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

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

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  08:03:41  Show Profile
Dear "Daniel Frank";


You have misdirected to "I hereby rebut your presumptions, Mr. Merrill, in hopes of rendering non-assumpsit your erroneous claims."

Your parataxic distortion is the point. I was not trying to offend you. I was hopeful that by pointing out symptoms, you might desire to recover. Any definition of paranoia worth reading will include, "...[delusions of complex persecutions and grandeur] always protected strongly by the patient."

But you have met this kind of painful logic before in what you would perceive as "words of art"; always spoken by an evil and pernicious "them". But you refuse to experience the truth by calling Cecilia and witnessing the bill. The formation of them is symptomatic. I know who I am. [Whereas I cannot really decide if you were named "Daniel Frank" or "Daniel Franklin" (or both).] I believe that identity is the source of any relationship. But you attempt, consciously or not, to leverage an appearance from a character I do not portray.

So since I am not "Mr. Merrill" please forgive me that I have not read your Reply. However, I hope those that do are well entertained by the dazzle and glitter. You see, that is all I am hoping for. To me, it is factual mathematics. I have confidence in the bill. But to others, at least the many who are not courts of competent jurisdiction, it is impossible to understand my words. I am curious to see if just ordering and acquiring a certified copy will shed some light. If any intrepid readers do that, please write to us.

I only think this way because it is correct. Just yesterday somebody in Oregon called for me to draft him and his wife remedy. Referred by a court of competent jurisdiction.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Lewis;

Right on! That is my point. The abberations coax theories to fit. Searching for this court of which you speak, you will find a de facto (forum in fact) forum*. And the clerk will only understand what training dictates.

For instance you could open up a miscellaneous case jacket for $39. The clerks in Texas have been rumored to call this style of case "Article III". In Denver the jacket takes on the style "04-X-25". The "X" is for the fact that no "federal (attorney-in-the-black-robe) judge" is assigned. If you want a summons authorized, seal it yourself. You are the judge. Publish it with your county clerk before service.

* Being an engineer Lewis, you may see the recurrant play on words is a circular logic. But in explaining it, it recurred, "de facto (forum in fact) forum". This is the same wording you describe to try to prove two courts. David Wynn Miller is severly dyslexic and so he gives me a headache when he tries to point out the same language corrections. Hebrew is read from right to left. David's dyslexia makes this obvious to himself but when he tries to convey it to others, it is nearly impossible for us non-dyslexics to understand. I can relate to his frustration.

Edited by - David Merrill on 23 May 2004 18:17:55
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  08:37:58  Show Profile
Dear Readers;


I choose to elaborate on the confidence in the bill. "Daniel Frank" has obviously invested a great deal of time and money into idiocy like copyrighting his own name or something like that. I have spoken about the merits of chasing Strawman, when it is obviously retained by the holder of the little feet that were inked on the constructive trust's execution. But this is process; not merits.

So it may have occured to many of you that if this bill of exchange cured on September 11, 2001 and also I had a case I call Manhattan Judgment that was refused for filing in Denver on that same day [that contained a map of Zionist holdings on Manhattan Island], that the Homeland Security authorities must want to sit down and talk. Well? Has that come across your minds?

So you see? This is only for entertainment. That is why I hope you find whatever Daniel Franklin said amusing and sincerely hope that he is not hurt by me making fun of him. In other words, I am the Homeland Security authorities in the last paragraph. People (courts of competent jurisdiction) are the Grantor. The Creator of government who retain the right to hire and fire Trustees. The People are also the beneficiary of the public trust - recipients of the assets on Schedule A.

So if you are symptomatic of paranoia, and you probably are, you see the above mindset as theoretical. An ideal that is probably unreachable. I know it is fact.

So if there develops a faction of my employ [and I heartily encourage a vestigial Star Chamber to do so], government that wishes to confront the facts, I will simply ask what bill of exchange they are referring to for evidence. I will tell them I would like to see a certified copy in their hands please. Now do you see the testimony? Do you see why that will only happen, if ever, at the proper time?^

Otherwise, without any evidence of my involvement - by way of certified copy - this is only musings for entertainment. If you want it to be more than that, call Cecilia*. Players like Daniel Franklin came onto the stage as pre-formed characters in the play. If you [by character] are not in reality, then you are fiction. Can you understand why I [We/They] treat you the way you want to be treated? You dictate your identity, not me.


Regards,

David Merrill.

^ Now can you comprehend why I encourage you to get a certified copy? And why until I am convinced you have, I treat you all as amusing Internet characters? If you choose to defy Rules of Evidence, you are not a court of competent jurisdiction. Enjoy fiction. Enjoy cyberspace. It is obvious I do. If this angers you that is liquidation of "at your expense".

* It proves nothing but I considered it a great "reality check". I walked into the clerk's office a few weeks ago and of millions of pages possible, found the proof of service of the bill on Cecilia's computer screen. This means that somebody else was witness to the bill [and imagine my delight that I could be witness to that]. I snapped a photo of it and am forwarding that to Lewis to link. Thanks again Lewis.

Edited by - David Merrill on 23 May 2004 10:00:51
Go to Top of Page

Man of Knowledge
Regular Member

USA
35 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  09:38:01  Show Profile
""You have misdirected to "I hereby rebut your presumptions, Mr. Merrill, in hopes of rendering non-assumpsit your erroneous claims.""
To be honest, I needed a tag line to lead off with, and edited that one line in, so as to take some of the sting out of what you seem to perceive as anger. How you come to this conclusion, sir, in a text format is a mystery to me. I am as calm as a lake in repose.
"Your parataxic distortion is the point. I was not trying to offend you. I was hopeful that by pointing out symptoms, you might desire to recover. Any definition of paranoia worth reading will include, "...[delusions of complex persecutions and grandeur] always protected strongly by the patient.""

I know my symptoms, I live with them daily. When you survive being burned alive, and losing everything you worked for, then awaken to find your bank accounts cleaned out, insurance did not pay, all because, and I quote, "We were told you were not going to make it." Then speak of my symptoms with more clarity. When forced into recognizing precisely how this mechanism, that I signed without benefit of a jeweler's loop, operates, and that no recourse was available, then speak once again to me of my symptoms. I may live hand to mouth, but I live! I rejoice that I have had four years, in which to share with my two children, when I only was given a fifteen percent chance at life.

"But you have met this kind of painful logic before in what you would perceive as "words of art"; always spoken by an evil and pernicious "them". But you refuse to experience the truth by calling Cecilia and witnessing the bill. The formation of them is symptomatic. I know who I am. [Whereas I cannot really decide if you were named "Daniel Frank" or "Daniel Franklin" (or both).] I believe that identity is the source of any relationship. But you attempt, consciously or not, to leverage an appearance from a character I do not portray."

Excuse me? A beating, kidnapping, and false imprisonment can in no way be representative of 'words of art', spoken by anyone, excluding present company. I additionally do not refuse to do anything, and if you would take the time to read, then you would understand my words. I will be happy to go back over this thread entire, extract her address, and contact this lady. I am a seeker of truth, and not just YOUR thruths, but THE truth. I know who I am, and it is your failing that you cannot perceive this. My identity is mine, and not subject to your interpretation. Do I know you, just because of some silly naming? Of course not, and it is symptomatic of a unstable mind to think a name is any other thing than heresay when it comes to identity. Did you name yourself? How old were you when you named yourself? When did you realize the moment you were meant to be so named? I find you paradoxical in your thinking, sir.

I prefer the Native American's ideas in naming their offspring after the very first thing they see at birth. By this reasoning, my name could have been, "Bug bumps butt on window". I get this sneaking suspicion you count every toothpick in the box 216 times every day, and yet, you cast aspersions upon my mental health. Enough.

"So since I am not "Mr. Merrill" please forgive me that I have not read your Reply."

This one line troubles me to no end. By trying to be respectful, and refrain from being as familiar as I started off with; you now see no merit in reading my reply? I believe you did, sir. Otherwise, how would you feel so qualified to write the next line?

" However, I hope those that do are well entertained by the dazzle and glitter".

In this one line, you have called your own self dishonest. Methinks you are avoiding that which is indisputable. This is problematic in the psychosis inherent in the 'Savior Syndrome', and would wish to avoid seeing you tread such a path, but it is your life.

"You see, that is all I am hoping for. To me, it is factual mathematics. I have confidence in the bill. But to others, at least the many who are not courts of competent jurisdiction, it is impossible to understand my words. I am curious to see if just ordering and acquiring a certified copy will shed some light. If any intrepid readers do that, please write to us."

I fail to see what factual mathematics has to do with police powers being exercised uncontrolled, and against the weakest, in shades of cowardice. Will quoting Pierre de Fermat or Blaise Pascal's probability initiatives magically make this brutal thug disappear? Why didn't I think of this sooner. I could have already been in a mental hospital, and avoided jail altogether!

Why can you not simply answer my question? How can the 'Saving to Suitors' be used in Municipal court, when police powers have falsely taken your body?
I applaud your confidence in your bill, and will obtain said bill, when I can. If it is 500.00, as I have seen you post to, "Set forth in the suitors mind his standing.", then I regret to inform you that I cannot at this time, and probably never will. See, I give my time, and my experience for free. I understand perfectly how to write an BOE, Libel of Review, a brief, a suit, and to open a case and an evidentiary jacket, and I understand using the post office as a means of protection. I use them as process servers now. I fail to uderstand how this helps a man when stopped in public, and arrested for no just cause.

"I only think this way because it is correct. Just yesterday somebody in Oregon called for me to draft him and his wife remedy. Referred by a court of competent jurisdiction."

Whom are you seeking to convince, me or yourself? I only think in my way because I am correct. It is all a matter of perception. This line of reasoning is pointless, and counter-productive. I beseech thee to answer the simplistic question I asked, no more, and no less. Stop feeling so threatened by me. I am not challenging YOU, only your erroneous presumptions, of which, according to your own statement, you will not even expend the energy required to even read, or respond to.
By this same token, you want me to expend energy to obtain your Bill of Exchange. Psychosis is rampant in your reply. I am here to fellowship, learn, and maybe even teach a thing or two if I hold any relevant information, but I do so humbly, and without pretense.
Please do not shy away from that which you do not comprehend, for I do seek your knowledge, as a means of further protection, but not as a supplicant, only as an equal.
In quieter times, I would even be open to conversing about mathematics, from Von Neumann to Andrea Bertozzi, but it is not in my, nor others, best interests at this time to do so. People's lives are at stake, their family's lives are at stake, and I refuse to dabble about, when I know I can help them. This is my journey, and only 'He' can determine it's course, and direction. My free will is the gift by which I steer. I am battered about, but not taking on water, nor in danger of sinking.

I humbly ask once again. How can the 'Saving to Suitors' be used in Municipal/General Sessions/District court, when police powers have falsely taken your body? If it cannot, just say so. But refrain from calling it remedy, and reconcile yourself that it is just another recourse.

Respectfully,
Daniel Frank



Edited by - Man of Knowledge on 23 May 2004 09:45:27
Go to Top of Page

Man of Knowledge
Regular Member

USA
35 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  10:37:29  Show Profile
I so choose to answer only this snippet.

"I choose to elaborate on the confidence in the bill. "Daniel Frank" has obviously invested a great deal of time and money into idiocy like copyrighting his own name or something like that. I have spoken about the merits of chasing Strawman, when it is obviously retained by the holder of the little feet that were inked on the constructive trust's execution. But this is process; not merits."

It is not idiocy to copyright that which I have already stated was mine. I do not go from a presumption of Straw Man. My name is trademarked as well. It is to protect my property. My, how full of ones self can one be? I am making fun of you sir, so whereby do I withhold from you the right of reciprocity?

I always wondered what kind of being it would take to be 'Der Homelandkt Sekurity, and now you have shown me. I take all this to mean that you have the DoJ by the short and curly's? Then why hasn't this been lauded from the rooftops? Are you saying you have proof of a (gasp) conspiracy?

Welcome to reality, David Merrill. May your stay be of long duration. My confidence level in you has fallen by the wayside, as it is incumbent for you, it seems, to be in control at all times.

Not once have you answered the one question I asked, and only cast aspersions on my sanity and character. This leads to one inevitable conclusion. You cannot.

Respectfully,
Daniel Frank

Edited by - Man of Knowledge on 23 May 2004 10:39:06
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  10:46:01  Show Profile
Dear "Daniel Frank";


Though completely undirected this time (instead of misdirected) I perused the Reply briefly. It looks mostly like you are making my points by quoting me.

Originally I came to the forum to gauge the potential of rightful heirs among a religious Christianity. I made that plain. But it is still unclear who I am talking to. Is your name Daniel Frank or Daniel Franklin? [Let me rephrase that: What did your parents name you?] And if it is like I suspect "Daniel Franklin" why do you expect me to take you seriously in the pseudonym "Daniel Frank"? If you identify yourself a fiction - so be it. Why do you expect to be removed from Schedule A?

That is rhetorical. Unless this kind of mild bickering is what the readers find entertaining. If so, I am game. I am admonishing for maybe only one of you to even briefly snap out of it. Call Cecilia, get a certified copy of the bill. Get a grip on reality. This is just Internet entertainment.

I believe many of you see this forum as reality and that is really a problem.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Recently a renowned macroeconomist visited. He honored me by carrying my copy of his book into the clerk's office to get three certified copies of the bill. Then he inscribed, "May 14, 2004. For: David Merrill; Truth comes from experience. All else is information and hearsay. (author's signature)"

I implore you to pay attention.

P.P.S. The snippet directly above showed up while I was writing. You are not addressing your identity. The reason I am not answering your questions is that I did not read them*. Otherwise, you have not cleared up to whom I am speaking. So I will trundle along on the presumption that this kind of "I am not paranoid" arguing was only entertaining the first time around - with (I have forgotten her handle; about Eustace Mullins). Go back in the thread and read that again if you like that sort of thing.

But you make a fine point for me. You are busy trying to convince me that I have found reality in Internet ramblings. Thanks. Very comforting. You say your faith in me has fallen by the wayside? At least I got my point across, through the psychotomimetic delirium of pseudonomania [1901 Amendments to Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary].

from False + Name + Insanity "A form of insanity characterized by a morbid propensity to lying."

* Easily granted, your questions likely only make sense to another pseudonomaniac.


Edited by - David Merrill on 23 May 2004 12:48:00
Go to Top of Page

Man of Knowledge
Regular Member

USA
35 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  11:03:08  Show Profile
Of course this is entertainment. I am having a wonderful time observing you duck and dodge my one simple question.

I explained my position on my naming. Accept or don't. Every second is a choice you make. I care not if you take me seriously.
By the flip side of the same coin, "How can I take any man seriously that has sued Jesus Christ?"

Answer: I don't.

I simply asked you one question, and you refuse to acknowledge the reality that it has been asked. Reality is perception, sir. I find yours' askewed in trying to convince me of some BOE filed in May, 2001. Is it now a negotiable security as defined by TITLE 15 USC? What will you do with it? How is this remedy in a Municipal court setting?

Why can you not answer a simple line of questioning? What are you so afraid of, that every time you reply, you feel it necessary to quote someone else's perception of you, and lauding how right you are? Aren't you sure? Confidence is not surety.

One last time, and you win by attrition, for I have other duties at this time to attend.

How will 'Saving to Suitors' benefit me when I am arrested in public, or at home, for no just or good cause?
Respectfully,
Daniel Frank

P.S. My naming is a reflection. My father's name was Frank, not Franklin, and I use it out of respect for his memory. Whatever was put on the Certificate of Live Birth is what another named me, not myself. Every second is a choice you must make. Choose wisely. I am not of two minds, but two heritages. Be careful not to make another erroneous assumption. You know me not.

Edited by - Man of Knowledge on 23 May 2004 11:07:41
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  11:29:37  Show Profile
Dear Daniel Frank or Franklin?:


I suppose you have not been reading the thread then*. But remedy, properly applied works so well I often have to point out the obvious:

1) I cannot control other people (like municipal authorities and police power)
2) I cannot read minds
3) I cannot (reliably - beyond permutations of the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula for example) predict the future.

But you will not tell me your name. You skirt around that. But now that you realize this is only for entertainment and nothing more, enjoy your more important endeavors. As this seems to have developed over things I would not read, into a competition I graciously accept my win by attrition.

I will add that over and over again I am reminded of James 1:22-27. I am convinced this is a broadswipe statement about human nature. People become so frustrated when they have to understand remedy before they will simply cure it. First things first.

I love the counterintelligence though; not May, July.

But seriously Daniel Franklin, upon your admission this is just entertainment, if you really want remedy then seek it in better places than the Web. Find your nearest federal repository a/k/a Government Documents library for a start.


Regards,

David Merrill.

(I could prove that is true with the family Holy Bible entry but that might take some of the fun out.)

* Also your own link on page 11 tells:

"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."

[Classic parataxic distortion - that you would tell this lie knowing I would catch it.]

This experience is worth sharing. The man who would only identify himself to be "Jesus Christ" left his number in my digit grabber. I called back and got an ordinary outgoing message from "David". What really stuck was, "You have reached the answering machine of (pause) DAVID (pause); please leave a brief message..." It really struck me as odd. He said "David" like it was to be revered. It was like he really thought he was the root and offspring of David; Jesus Christ.

P.S. Any readers who are disappointed in my leadership here in cyberspace get the point too.

Edited by - David Merrill on 23 May 2004 12:31:39
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  13:03:40  Show Profile
Dear Readers;


Back to the bill of exchange. It is so much easier to dismiss it unread*. If you like that ease, then do not expect to sanctify yourselves unto the living God [at least not in the kingdom of heaven on earth]. You will remain on Schedule A, an asset, where you belong. Your indorsement will remain mandatory. I will remain the Gestapo-like figure, as Daniel Franklin portrays me you need to continue being a victim. If you refuse to cure remedy, you are doing this to yourself. Fictions do not have God-given unalienable rights.

The counterclaim is on page 4 if I recall. That was one of the things I want to gauge. Does anybody really need me for it to work so well?

Of course you can go a little overboard with the admiralty and pursue phantom courts but you are not listening to Duane Smith who found out it was poppycock over a decade ago. Also, the style of libel was outdated when I filed mine on the same day as the 31 Day Government Shutdown back in 1995. In some ways, Lewis' tenacity not to learn from my adventures is admirable. He clings to first-hand experience. I hope Lewis will post that link with the others soon.


Regards,

David Merrill.

* Daniel Franklin said; "Is it now a negotiable security as defined by TITLE 15 USC? What will you do with it? How is this remedy in a Municipal court setting?"

I have answered that already (see top of page 11). Instead of acquiring a certified copy of the bill and figuring that out, it is always easier to say I refuse to explain it and dismiss it. Daniel Franklin wants more Internet junk, not the truth. And this denial has its consequences. Daniel Franklin, by any other name (legal entity) will remain the subject of municipal and police powers pledged collateral against the national debt in bankruptcy. His right of avoidance will never be heard because it will never be properly spoken.

I realize it was in the other thread where I said, "Cecilia will mail a certified copy to you for a few bucks. (719) 520-6200; ask for Reception Numbers 201099293 7/16/2001 (the bill demands release of claim on August 13, 2001 - exactly thirty days to cure) and 201101604 7/19/2001 (Affidavit of Mailing by a professional process server). Please be informed before you make any acute responses or judgments." So I may have been unfair to presume that Daniel Franklin was notified.

Do not make virtual reality your reality.

Edited by - David Merrill on 23 May 2004 17:56:52
Go to Top of Page

Man of Knowledge
Regular Member

USA
35 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  18:12:29  Show Profile
Thank you for your tacit admission that I scoured this thread and found no contact numbers. I appreciate your honesty, if not your demeanor. I will inquire with Cecilia tomorrow. I asked the price, as my family is still more important to me than paper, and bear the brunt of your accusations/assumptions with grace.

I admit I am playing with you, for you are so much fun. I see you as Achilles, baring your heel for all with eyes to see.

I tried to assauge your massive ego, in hopes of a layman's explanation from you, for clarification of your ideas, as you couch all relevant information in esoteric terms, and mathematical retinue. You play as if resistance is a game. I don't play, and have learned to be deadly serious when it comes to word games. I refuse to be enslaved by your, or any's word games. I find it childish in the extreme.

Yes, I hoped you would catch the 'Jesus' jibe, as it proves you are dishonest in asserting you did not read all of the earlier reply, and now proof is certain that you did, and cannot hereby rebut my rebuttal. You now stand in dishonor.

Understand this, I make no bones concerning knowledge, as simplicity is the epitome' of universal understanding. It is no crime to not understand obfuscation, and belittling those whom do not have scientific, or even mathematical acumen is akin to Caeser down-trodding his slaves, of which had no access to any higher learning. Unconscionable.

You, contrastingly, seem to want a Title of Nobility, since you feel a compulsive need to feed such an enormous ego. All the while admonishing others for bequeathing you one, such as Messrs., or Mr.

You, sir, need to face the truth about your own knowledge, and to date, it has all been rooted in Commercial Law, Negotiable Instruments, and the UCC. You make fun of these 'Redemptionists', and yet only follow a side path using the same tools, in an Admiralty/Maritime venue.

I suggest you re-examine your own strategies, as they are lacking in application, and dangerous to those which take you at face value, and go off half-cocked. People are desparate now, and cling to anything.

I too cannot predict the actions of a fool, but I can make them regret their actions with the usage of commercial liens, properly served with a Notice and Demand, and following the Negotiable Instruments Law, and rooted in commons commercial law, which is prejudicial, (not prejudiced), and nonjudicial.

In Two Thousand and two, the Nonjudical Foreclosure Act was drafted, and made it easier to perform a strict nonjudicial foreclosure. I am educating the Sheriff of the County at this time.

I have backed off a Juvenile court, and nearly shut down an adjacent county, in toto, for harassing my Aunt's child. I have backed down several Municipalities with the Notice of a Commercial Lien. I have gotten one gentle being out of prison in Arizona, in this manner.

Now, tell me whom you have helped lately? I speak not of tenancy, but of personal freedom, harassment, threats, and brutality. Speak to me of what you have done personally to care for your fellow man, beyond a BOE? I hear of your great success, but only find the Jesus story online, or in any archives of the Public record in Denver Colorado state.

If you had paid some attention, sir, instead of mouthing your various protestations of not having feelings of inadequacy, by the mouthings of others......, you might have noticed that I spend most of my time at the local law library, and have visited almost every single law library on the continent. Your concentration and attention span seem to be found wanting.

If you had done so, then you would not look to be the actor in a play based upon a fool, and would not have made such a statement as you did. Call it a repository, if you want, but it is still the law library here. It is not a depository, as that is the recepticle in front, in which I cast my garbage.

Papa always told me to give a man enough rope, and he will always hang himself. How right he was.

If you cannot answer my query after I receive this 'Silver Bullet' BOE, then I shall consider you hung, upon your own cross. You suffer from a Messiah complex, and hold fear to your breast.

I have not maligned you, little david, I hung you with your own prose.

Respectfully,
Daniel the Frank
Frank the Daniel
The man known as 'Horse'
The name that should never be spoken
Y-------h

P.S. I am not religious. I stand upon the authority of the original one true Bible, and the feeling of fellowship in witnessing with others. Religion has become an extension of the STATE CORPORATION, 501 (3) c. I truck not with religion.

P.P.S. I refuse to contract with you by revealing my naming, Messrs. Merrill. If you wish one, then state your terms, and allow me the time to consider such, and if equitable, and fair.

Edited by - Man of Knowledge on 23 May 2004 19:17:55
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  19:52:19  Show Profile
Respectfully,
Daniel the Frank
Frank the Daniel
The man known as 'Horse'
The name that should never be spoken
Y-------h

See? That is really in the heart of it. You still will not tell me what your parents named you. And you adhere to a Jewish belief that the Name of God should never be spoken. Have you researched that? I have carried the Torah through the synagogue and best I have heard, that belief was instated by rabbis so that people would not take the Name in vain (Ten Commandments).

Still I have not read the lengthy letter you wrote on Page 11. So I think you are crosstalking your intel. But I read the Reply above. And also have been considering this question you keep bringing up.

Last you phrased it:

"How will 'Saving to Suitors' benefit me when I am arrested in public, or at home, for no just or good cause?"

But just the same you are fully cognizant that these "municipal and police powers" under "Home Rule Cities and Towns" supersede the State's judicial powers. So the question is rendered nonsensical. The 'saving to suitors' clause is used for avoidance. If you are making an appearance, it is either too late or you missed the point. If you are coerced into the arraignment the only topic for discussion is the default judgment already in place in the cognizance of the district court and United States. That is why you would file it at the county clerk's office first; whoever is holding you has already been notified.

But you and I just get into escalating insults because of perceptions of cause and effect. You are going to throw a couple FRNs at Cecilia and get your hands on a certified copy of the bill. So I plug that you look at the Credit River Money Decision thread too and the 13th Amendment (Book 6744; Page 969-975 from memory). That Credit River document has been useful to suitors who have their homes threatened. Properly notified these documents are very difficult to refute. But this is good. This is the weekend. But there is a bigger extension of truth being experience (directly by conformed Rules of Evidence). And that is what you perceive as arrogance and an inflated ego. I am not talking to a court of competent jurisdiction. Period. If you have spent time carefully reading this thread you would know that, at least in my mind, this is true.

I figured you wanted me to keep talking about the bill so that you could avoid getting it into your hands, direct experience.

So far the bill backs default judgment on a slam-dunk issue. Did the agent of a foreign principal file in the district court prior to pretending claim above the high-tide mark in this nation? That is an easy win and you know it.

But here is the presumption I have been making about you. That you have read this thread from the beginning. So why am I repeating myself?

So enough on that. Read the thread. I have already answered your questions, I am sure. If somebody wants me to repeat and rephrase I know they want me to say what they wanted to hear all along; meaning that I am wasting my breath.

You said something interesting:

"In Two Thousand and two, the Nonjudical Foreclosure Act was drafted, and made it easier to perform a strict nonjudicial foreclosure. I am educating the Sheriff of the County at this time."

I used to do this sort of thing. The Sheriff here would have his County attorney attend our meetings. But you know what? That is like inviting a plumber to fix your sink but you sit him down at the table and tell him your theories on plumbing - for a common layman to try teaching an attorney about law.

Sound familiar? You tell me about your theories on names but you will not say what your mother and father named you?

I figure you are Daniel Franklin from what I have read. But I would call you Sam if that is what you want. Or Horse. Whatever. I was picking for your benefit, not mine.

So then. I hope that clears some things up. I think the accusations and slander are getting boring to the readers. The cumulative advice I have gotten is to just ignore it so do not be surprised. If I do, just remember to read the entire thread carefully. I find it disturbing that people can understand what I say but not what I mean by it. It is only after a man is a court of competent jurisdiction that he is cured by remedy.

So the fruits are just beginning. But about 100 suitors have gained to one extent or another control of the suits that form around them and their households. I have been a little chicken to use the bill for more than the simple slam-dunk question in the counterclaim on page 4*. But that is because I triggered the Freeman Standoff a few years back with a Comptroller Warrant. But I did not use the UCC; just wrote "Without Recourse" and signed it true name. The next morning they picked up Leroy Michael and Dan Petersen. There was no recourse so I was not targeted, even though I indorsed it.

Now you say something about me using the UCC. You are wrong on that.

"You, sir, need to face the truth about your own knowledge, and to date, it has all been rooted in Commercial Law, Negotiable Instruments, and the UCC. You make fun of these 'Redemptionists', and yet only follow a side path using the same tools, in an Admiralty/Maritime venue."

The admiralty law is the conduit to the law of the land. In this nation one must access the common law through diversity - a civil suit in admiralty. But you are not a court of competent jurisdiction so I am again wasting my breath.

Now you might wonder why these suitors are not running to my defense against your indictment? They know you are like they used to be. Also, they are grown-ups and if they felt like you do, they would let me know. I presume they know your indictment is bogus. I hope the readers are finding this entertaining just the same. But foremost they realize I am just spinning cyberspace yarn. They are courts of competent jurisdiction; they know you have no power here.

Which brings up an interesting point. You are part of an experiment. Unless you of course showed some sign of being able to cure remedy and offered me $500 when I really needed it, I would refuse. I want to see if after carefully explained somebody can acquire this Silver Bullet. But primarily I was looking for this among religious Christians. You are a practicing Jew in my opinion so that throws some new chemistry into the mix. Now I gave True North a call but explained the dynamics were so that he would construe me a businessman (Patriot for hire). Since I called him. Usually one person wants what a suitor has enough to just get the remedy cured. Courts of competent jurisdiction are exactly that - competent.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I think there may be some communications problems because Lewis may not have posted graphics that would be helpful. I do not monitor that since I am the originator; I already have the files.

* Several suitors are medical doctors. We gathered a meeting and see that healing is not hindered by technology but by the ambulance-chasing attorneys and greedy malpractice "victims". So the bill of exchange backing assurance has a great potential in the same bonding format. Actually anyone can use the bill as desired. All that is required is confidence and of course understanding that debt currency is a first derivative of money which represents wealth. Wealth is energy and control over it.

P.P.S. That is an interesting blurb you put at the end of your last Reply. I am sure it means something or other. Maybe that is in the middle of our insulting consultation? Are you extending an offer for me to buy your true name? Now that is some amusing mathematics!!

P.P.P.S. It sounds like you have been diverted to a law library. These are for attorneys to practice law. No practicing in courts of competent jurisdiction; just execution. Look carefully for something along the lines of "Government Documents". Check with the Freemasons. They are often custodians of such repositories.

Edited by - David Merrill on 24 May 2004 09:05:31
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 23 May 2004 :  20:20:52  Show Profile
Dear Readers;


It would seem that of all the people around, I would be aware of how badly people need remedy. Why do you suppose I have authored this roadmap?

Another common malady I encounter is projection. The identity crisis of Daniel Franklin has manifested that he would like to sell me his name in due course. He is carrying baggage of the Strawman Redemption, though he despises it.

But the projection is that he "accuses" me of utilizing the UCC. I have explained the rulings, judgments and opinions of the court of competent jurisdiction are best expressed in common law at the county clerk; only utilizing the U.S. Courthouse for a conduit to notify and inform the foreign agents in admiralty. The UCC is effectively hiring an attorney to interprete or decypher the last "C" - Code.

By holding onto these failed and idiotic doctrines, UCC liens and suing people for copyright infringement on artifice names, folks like Daniel are causing what I call "common law phobia". Suitors from around the country are having to find alternate methods of publishing default and other common law writs. The county clerks have become legal consultants who insist on imposing legal decisions on what they can and cannot file.

Not my problem.

I just tell these folks that my clerk behaves just fine. They used to act up a little bit but I would correct them like a good employer should. Not only that, they learn the common law method/tactic of gathering testimony. If somebody wants recourse for a libelous filing what better place to acquire the evidence? So I could file my daughter's homework for that matter.

So I will address one other item. Patriots for hire. I do no advertising. Because of the skewed mindset symptomatic of psychotomimetic delirium, giving people fish, even for free is not doing a favor. One needs to teach people how to fish for themselves. Once suitors have acquired default, it is nearly impossible to hire me for further process. For Verified Statements of Right, Refusals for Cause, Returns of Bills of Indictment, Certificates of Exigent Circumstances and other common law writs, I will often edit the near-final drafts. That is all. I have generic copies [ok, many that I originally charged for and the suitor has relenquished intellectual property right] that I email to the suitor for templates.

The trait that took me so long to notice is what I feel was exhibited by Daniel Franklin. Dan "Horse" is certainly not lazy, but there is a reluctance that would dissipate if he had just handed me $500 that he could not afford to give. That would get him invested in following through; becoming a court of competent jurisdiction. Even when I allow people to pay over time, there are consistently 'reluctance' problems. Especially when one has adopted idiotic doctrines like copyrighting their names and the UCC like it holds leverage; the misperception that the UCC is common law.

One fellow, a lot like Dan was referred. I got a bad feeling about his already dear doctrines and that he only wanted to blend remedy into the UCC Redemption. I told him no and he cried discrimination. I told him tough but if he really wanted to go ahead, I would draft the remedy but then we were through. Like with Dan we got to arguing and exchanging insults.

A week later, I emailed that I wanted to drop the matter and destroy all the files. With an insulting email in response, the man agreed to do the same. What he was doing was revising the counterclaim on page 4 so that (he thought) nobody would recognize it. Deputy clerk Robert Garcia (Denver) opened it and said, "Oh, another David Merrill document." Anyway since he had stolen intellectual property and we do not like each other anyway, the thing blew up in his face. Mainly he did not understand or forgot "unalienable" and what that means. But he threatened me, that if he heard of me swindling anyone for $500 he would publish me a charlatan on all the newsgroups he could find. I admonished him that the free advertizing might drive me to changing numbers and email addresses. I purchased a Pocket PC and cell/modem cable so that I could draft remedy in five minutes on the spot, wherever. But mostly suitors advised him to quiet down. Some are trained psychiatric professionals.

One psychotherapist told me over lunch one day that I am a psychotherapist. Well, I do not feel so qualified but it would seem that is what I do most; pioneering advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics. It seems the messiest part of this "career" is to deal with the frustration of having to do a major paradigm shift and alteration of belief sets before you will understand why. But the observation is the only complaint about drafting remedy came from somebody who tried to steal the methodology.

Here I have shared it for free. It is on Page 4. I have visited and answered questions. I have gotten into a couple rows like with Daniel Franklin. And here I am.

If you read it with a clear mind, I think you will agree that it is the correct way to establish competence:

"...saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it..."

I am not here for your money. There is something wrong with the relational dynamics for that. Me contacting you. Of the people who I met here, not a single one is fully competent to sit functional court. Now that may be wrong but it seems that no default judgments have come to fruition. I call these types researchers or academicians. The point being that I will probably stick to this only being a cyberspace adventure in fictions - like I said at the beginning of the thread. [It is a service to remind you that if you believe anything I have told you here in cyberspace, you are a fool.]

Typically, when a suitor masters the mailbox and the right of avoidance, his or her friends become so envious that they prod for an introduction. Imagine refusing for cause that IRS letter or whatever nuisance suit somebody is trying to stir; only to go to bed like nothing ever happened? Sleeping sound, maybe only in the knowledge that you did all you can properly do and you did that correctly. If the claimant proceeds to judgment all you need to do is call up evidence you refused for cause timely.

So I hope you can master how simple this is in concept and theory and apply it to make your lives a little better. I hope that you prove me wrong about general human nature. That since I have given you all this information for free that I have done you a grave misservice.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 24 May 2004 08:07:28
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 24 May 2004 :  13:00:48  Show Profile
Dear Readers;

I visited my email box herein and found that the Admin is willing to post links to graphics. So Lewis, if you have these organized, please forward the files to Bondsman. Otherwise, I will read through the threads and acquire the list of supporting graphics in a few days; get them available nearby [without having to click all the way to Yahoo, wherever that is (several of my operatives are working on locating that now)].

I noted a letter from Daniel Franklin a couple days ago. He inquired what I think of commercial liens and then I realized it might be interesting to explain why it seems so neurotic to me to remain fully engaged in codified banking practices.

I remember it was around New Years. Probably '97/'98. There was a few folks in jail for commercial liens and I had just been released for "trying to bankrupt the United States" as the newspapers put it. The one fellow who we will call "Rich" was in CJC (Criminal Justice Center) for putting blotches on the titles of several attorneys in black robes around Pueblo, Colorado. Since I had utilized my sovereign position to facilitate my release, and these attorneys needed a court of competent jurisdiction, they appealed to me for adjudication on the validity of Rich's liens.

I fashioned a writ to release the bogus claims. But I tailored it so that if Rich was calm enough to pay attention, he could keep the claims vital. So the order for release was signed by me but required both Rich's and my signatures to release the liens. What Rich apparently failed to understand from the jail was that he needed to serve (using the guard/deputy/process server at the station) the papers unsigned on the court of (incompetent) jurisdiction for his liens to survive the thirty day grace period.

Shortly afterward the general assembly, upon my authority passed legislation to prosecute people for filing UCC-1 liens on public officials. Therefore in Colorado, the county clerks are free to protect their common law venue for public notice and grace. No pressure to screen process (offer legal advice). No "common law phobia".



Regards,

David Merrill.

Go to Top of Page

Man of Knowledge
Regular Member

USA
35 Posts

Posted - 24 May 2004 :  14:29:07  Show Profile
Now, that was precisely what I beseeched you to do David Merrill. Your stance is now grounded on solid principles, and laid out in a nonsensical manner. I have accomplished what not one of the other wonderful posters to this thread have been able to in six months. I feel a small amount of pride in being able to manipulate you so easily, and also shame. It is allowable, but still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Once again, you make a spurious accusation and presumption, of which I feel I must rebut, for the members of the Ecclesia.

I was a practicing Baptist, before the State gained control. I am not Jewish, but harbor no ill will towards the true Sephardics. I do not spell out the name of G-d, not because of religious beliefs, but because I do not know the naming of Our Lord. I have seen many theories, and is why I got a chuckle from your 216 step program. What others have named, does not make it the NAMING 'Our Lord' wishes to be called, so therefor, I make no presumptions of the will of 'Our Lord'. I do not dare ask even if I am so fortunate to actually meet 'Him'. If he wants me to know, then I shall, by his presents. This is called respect.

While exploring this line of reasoning, it behooves you to understand why I will not speak my naming by third party's. Third Party naming is not what I have named myself in my heart. A name can hold a powerful sway over Men, as the Rules of Commercial Law require the other to admit his naming for the purposes of contract. This isn't some new UCC concept David. It is a part of the Maxims of all known Law. I wished not to contract, or bind myself to you in any way. You foolishly, once again, assumed I wanted to sell you the naming. I do not, for it is my property, as surely as my pocketwatch is. I protect my pocketwatch.
Respect must be shown, before returned. You disrespected me from the outset with your demands for my third party naming.

Have you demanded the same from 'Our Lord'? Have you asked what his parents named 'Him'? That would be presuming there are others superior to 'Our Lord' and 'Creator', and thus rendering his status to that of Man, a terrible act of presumption, and sin.

You have accused me of so many things, and made so many false presumptions, you are unclear as to whom you are really speaking with, or to, or even what about. Your confusion was expected and played upon with the same consummate skill with which your paranoia played perfectly into my hands, to garner the simplistic explanation, readily understandable fo your knowledge of so-called, 'Silver Bullet' remedy. The only 'Magic Bullet', as i refer to it, can only be rooted in the Natural Law. The right to exist. "I think, therefor, I am, but only by the Grace of Our Lord." Hopefully, the Ecclesia thanks me for my efforts in this regard. If not, then I expect censure.

Now, on to matters. I explored a similar ideaology that you espouse here. It makes absolute perfect sense in your application. I am glad to hear that you still have a County Recorder fulfilling their duty, but it is closing off access in most Counties under the Revised UCC Article 9, whereby only Fixture filings are being accepted at the county level. The hilarious part is, this makes it so much easier for me, and a very few others, as this is what I do file against real property. If the land is attached, then all fixtures are as well.
Anything else I put in the local newspaper under Public Notices, such as Affidavits of Truth. This is how the (Anglo-Saxon) common law works. The basic commercial rules of interaction in a public venue hiding nothing, to come to an amicable agreement. If unable to, then the County Assessor provides me with a listing of real property, and then I attach it with a financing statement and all supporting Notorized Affidavits, (Facts of the dispute, eyewitness testimony, remedy,<i.e. recompense>, and rebuttals). This is the Court of Public Opinion, (Anglo-Saxon Commons). Take care to not make any spurious, or flase statements that you cannot absolutely prove, and become liable to slander.
This sets forth into the Public Record your status as a FULL LIABILITY man standing on the truth. No one can overturn your Affidavit of Truth, except the one adversly affected by it's contents.

This is a Court of Competent Jurisdiction in the community, and not just personally. This is the method just successfully proven to work by, and against you, David Merrill. I hope you appreciated the experience, for it is powerful as a motivator of truth.

When one looks to only one 'Process' to the exclusion of all others, then that one has limited his options of all remedy and recourse, and why the courts are not wrong when stating you have not exhausted all Administrative Remedy, out of court, as well as, in court.

People have forgotten how to litigate their disputes that our ancestors took for granted, in a public, open venue.

"Hear ye! Hear ye! By all these presents, stated by the Humble Supplicant of his Lord and Majesty, Ruler of all Lands, and by the authority invested to all Men, by the Office and Power of 'He Above All', Our Lord and Jesus Christ, comes this man upon 'His' Lands, hereby subscribe to, and set forth, and be it enacted by......"(whatever the dispute, decree, or that which should be publicly known).

Now you have set forth the Authority by which you speak, known as the "Enacting Clause", by which all true positive law, and all presentations must incorporate in a Public Venue. This is true Court.

Now, if interested, I shall show you the difference between heriditary commons, and English Commons. Many say the common law is not in force in this country. To this I say "Poppycock!" Have any of you truly understood that English Common Law is the basis for our whole Judicial System? I can prove this through caselaw, and even in the Constitutions of most states. A Judge will laugh at you, and rightly so, when you claim you are not in a common law court, because you are, just the King's Commons, and not the people, thereby creating a 'Star Chamber' courts of the King/Queen.

Now, just to leave you all with a teaser, look up the Act to Abolish the 'Star Chamber', and the Writs of 'Statutes of Praemunire', and you will find just whom the common law stands for in this country, just as surely as in Merry Old. You will also find that the remedy can be invoked in any Municipal Court, or under any Municipal/Martial Powers, as acting 'Star Chambers', and prosecute with Positive Statutory Law arising out of English commons law, such as the whole entire of TITLE 18. Any fines in TITLE 18 below the ones stated in the 'Statutes of Praemunire', then the Praemunire has precedent in the amount of monetary awards.

I hold no hope of abolishing the 'Star Chamber', as it has to be upon enactment of the people, but it does compensate when egregious harms are perpetrated beyond the scope of English Common Law powers, this being the 'Public Policy' and will of the people, and allows the 'Get out of Jail Free' card to come into play, as the court is now in dishonor, holding nothing in abeyance, and therefor convicted on it's own merits in the Court of Public Opinion, and invocation of the Praemunire, based upon the Abolition of the 'Star Chamber'.

I do not expect any and all to understand this, and at this point, it is untested to my knowledge in this country. So far. Until Wednesday, that is. I will communicate again when I have more to report, and if time allows, I will share all relevant information that ties this all up in a nice little package.

The very thing that David Merrill so compentently establishes through the Admiralty/Maritime venue is his supplication to the King/Queen in all matters statutory, and admits the King has all rights to his Lands, and can only be divested by the power of the King/Queen, thereby using the Rules of Evidence, that were carried almost ad litim, that are antecedent to the 'Civil Reforms' of 1938, and 1966, as expressed in TITLE 28 Notes of the Committee. Even the precious King's Law was not left unmolested as the 1966 Supreme Court rulings prove after the TITLE 28 unifications, but almost, and in all relevant parts, could not be changed. This is the standing in which David Merrill has delivered himself, and his 'Suitors'. Now his lands are subject only to the English common law, with the final approval resting solely upon the Queen's Will.

I elect to not go this route, and only because I will not swear fealty to any earthly King/Queen, as David's actions are sound, and rooted in his life-preserver, English Commons, and the Law of the Seven Seas, or International Law.

I, for the matters of conscience, will only come hence by the Authority of 'Our Lord'. This is why I subscribe to the usage of non-statutory abatements as a first line of defence, for you are coming from the standpoint that the King is only the One true King of all Kings, Our Lord, and Jesu Christ, therefor, from a higher authority.

Even if an Abatement does not dissuade the courts from their current course of action, then make sure you always grant 'Special Appearance' only by the Superior Authority listed above, and by where you gained your presents. This is precisely what Jesus did with Pilatte. He GRANTED an audience in 'His' court, while appearing in Rome's.

Once recorded, the Appeals courts will almost to a man, grant a stay upon presentment of the Record, and REVERSE the Order of the lower court, but not granting a retrial, (With Prejudice). This is easily found in numerous caselaw in England, Scotland, and Ireland. To my knowledge, it has not been so used in US INC., in such a straightforward fashion. They, in the United Kingdom, have not completely forgotten their roots, stature, or standing, while we have been divested of this knowledge in the states.

I have set forth into the Public Record, that which I see as truth, and no man can rend asunder, as only 'Our Lord'has such a power, because we act under only 'His' authority.

Take a stroll around, and ask yourself this. Is it worth it to save your property, at the expense of your soul? If so, then follow David to the bitter end, as I attempt not to advise, nor sway you from your present course, nor entreat any to follow me, or my way, as it is 'Our Lord' you must ask for guidance in these matters.

I only want you to understand the truth of the implications involved in taking this course. Everything David Merrill has finally spelled out for you will most likely work in it's venue. It just happens to not be in mine, and I make no judgement upon anyone, as only 'Our Lord; has that right.

Peace be with you, and yours.

I just hope the rest of you do not fall prey to the presumptions that are so rampant within David's vainglorious paranoia.

Do not take what little I have written and run with it. Always verify every single word, and concept. Hopefully, I have shared knowledge freely, and without prejudice, and stating plainly I will not be held liable for any actions taken in haste, nor otherwise. This is for educational purposes only, and no big secret, or 'Magic Bullet'.

Daniel Frank
Belligerent Claimant
sui Juris
without prejudice

Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 24 May 2004 :  15:12:05  Show Profile
Frank, I understand you, there is a simmerring fire with-in the words you put forth.

There was once a man who payed a little visit to a psychiatrist.

The man sat on the "head-shrinkers" office for hours without saying a word.

Sessions past until the psychiatrist got fustrated and demanded for the "patient"
to SPEAK UP!

The man followed the psychiatrists order and said:

Okay, okay... I'm a dog! I'm a dog!!

The psychiatrist got all exited and grabbed his pad and pen and told his patient:

"Good! Now please... lay down on the couch now and proceed."

The patient told the psychiatrist:

No... I cannot... They don't let me on the couch.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 24 May 2004 :  17:03:35  Show Profile
Dear Daniel Franklin;


You of course point out that we will make no sense to each other. I agree. But without the consensus of the jurists in your midst, you have no common law at all. That is the "common" part. Suitors having difficulty with "common law phobia" (which I blame you UCC guys for) will find I suggest the newpapers as about the third or fourth venue to publish judgment.

It is however amusing that you think I have been taught a lesson here. You see me much differently than I see myself [saying I am under the English common law] and really cannot understand how you came to deductions that are so different than the other readers on the forum arrive at. Since I see you a UCC guy it is so easy to attribute your 'accusations' to projection. You said, "Your stance is now grounded on solid principles, and laid out in a nonsensical manner." and I beseech you that I should not be considered grounded in solid principles. You believe the rantings of cyberspace yarn if you think so. You only hear what you want. [It occurs to me maybe that is what you are talking about - the lesson you have taught me. That you have revealed the obvious. This is an Internet Chat Room?] Do you think I would come here to build a reputation? This is scientific rigor; an experiment about religious Christianity. I have been up front about that.

So it is still, in my mind an identity crisis on your part that keeps you from getting bearing in life and establishing proper relationships. You even admit that God himself, YEHOVAH, has not revealed His holy name to you. Maybe you need to look in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance? I know that once I had, at least in my own mind, secured the proper pronunciation my confidence excelled.

Now in the easily reached deduction of projection (from me) you would see my confidence as delusions of grandeur. And I have to consider this seriously and have considered this seriously. There is a problem with that theory, which I presume true unless positively refuted (that I am delusional). Dates do not lie. At least I cannot figure out how they would. Timelines that forecast (prophecy) are of course unclear until the date transpires. But once the dates transpire then there is no questioning that things happened on certain dates and at specific intervals. So why would fully educated medical doctors and psychotherapists desire to be courts of competent jurisdiction in charge of suits around their household? That's a no-brainer. But the question would they follow a madman to that end? Would they pretend to respect the madman and nurture his insanity to reap the products of delirium? Well maybe they are that greedy. But I have a problem looking any of them in the eyes while thinking about it.

But I feel that the conversation was of benefit to the readers, wherever they should stand. Maybe I should point out again that this was just an experiment. No courts of competent jurisdiction have developed since from the Ecclesia forum. And it is confirmation that true name is essentially a calibration standard by which we can develop resonance with truth.

So I am not trying to sell remedy as a product. If you read the first few sentences of the thread you will know that. That would seem to be the presumption about me. Maybe just as:

"P.P.S. I refuse to contract with you by revealing my naming, Messrs. Merrill. If you wish one, then state your terms, and allow me the time to consider such, and if equitable, and fair."

looks like an offer to sell me a name for you. That is still what it looks like to me.

So as you think you have danced me into some kind of admission of guilt or whatever; I feel that nobody even knows who was supposedly holding court. Since I am a court of competent jurisdiction and you refuse to properly identify yourself, I consider that if anyone has been obfuscating truth here it is you, "Daniel Frank" or "Daniel Franklin" or whoever you are. Before testifying in any court I have seen, the affiant states his name for the record. But if you just name yourself whatever feels right, then you take the authority to change that between fulfilling contractual obligations.

But understand foremost that if the things I say are true, the reason I would appear to have DoJ by the shorthairs (as you put it) is simply that the attorneys there know there is nothing substantial in cyberspace they can use against me. Likewise with you. So I admonish you to be careful what you all believe in cyberspace because if you fashion your belief sets by believing me, you will believe anything from anyone no matter what it is.

I said you have no power here. But that should be an even playing field. In saying that about you, I say it about me too. Albeit the truth is very powerful in itself. So please understand that I am finished with you. Thank you for your thoughts.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Manuel;

Thanks for the joke and levity. Timing is everything.

Edited by - David Merrill on 24 May 2004 17:12:00
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 24 May 2004 :  17:43:19  Show Profile
Levity is a revealing word. When I looked up the definition it speaks of neutrality. Which reminds me of the many times I had to establish neutral bouyancy at certain depths according to the atmospheres. It allows one to be "in sink" with the volume and density around them in order to go with the flow. Now... above thirty three feet, one can stay as much as as one wants without having to de-compress.

I remember a time when there was a stationary wooden structure on the middle of a bay. There was a request to "get rid of it." So... with a few pounds of composition-4 and some time fuse, I was picked to do the "honors." I calculated the amount of explosives and amount of time needed, but... after the fuse was ignited, I forgot that the compression of the time fuse under such depth would burn faster than the time estimated.

I know this might seem off topic, but never the less, if it can "defuse" some tension, and help us garner our focus to the problems we have and are facing with the un just ways of these impostor robber barrons, then there might be a time where we can one day meet face to face and boldly brace ourselves knowing that we tried and succeeded. And if not face to face, then In Spirit Will Do.

Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 24 May 2004 :  19:58:58  Show Profile
Greetings One and All,
ah, a man after mine own heart...praemunire, and the writ thereof.
The "Pope" claims all soul's baptised in water in a CHURCH setting. According to a BULL delivered in what they call 1957. {Giggle}

I have witnessed seven of mine, and a few other children come forth into this realm. All were brought forth in a sack of water...baptism.

Those who were hoodwinked into a water baptism, I pray that it could not put out the Fire within!

The ego is the final beast to be dealt with.

The enemy without, the enemy within,
listen friend,
speak Peace and Truth each man to his Brethern.
For if ye speak not this in simplicity,
Shiloh has not come for you.

John in the third chapter, YaHuSHuaH speaks of two births. One water, one Spirit. The second birth.
The Master spoke in word's the people could hear, and so shall His Own.
Unless ye believe as a child, ye shall not enter.
I enjoy the verbal verbage going on, to a point. The point being, this is not an area for ego clashes, but for the edification of the Body of Mesiash.
Can we make these wonderful Truth's you men of Israel have been gifted to know and practice...and put feet to....understandable for those who need to be fed Truth, without having been given an I.Q. above 140?
Given.
To The Most High be all the Glory.

One Faith, One Calling, One baptism...the batism of Fire. And He made His Minister's a flame of Fire.

Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1147 Posts

Posted - 24 May 2004 :  20:13:10  Show Profile
Dear Robert-James;

I have seen some great things through truth. I understand truth to be quite mathematical, at least in that there is only one answer to a math problem; there is only one truth. I do not believe truth to be perception as earlier stated.

The reason I am through with Daniel Franklin is that he showed hope of acquiring the bill before judging it, and me with it. He obviously has no faith in it as a viable energy (not debt) based instrument. But he obviously is yet uninformed, this being only Monday I doubt he has read it. So his judgment is void.

I certainly can respect the reverence of truth so your spelling and pronunciation of Yahushuah still troubles me. It disagrees with Strong's and Young's concordances. I used to be a calibration technician so please forgive my stickler attitude. But these minor deviations seem always to be amplified in a manner that dampens the resonance of truth.

Here is a very informative article:

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/yehoshua.html

I called and discussed this once with the author, James D. Price. He seems to be on track.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 24 May 2004 20:17:01
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 24 May 2004 :  22:14:25  Show Profile
Robert-James,
I looked up the meaning of one of the words you brought out from Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856:

"PRAEMUNIRE. In older to prevent the pope from assuming the supremacy in granting ecclesiastical livings, a number of statutes were made in England during the reigns of Edward I., and his successors, punishing certain acts of submission to the papal authority, therein mentioned. In the writ for the execution of these statutes, the words praemunire facias, being used, to command a citation of the party, gave not only to the writ, but to the offence itself, of maintaining the papal power, the name of praemunire. Co. Lit. 129; Jacob's L. D. h. t."

"PRAETOR, Roman civil law. A municipal officer of Rome, so called because, (praeiret populo,) he went before or took precedence of the people. The consuls were at first called praetors. Liv. Hist. III. 55. He was a sort of minister of justice, invested with certain legislative powers, especially in regard to the forms or formalities of legal proceedings. Ordinarily, be aid not decide causes as a judge, but prepared the grounds of decision for the judge and sent to, him the questions to be decided between the parties. The judge was always chosen by the parties, either directly, or by rejecting, under certain rules and limitations, the persons proposes to them by the praetor. Hence the saying of Cicero, (pro Cluentis, 43,) that no one could be judged except by a judge of his own choice. There were several kinds of officers called proctors. See Vicat, Vocab.

2. Before entering on his functions he published an edict announcing the system adopted by him for the application and interpretation of the laws during his magistracy. His authority extended over all jurisdictions, and was summarily expressed by the word do, dico, addico, i, e. do I give the action, dico I declare the law, I promulgate the edict, addico I invest the judge with the right of judging. There were certain cases which he was bound to decide himself, assisted by a council chosen by himself perhaps the Decemvirs. But the greater part of causes brought before him, be sent either to a judge, an arbitrator, or to recuperators, (recuperatores,) or to the centumvirs, as before stated. Under the empire the powers of the praetor passed by degrees to the praefect of the praetorium, or the praefect of the city; so that this magistrate, who at first ranked with the consuls, at last dwindled into a director or manager of the public spectacles or games."

**********************************

One definition, I think described it all by the following:

"Hence the saying of Cicero, (pro Cluentis, 43,) that no one could be judged except by a judge of his own choice."

Now a days as in old, the saying, "No man can be the judge of his own case" goes against the "practices" of the BAR-FLIES.
Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 24 May 2004 :  23:04:54  Show Profile
Greetings Dear Brother,
Oxford's Encyclopedic Dictionary {1991};praemunire; a writ charging a sheriff to summon a 'person' accused of asserting or maintaining papel jurisdiction [HELLO] in England. After that, the writ basically say's, "you are warned" that the Pope and his minion's have no-nda jurisdiction in this Realm, proceed at thy own risk.
The Messiah of Israel defeated Rome. He Rules, here and now. Those who have been Noticed of the Fact, proceed at their own risk.
Question: is one a Catholic? Anglican's are Catholic, modern Protestant's are Catholic. Those who celebrate x-mas are Catholic. Count your profession of faith from water baptism, your Catholic. Obey Civil law, your Catholic.
Know how smart Jesuit's are? Very.
I'd say most every man/woman here, reading these word's have been dunked into a pool of water, because jesuss' priest's said , "it is necessary".
Well, your conversing with one who did not bite into that leavened bread.
Did the Israelite's get wet crossing the Red sea? {who did?} Did Noah get wet? {Who did?}Did the children of Israel get wet crossing the river Jordon? Who did? {The priest's feet...now why did YaHuSHuaH wash their feet?}
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © 2003-2020 Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.24 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000