, after the fact, (7 days to be exact, and this Municipality has a history of this method of arresting on another charge to attempt to cover the first,<Anyone for a RICO party? Unfortunately, I cannot invoke Police Power, as I am not a member of the Corporation, but it makes a good lien citation, or Libel of Review>), terrorized my wife and children, broke the front window, came back later, and broke my door down, all the while without a warrant, or even an Affidavit of Complaint, and it was all predicated on the presumption once again, that I was subject to their jurisdiction, then this is defined as a conspiracy of fellows on a non-existent frivolous charge. This is where my affidavits came in, of which none could be rebutted. They, therefor, stood as truth in rebuttal to the silent judicial notice of assumpsit. Simplicity.
Additionally, I did sign everything under (TDC), Threat, Duress, and Coercion, and "Without Prejudice". This was because of a very sound principle that worked to my advantage.
""It may however, be considered settled that letters or admissions containing the expression in substance that they are to be "without prejudice" will not be admitted in evidence ... an arrangement stating the letter was without prejudice was held to be inadmissible as evidence ... not only will the letter bearing the words, "without prejudice" but also the answer thereto, which was not so guarded, was inadmissible." Ferry v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 323; Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass 55, Molyneaux v. Collier, 13 Ga. 406. When correspondence had commenced "without prejudice" but afterwards those words were dropped, it was immaterial, 6 Ont. 719.""
I knew the court officers could not enter anything into evidence in the Corporation's own codes, statutes, and regulations, collectively known as Public Policy.
“All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's law. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process as applied to Sherwood T. Rodrigues.” Rodrigues vs Ray Donovan (US Secretary of Labor) 769 F2d 1344, 1348 (1985) (My emphasis)
So, they did not even have any admissable evidence of my identity, as even my Driver's License has been rendered non-assumpsit. (I was an over-the road trucker for nearly 19 years, gave up my commercial license, but still had one year left to expiration, so I redid them, wrote "Without Prejudice" under my autograph, but not on the application to be used by me to establish my Citizenship on the land of the county, but under G-d, and not as US citizen.) The presumption that I am divided in my thinking, and status is hereby rebutted.
I did not have the luxury of being divested of a Certificate of Live Birth, as you did David Merrill, so I had to come from a differing standpoint than yourself. No matter what you know to be the truth, it is an unspoken truth until verbalized, or written. I was also, as a lad of 14, and through my mother's, and my ignorance, forced by an employer to obtain a SS card, under the mistaken impression of mandate. Ahhh, to be so young, and foolish again......(no thanks). :P
"The Pope still believes he owns the world, and the Sovereign above all Sovereign Nations, the Isle of Malta, Peter Hans Kolvenbach, has commanded our obediance to not our G-D, or to Jesus, but to the Society of Jesus. Our Corporate Govt.'s have said this is A-OK, and have submitted."
""That is just not true. [Understanding I am not the Pope - maybe he really does believe he owns the world - and?] Some people were into that Internet rumor around town here. They wanted quite seriously to convince me. All they had was Internet junk. Sure the Treaty of 1213 makes the insinuation but like the dual district court, who has heard of the Treaty of 1213? I was able to make a believable link to the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Crown Templars vieing for an anti-reformative maneuver though. But then again, who has heard of the Magna Carta? See my point. You will have a much better chance convincing me the Magna Carta holds water in western law than the treaty of 1213.""
Once again, you make a false presumption. Although the Treaty of 1213 indeed states just as postulated, it is not the basis of my statement. Empirical evidence is. I disagree that it has no basis in Western law, as where do you think civil law came from?
Rome.
UNIDROIT is in ROME, commissioned by the Attorns for the Vatican. The INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION is quartered in London, but willingly admits it's marching orders and decrees come from Rome. The Club of Rome is self-explanatory, and a host of other examples, all predicated upon the Mother Corporation. It is not Catholicism that I besmirch per se, but of the Isle of Malta, entreatied as Sovereign Nation Above All Nations, as per the Ecumenical See of Mark, (I believe, but don't hold me to it, until I look up the exact See and date, AFTER the Jesuits were cast out of Christiandom, and harbored by the Templars, and Blue Masons), and the Black Pope, so named for his dress, and not character, although they seem to be interchangeable. This is the subject of many out-of-print texts, such as;
History of Romanism, Rev. John Dowling, A.M., 1845
Black Pope, History of the Jesuits, M.F.Cusack
The Footprints of the Jesuits, R.W. Thompson, Ex-Secretary of the Navy, and Author of "The Papcy and the Civil Power"
Romanism as a World Power, Luther S. Kauffman, 1921
and many more.
I hereby rebut the presumption that I make irresponsible statements, based on the Treaty of 1213.
"NESARA (National Economic Stability (later Security) and Recovery Act"
I will not waste my precious time even acknowledging such drivel, and rebut the slanderous presumption that I am of this ilk. Delusional estates entered into are optional to the reader, and I suffer no such delusions, and never have.
"I used to recommend people watch "Pi - Faith in Chaos" by Darren Aronofsky"
Thank you, I will inquire into this.
"I am sure the package from the "Library of Congress" did nothing to dissuade these folks that the Pope owns Washington. Belief sets are the most difficult addiction."
I feel sorry for these folks, and cast not aspersions upon them, but I do not subscribe to it, and hereby rebut this presumption on it's merits. I stated, "The Pope still believes he owns the world" You have errred in your connotation of my text, (this is common and to be expected in a text format).
This is what I found funny, Mr. Merrill, and it had nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.
The judge then quoted a one-line book review by the satirical writer Ambrose Bierce.
"The covers of this book are too far apart," Bierce wrote.
"So, too," wrote Nottingham, "were the beginning and end of this pleading."
Then, to the meat of the matter, which shows a tacit bias on the part of the Judge.
"A careful reading, however, disclosed that Merrill didn't sue the real Jesus Christ.
He sued someone he thought was posing as the savior in a prank telephone call in May 2000, when Merrill had been given 10 days to redeem his confiscated car.
"This man addressed me by name and told me that he, 'Jesus Christ' did not like to see 10-day notices, that they made him look bad," Merrill's lawsuit said."
What you did took guts, and it made me proud to see others attempting to set forth the truth, although in an albeit strange venue. It is the hilarity you find in a world predicated upon the absurdity of Man. Sorry if I offend, as it was not my intent.
"But I see the "I would almost pay..." And so be it expressed plainly. If you have not the gumption to actually call Cecilia and get the bill of exchange (certified copy) into your hands, this is just for amusement. That may be difficult to understand; cyberspace. It is new*. Start at the beginning of this thread and read the entire thing. See?"
I would almost pay to read the whole entire of the case you presented in court. I, additionally, see no need to pay anyone for the 'De Jure' Thirtheenth Amendment, when I obtained it three years ago, with a Certification of Authenticity from the Library of Congress. I have my own BOE, which is set to cure soon. I would love to contact this lady, as long as it is not too much. As for gumption, speak for yourself.
This is not a video game to me, sir, and I concede it might serve for me to once again go over this thread entire...... again. Therefore,why do you presume to know me and mine, when all I spoke of was YOUR case? I feel you dashed this off with a whole set of presumptions about me, and identify me with some kind of patriot movement. I am a movement of one, and now one other.
As for any compelling evidence of two separate courts, as in DCUS, or USDC, I really have no interest in, as when Congress retired Sine Die', the old Republic expired, and all that was left were Martial Powers. The only other time civil action was used in context was during the 'War of Northern Aggression'. It was once again invoked in One Form of Action, as per TITLE 28 USC, Historical Notes and Revisions. It took me awhile to obtain all the Notes, and Amendments, but it spells out precisely what took place in 1938, when At Law and Equity merged to form 'civil action', and again in 1966, when Admiralty/Maritime was merged to form the 'One Form of Action'. Attend;
Words ''all civil actions'' were substituted for ''all suits of a
civil nature, at common law or in equity'' to conform with Rule 2
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Words ''or citizens of the District of Columbia, Territory of
Hawaii, or Alaska, and any State or Territory'' which were inserted
by the amendatory act April 20, 1940, are omitted. The word
''States'' is defined in this section and enumeration of the
references is unnecessary.
TITLE 28 U.S.C.
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES - 1937
1. Rule 81 states certain limitations in the application of these
rules to enumerated special proceedings.
2. The expression ''district courts of the United States''
appearing in the statute authorizing the Supreme Court of the
United States to promulgate rules of civil procedure does not
include the district courts held in the Territories and insular
possessions. See Mookini et al. v. United States, 303 U.S. 201,
58 S.Ct. 543, 82 L.Ed. 748 (1938).
3. These rules are drawn under the authority of the act of June
19, 1934, U.S.C., Title 28, Sec. 723b (see 2072) (Rules in actions
at law; Supreme Court authorized to make), and Sec. 723c (see 2072)
(Union of equity and action at law rules; power of Supreme Court)
and also other grants of rule making power to the Court. See Clark
and Moore, A New Federal Civil Procedure - I. The Background, 44
Yale L.J. 387, 391 (1935). Under Sec. 723b after the rules have
taken effect all laws in conflict therewith are of no further force
or effect. In accordance with Sec. 723c the Court has united the
general rules prescribed for cases in equity with those in actions
at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure for
both. See Rule 2 (One Form of Action). For the former practice in
equity and at law see U.S.C., Title 28, Sec. 723 and 730 (see 2071
et seq.) (conferring power on the Supreme Court to make rules of
practice in equity)
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
-STATUTE-
There shall be one form of action to be known as ''civil
action.''
TITLE 28-JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES - 1966 AMENDMENT
This is the fundamental change necessary to effect unification of
the civil and admiralty procedure. Just as the 1938 rules
abolished the distinction between actions at law and suits in
equity, this change would abolish the distinction between civil
actions and suits in admiralty. See also Rule 81.
So, this is about all I needed to know about the District Court. It does seem in other sections, to refer to the "District Court of the Territory of", and once statehood was enacted, then it changes to "United States District Court, (to be construed as in concert with), the District of Columbia. Maybe Lewis would care to obtain this for his research, considering the brazen 'hidden in plain sight' text, only found in the original, (with all notations), containing the truth of the Corporation and it's askewed sense of authority.
The reason I hold Mr. Merrill in esteem at all is this informative pleading by the Committee:
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES - 1966 AMENDMENT
Certain distinctive features of the admiralty practice must be
preserved for what are now suits in admiralty. This raises the
question: After unification, when a single form of action is
established, how will the counterpart of the present suit in
admiralty be identifiable? In part the question is easily
answered. Some claims for relief can only be suits in admiralty,
either because the admiralty jurisdiction is exclusive or because
no nonmaritime ground of federal jurisdiction exists. Many claims,
however, are cognizable by the district courts whether asserted in
admiralty or in a civil action, assuming the existence of a
nonmaritime ground of jurisdiction. Thus at present the pleader
has power to determine procedural consequences by the way in which
he exercises the classic privilege given by the saving-to-suitors
clause (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333) or by equivalent statutory
provisions. For example, a longshoreman's claim for personal
injuries suffered by reason of the unseaworthiness of a vessel may
be asserted in a suit in admiralty or, if diversity of citizenship
exists, in a civil action. One of the important procedural
consequences is that in the civil action either party may demand a
jury trial, while in the suit in admiralty there is no right to
jury trial except as provided by statute.
It is no part of the purpose of unification to inject a right to
jury trial into those admiralty cases in which that right is not
provided by statute. Similarly as will be more specifically noted
below, there is no disposition to change the present law as to
interlocutory appeals in admiralty, or as to the venue of suits in
admiralty; and, of course, there is no disposition to inject into
the civil practice as it now is the distinctively maritime remedies
(maritime attachment and garnishment, actions in rem, possessory,
petitory and partition actions and limitation of liability). The
unified rules must therefore provide some device for preserving the
present power of the pleader to determine whether these
historically maritime procedures shall be applicable to his claim
or not; the pleader must be afforded some means of designating his
claim as the counterpart of the present suit in admiralty, where
its character as such is not clear.
The problem is different from the similar one concerning the
identification of claims that were formerly suits in equity. While
that problem is not free from complexities, it is broadly true that
the modern counterpart of the suit in equity is distinguishable
from the former action at law by the character of the relief
sought. This mode of identification is possible in only a limited
category of admiralty cases. In large numbers of cases the relief
sought in admiralty is simple money damages, indistinguishable from
the remedy afforded by the common law. This is true, for example,
in the case of the longshoreman's action for personal injuries
stated above. After unification has abolished the distinction
between civil actions and suits in admiralty, the complaint in such
an action would be almost completely ambiguous as to the pleader's
intentions regarding the procedure invoked. The allegation of
diversity of citizenship might be regarded as a clue indicating an
intention to proceed as at present under the saving-to-suitors
clause; but this, too, would be ambiguous if there were also
reference to the admiralty jurisdiction, and the pleader ought not
be required to forego mention of all available jurisdictional
grounds.
(End Excerpt)
I do see merit in Mr. Merrill's position. It is the only reason I injected myself into the conversation, so as to obtain a greater understanding of the basic precepts. I counted on just his presumptions as to my estate, and motives, of which I have satisfied, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction, with an adequate rebuttal of said presumptions, while educating some of the ones whom are not as advanced in their research.
"Just read your note in back. I think you, with your experience in commercial liens have a sense of the threat to banking policy you are imposing on the debt currency system. So do not be surprised if this is considered by paramilitary forces acting under War and Emergency Powers to be probable cause."
Before I answer this, please consider that you have answered your own question above, as below.
""I would of course notice that you sign, "Daniel Frank" here but in the email you sent, "Daniel Franklin". This retiscence to spell your name fully is dampening resonance. It should be pondered at length. I would like to see the effects if everyone were to sign with true name and even change handles to true name. Hyphens indicate scizophrenia too; like Hamilton-Avnet is obviously two parties conjoinded."
"I think you, with your experience in commercial liens have a sense of the threat to banking policy you are imposing on the debt currency system. So do not be surprised if this is considered by paramilitary forces acting under War and Emergency Powers to be probable cause.""
As stated, you have answered your own question. My family's safety is paramount. Before you call this paranoia, then walk a mile in the abusive lifestyle imposed upon me by this Municipal Corporation, and it's rogue(?) agents, before casting slings and arrows in my direction, sir.
My privacy is my own business, and not to be taken from me lightly, or without just cause, as my life, and that of my children are in jeopardy, as explained above. My desire to garner information does not require the usage of my naming entire, and it has not been revealed yet. I intentionally set forth my name, to see how you would either divulge it, or hold me up to ridicule. My answer has been received.
I care not about your notion of resonance when it is my family's lives at stake. I reveal the heresay of my naming only to those in which I trust. I have not had the opportunity to come to know you enough to illicit that level of trust. That, sir, must be earned, as surely as my actions and deeds must garner me the respect I deserve, and not what I, (nor you), think I deserve.
"Hyphens indicate scizophrenia too; like Hamilton-Avnet is obviously two parties conjoinded."
Absolutely, but harbors no scizophrenia inherently.
My given name is Daniel-
Franklin offsets the notion that I have only one name, as all do not have two, as expressly stated. My naming is not DanielFranklin, nor Daniel Franklin. Forms of custom and usage are my guide.
The Family name is the surname, and is set off by the colon, for it is an completely separate appelation/entity separate from my given name, known as the Family crest and shield. It is my naming, in the form and custom of my lineage, and heritage. Who are you to dispute it?
It is also common law, (Anglo-Saxon, not English, as is my heritage), copyrighted, and not for public usage. I happen to own any and all forms and derivatives, including DANIEL FRANKLIN ____________, so by where do you infer scizophrenia? It is a stated fact. I am of one mind. Secure.
As for my mental capacity, or anyone's living today in Man's World of Law, it is questionable. I would have to be crazy to exist within it, yet I do. So do you, Mr. Merrill.
All I ask is that you never invoke the word 'insane' and incorporate it into your description of me, as I may be crazy, but far too poor these days, to afford the luxury of going insane. That is a title best left to the bourgeoise.
I apologize as to the length of this posting, but once challenged, rebuttal is the only tool of truth, (your truth, my truth, or anyone's truth), to timely intercede in the mistaken presumptions of others limited knowledge of ones' self, and set the record aright. Hopefully I have done so to everyone's satisfaction. My truth is my truth, and your's is your's. 'His Truth' is the only one of higher validity.
Respectfully,
Daniel Frank
|
Edited by - Man of Knowledge on 23 May 2004 10:22:51 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"saving to suitors" clause of 1789
Topic Locked
