quote:

---

surfacing of the Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion in its misconstruction

---

quote:

---

The published version of the Protocols is not, therefore, a totally fabricated text. It is rather a radically altered text. But despite the alterations certain vestiges of the original version can be discerned - as in a palimpsest, or as in passages of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Ge 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Ge 6:3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Ge 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Ge 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Ge 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Ge 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Ge 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

---

quote:

---

...consistent exegesis requires that only extreme urgency, in fact absolute necessity (neither of which can be alleged here), should cause the sons of God to be looked for elswhere than among the members of the human race. ... The third interpretation, therefore, which regards the sons of God as the pious Sethites .... though not witho0ut its difficulties, has the most to recommend it.

---

quote:

---

One to announce the tidings of the birth of Isaac; the second to destroy Sodom; and the third to rescue Lot. 'An angel is never sent on more than one errand at a time.' (Midrash)
From Genesis 18:2 commentary. Penteteuch and Haftoras (Soncino Press) p. 63

---

quote:

---

I declare and I challenge all mankind to contradict my declaration, that no man can give any account of the order of Freemasonry, of it's origin, of it's history, of it's object, nor any explanation of it's mysteries and symbols, which does not leave the mind in total uncertainty on all these points. Every man is entitled therefore, to give any explanation of the symbols and a system of the doctrine that he can render palatable. Hence have sprung up that variety of systems...

---

quote:

---

The MasonStoppers Line
Send us in confidence details of cases where you think
Organized Freemasonry has personally hurt yourself,
family, friends, aquaintances, or community. We would
also appreciate any additional background information,
links, and references on Freemasonry and the Occult.
Help us take a bite out of Freemasonry.

---

quote:

---

Why would an anti-Semitic forger have made up such a statement? Why would he not have attempted to incriminate all Jews, rather than just a few - the few who constitute 'the representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree'? Why would he not declare that the document was signed by, say, the representatives of the international Jewish conspiracy'. If anything, it would seem to refer to something specifically Masonic. And the 33rd Degree in Freemasonry is that of the so-called 'Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite' which emerges mysteriously out of French Freemasonry in the mid eighteenth century.

---

quote:

---

And the thirty-third degree in Freemasonry is that of the so-called Strict Observance - the system of Freemasonry introduced by Hund at the behest of his "unknown superiors," one of whom appears to have been Charles Radclyffe.

---

quote:

---

Baphomet, the name of the severed head the Knights Templar worshiped, translates into English from Latin as 'Temple of the Father of Peace of all Men' via the reverse anagram Green Language technique known as Anastrophe. This is what the Temple of the Caananites Capital City of Salem was known as before it was captured by the tribes of Abraham, who renamed it Jerusalem.

---

quote:

---

Dear Suitors;

warning


I commented when the group email was in formation how astounding the mathematics is. A group of courts of competent jurisdiction, able to form conversations in any combination, then again subsequently to form new conversations, again, in any combination - the combinations being almost infinite and based in the most intelligent people on the planet. Like a musician "sees" texture in a song, there is a beauty in this lack of mainframe to the 'open-face' group email system that has developed.

Yesterday in a smaller conversation, of about eight suitors, I was able to introduce a new suitor who had been around on a day-long excursion to banks. He went to 1st Bank where Ted Edwards presides and inquired about the tariff behind the signature card, both of which contained clauses allowing the 'federal government' (IMF is known to many as federal) to draw funds on alleged tax debts. He struck through the objectionable clauses and was politely told they could not open an account with him changing the terms.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bondservant/suitors.zip

However a couple weeks ago a suitor acquired the same tariff from his current bank, where he deals in large sums for payrolling business and simply returned the altered document (three pages of objectionable clauses were striken through) and is still operational through that account. When he returned the altered tariff (novation) he said, "This is our new contract." In theory, after three days of no R4C or new alterations by the bank's attorneys, it went into effect.

Simple mathematics applied, one should not try to open a new account by altering the verbiage. One may however be much more successful at novation (innovation) - to alter the current account. The suitor above has a current bank account and was treated like a cancer for even requesting to read the signature card! "I will tell you what is on it!" said the snotty teller. But believe it or not, that is where his money is safest if he gets into that tariff and alters it. If they tell him he has to close his account, that is an actionable injury. See? 1st Bank did not injure him yesterday by refusing to OPEN an account. There was no history. The suitor lost nothing but some time. Time for all us to gain from his experience.... See what I mean by beautiful texture?

Also simple mathematics applied - BE RESPONSIBLE! I am notifying all of you by email that you need to look carefully into all your property and assets for these "backdoor" agreements to have your funds turned over. Not just your bank accounts. It is true that if you make the alteration to the contract, the banker, employer, investment broker etc. may contact the IRS and get a phone call authorization (completely without authority) and freeze your funds. But what I am having brought within the scope of my attention is that Refusal for Cause is quite effective, so long as there is no 'backdoor' clause for the "theft" to be executed. The IMF can only take your funds by your consent. So get busy and inquire.

Be careful about it. Look for leverage in your tactics. In other words scope out the perspective [bracketing] of the employer or whatever and determine how much actionable injury will occur if they tell you to walk. One can acquire possession of the stock certificates; I hear for about $40 and you have to wait a few weeks for it to arrive in the mail. If the IMF is after your assets and your investment broker will honor "prior lien" clauses in your contract, get started. It is not unusual for somebody to want possession of thier certificates. You Day Traders have a different situation I know. Be careful. If the IRS is really getting close use some tact about protecting yourself before you request and alter the working agreement.

You may see what I am doing here. Email your refusal for cause timely if you have a problem with it. We will discuss it. After about a week if any injury occurs we will look for the backdoor 'prior lien' that you agreed to and probably find it. But after a week I will know I warned you.

I told most or all of you to clean up your current contracts when we processed your judgment. Now I am aware of these hidden "prior lien" agreements to third parties I am letting you know. Novations are not uncommon. In training for a franchise, a suitor was instructed (upon a new contract like at 1st Bank above) that if somebody alters the terms, just walk away. That is what 1st Bank did. So keep this in mind. If you already have a working agreement in place and the other party walks away, that is actionable. All these presentments (contract offers) are novations.

One suitor is facing notice that her license will be revoked if she does not get a Social Security Number. So she refused it for cause. She did not walk away. She is just refusing to allow a change in her agreement with the franchising board. If you alter your agreement to protect your funds for instance, the other party must R4C within about three days time or it goes into effect. Get and keep perspective on process. GET AND KEEP PERSPECTIVE ON PROCESS!!!


Regards,

David Merrill.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/timing-in-strategy-1.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/timing-in-strategy-2.jpg

---

quote:

---

Dear New Suitor;

Do not canvas the Net for forms. The form is common law.

Get down to the bank and revise the agreement (tariff and signature card) if you want your money to be safe. You cannot convince them with Dr. Rivera's material. He is incorrect. I saw some of his stuff the other day.

However you have to get the contract novation in place prior to the Notice of Levy hitting the bank by at least three days.

I wrote a general advisement [the Reply directly above] based on your experiences the other day. Did you get that?

Since you have had the business account in place for three months, the bank would have to injure you by closing your account (for simply wanting to keep your funds safe). That is likely cause for the snotty attitude you encountered from the teller at your [current] bank opposed to the teller at 1st Bank [who said no to changes in the contract on a NEW account]. The other side of that coin to watch for is them telling you that you have to close the account. Do not close the account - make them injure you. See? Tell them that now they cannot divert any of your funds, you are pleased as peaches with the bank's performance. Get it?

I decided not to call [Suitor off list; I was considering getting his email and putting him back on] after considering how badly he screwed you up the other day about SSN and colons in the name. When (Patriot's secretary) called with referrals from [Patriot for Hire (writes letters for money)], I politely told her to get lost. This is a whole new form; common law. I do not like being rude to good people and that is why I find [Another Suitor] so annoying. He refuses to drop paranoia and it kept him dysfunctional for writing proper Refusals and the Verified Statement of Right [that saved his home from the seizure of the U.S. Attorney as IRS agent. After two weeks of inaction after I told him exactly what to do, I reluctantly wrote it for $750]. I could still have him paying me the big bucks and completely dependent on me and my word processor. Instead I had to dump him and it seems he got on his feet ok. But you have seen what great people these folks are. Therefore I am passionate not to let them mix de facto statutory (federal common law) into these processes.

You are the newest here. We better keep in touch. Your blunder here is that you are thinking of convincing the bankers about the truth you see in Dr. Rivera's paper. Fact being Rivera does not even know his own name - I would bet you. We should take a tour of the federal repository downtown at CC campus - just you and I. I know it is upsetting to hear me badmouth people you have come to respect but many of these folks would be in miserable poverty by now if not for the simplicity of Refusal for Cause. The paranoid perspective of 'us' against 'them' would be amplified by successful siezures.


Regards,

David Merrill.

---

quote:

---

Dear New Suitor;


I noted the link you provided - "usavsus" and first presumed paranoia. That is USA vs us (as in we). But it occurs as likely to be USA vs US (as in United States) which is pure poppycock. The concept deals exclusively in social compacts which abbrogate personal sovereignty. This manifests most times in a myth that you might find a common law court of the USA - "United States District Court" as opposed to "District Court of the United States".

---

quote:

---

Dear New Suitor;

I have been examining your questions about how to handle bank procedure and this led me to write. Especially your questions about recourse should your bank reject you for a future client.

You may be under the impression I am telling you to go to your bank and change the contract Monday morning. You have told me the IRS is intent on Notice of Levy for that account you have had for over three months. Also you have requested your signature card and now it is plain you have signed consent for the bank to divert your funds to the IMF upon request of the IRS.

You have also hired me to walk you through filing counterclaim and publishing default judgment. But that is all. Understand that it is your decision how you treat your relationship with your bank. What I told you is based on a simple contract presumption that now you know you have signed consent for your bank to divert your funds, presuming that is objectionable to have your business and funds at risk like that, you should get down to the bank and revoke that consent by novation (strike through the consent clauses).

You may choose not to 'rock the boat' and leave the consent clauses in place. It should be obvious to you that the funds you leave in that account are at risk. But then you may choose to manage that risk by only depositing what you are quickly drawing by check and cash, and only depositing smaller checks directly. That sort of thing.

I just want to remind you that it is your choice; not mine.

Testimony is being acquired regarding the recourse in right of arrest. Judgment day is September 11, 2004. The specific direction of these hearings and judgment are yet to be determined so there are of course no guarantees that this will enhance our recourse in common law. Recourse is traditionally with the states but since the Governors' Convention of 1933 admitting bankruptcy in the States, that is feeble and will only result in silence.

For now we better just handle things in specific contract terms; which you have already inquired about with your signature card.



Regards,

David Merrill.

---

quote:

---

Dear New Suitor;

You present an interesting grey area:

"I only have to convince the manager that I wish to submit a new contract for thier consideration."

You are being self-destructive to the authority in yourself, the sovereign. Simply serve the novation upon the bank president. After three business days it goes into effect. Judging by the Oregon suitor's experience, the IRS will try to open a conversation (initiate process to acquire your consent to divert funds) with you instead of taking the money from the bank. The bank president will inquire of the attorneys who, if trained will counsel, "You want to close this guy's account just because he doesn't want you giving away his money?"


Regards,

David Merrill.

---

quote:

---

Dear New Suitor;

[New Suitor is a new suitor looking for a comfortable relationship with his bank within the scope of Notice of Levy. Supposing that most or all of us are looking for beneficial commercial relationships with employers, other contractors, banks etc., this may be of service. Be sure to update your email list.]


Your inquiry on what clause to strike through is edifying to the entire group.

I did not save the email but will quote from memory, "Upon a legal action, decision or judgment the Bank may hold funds or turn funds over to the declared claimant." I suggested you strike out the entire sentence and all offending clauses.

At your convenience read the attached Libel of Review. Consider carefully that if the above statement that was made by the bank was law, or carried the power of law, it would not need your approbation (approval) through the signature card to carry out such diversion of funds. Being law, if a judgment occurred against you in a court of competent jurisdiction it would be understood under the social compact of being that your funds would be diverted to settle the lawful judgment.

The Libel of Review explains why the bank requires your signature to do such an action. There are no courts of competent jurisdiction "out there" (externalizing/paranoia); with "them". The "system" draws on your incompetence and sovereign authority as a man and grantor of government [typically your pseudonomania that your legal name is your true name]. That is the compact; the signature card.

The back of any automobile registration with a contract for you to sign agreeing to have insurance is a perfect example. There is no law requiring you to have insurance so the contract requires your signature. Here in Colorado, after exposing this even under limited circumstances, they began enforcing an informal policy that you must show proof of insurance to get your vehicle registered. On suitor went in and confronted them. Even with admission she had driven in for registration with no insurance they registered the vehicle - after threatening to have her arrested.


Regards,

David Merrill.

---

quote:

---

Dear Suitors;


One suitor wrote:


"David,

My wife just opened a new account a Bank One but we could find no language similar to Suitor's on the card or in the agreement. Is this type of clause routine or does it seem to be only some banks?"


Myself, I do not have an account. So I suggest that you read it carefully, looking for any implication that Bank One will freeze or convey your funds to any third parties. If the agreement really looks like it protects your funds, great. Next step is to get others to make the same inquiry to confirm. Also inquire into different stipulations for personal and business accounts.

The machinations of debt currency prohibit any honest "personal" bank accounts. [One suitor has done an extensive word study on "person" (a facade or artificial entity as a front) in the Bible and it is interesting how well the definitions in Strong's Concordance apply. Also "anthropos" verses "neoteros" which is the baser anthropoids as opposed to the "new creature" or regenerate man.] The only non-commercial "person" is the man or woman. There is no birth certificate bonding on the true name man or woman. So it would be dishonest to open an account under true name and allow the bank to assume your "middle" name is your last name - legal name. That could get you into trouble. So we should really be focusing on business accounts with the legal name as a trust or business name. Sign "True Name dba First Middle Last". Now you should also understand my idealism may not apply to your life and business. You can work in the legal system as an artificial entity but in my experienced opinion, it is much more difficult to integrate your identity. The illusion that your true name is the legal name keeps pestering you with its abracadabra. This capital integration is the central hub of your right of refusal so I feel it is important.

I was with the new suitor today. This morning he went to his bank and asked for a new signature card. He indicated the offending paragraph in the contract and said he wanted to change it. The teller told him he could not alter the contract. Also that he could not sign the new signature card until she had approved the entire thing with attorneys and that would take over a week. So he told me this and I about flipped. Now he had just consented for the bank to call the IRS and if requested turn over all his money.

So I sent him back to get the unsigned signature card and contract. That worked. He got it. We wrote his new authorizing signature "True Name dba First M. Last" and instead of having him sign all the purjury stuff about no IRS alleged debts, we had a notary verify his ID only. After service tomorrow he must start signing checks properly and truthfully. Also note that his "personal" account is already a business account because there were no additional fees*. I struck out all the other junk on the signature card so that the notary would not be held responsible for anything but that his name was correct on the signature card. So I hope the fellow has not lied to me about his true name. I do not want the notary in trouble for not requiring a Driver License.

Then we crossed out the offensive paragraph in the 8-10 page contract. This occured on pages 5-6 front and back so we filed the signature card with the Page 5 as the first page, at the county clerk. This way the clerk sticker is on the altered page; but he had to pay for four pages. The signature card had some IRS junk on the back so I just marked that "Refusal for Cause" in red ballpoint. He took the receipt over to the process server with the remainder of the contract. Tomorrow Tad at the process server will pick up the signature card and Pages 5-6 originals, insert the two pages back into the contract and serve these two documents on the bank president.

I am keeping this generic so that you may be able to apply this to your current bank accounts and maybe even employers. But you must be careful to weigh out the risk management custom to your lifestyle and how far in or out of the system you wish to operate.

But to answer your question about Bank One being different it would seem a routine clause just by the Federal Reserve Bulletins I have been monitoring. It is a big thing, risk management and FDIC regulation of the national and community (same thing) banks. But you may have found something worth sharing. Thanks.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* This may be the case with Bank One. The suitor opened a personal account but we will find the clause for diversion of funds in the Bank One business account contract.

---

quote:

---

Dear Suitors;


I am keeping you apprised of the new suitor who has served innovation to the bank contract. The account is a personal/business account meaning that since there were no extra charges for a business account, he opened the account a few months ago under "First M. Last" for his name. He has recently altered the signature card to reflect the only authorizing signature to be "True Name dba First M. Last". Also, he has stricken through the clause designating the Treasury has a prior lien on his funds.

He came home to a message yesterday on his machine. The bank acknowledges receipt of the new contract. The message says since there are clauses stricken through, it is not a valid contract. Would he like to close his account?

I encourage that the telephone message not pass Rules of Evidence as a valid hearing in his court. Therefore treat it as though it never happened. He has spent probably $50 in process server fees to get it done correctly and should demand at least the bank make its request that he close the account in writing.

And I had already prepared him for that illusion. The bank is making it sound as though it is compulsory that the man come in and close out his account. Now that his funds are safe from seizure, why would he ever do that? If the bank is serious about closing the account, that will cause injury to the man. Make the bank do it if it is going to happen at all.

When I asked he told me he was not writing any checks on the account. I encouraged him to keep using the account with his new authorizing signature (maybe in a limited risk management style). Prescriptive easement. The moment the bank honors the new signature, they honor the novation to the signature card.

Another suitor is moving novation into his wife's employment contract. For now he is investigating the contract terms in her employment contract. He explained, and I hope I remember this correctly, that she put all information on the W4 in brackets and signed "UTDC" (Under Threat Duress and Coercion) only after being made to fill out the card by the personnel department of the employer. So that contract will not hold up to scrutiny in any court. Maybe just volunteering a SSN which is identical to the TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number) is considered consent. I think that is unconscionable since we are all led to believe the Social Security contract is stand-alone like an insurance policy.


So be a wise suitor and start looking into your contracts carefully.

I will keep you all apprised of what I am learning through your individual and collective experiences.


Regards,

David Merrill.

---

quote:

---

Dear Suitor;

Recently I spoke with Other Suitor, a respected psychotherapist he clarified my mistake about the term delirium. Having formed my definition from context instead of a good dictionary of psychological terms I thought delirium was when more than one person share in the same delusions. It turns out that both terms apply to an individual patient. Delusions are erroneous thoughts (of persecution being paranoia for example) and delirium is diminished or altered consciousness, like withdrawal from drugs etc. Having to accept this correction left me without a proper term for the "mass hypnosis" phenomenon I am attempting to characterize. Other Suitor suggested "Brainwashing" but that does not do what I am after justice. More like an insane drive for the routine. There is safety in the status quo. You can completely convince an attorney at the bank you are right and the Notice of Levy is bogus but the attorney will still advise the president to divert funds to the IMF. Stuff like that.

Problem definition is of course essential to acquire a meaningful solution. Thus I designed an "echo chamber" over on ecclesia.org in a topic called "advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics. http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=378&whichpage=5 It is actually a digital tapeworm accessing the organic webcrawler; that is to say, the resonant effects are happening in the wonderful supercomputer network, humans in agreement. Men and women aquiring mutual understanding of the truth. But I took a brief look at the numbers and it looks like I am setting records on the site for readers over time. I started sensing this when the moderators seemed to completely back off, no matter how offensive to the Christian mindset and religion I would get. Over a while it dawned on me that I was spinning a pretty interesting journal of Internet yarn. I was just taking a brief look and found a competing topic reader-bulk wise and it turned out to be "'saving to suitors' clause of 1789".

http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306

I could let my popularity go to my head, fine. But to use the number of Internet surfers who read what I write as confirmation I speak the truth is simply error.

The truth, correct from incorrect should be determined by evidence that passes muster. Recently a fellow wanted me (for some reason) to view a video from that fellow who preaches that the Nazi Death Camps were by and large a fabrication. He masters misdirection by citing two chemical tests done on the interior walls of the gas chambers and no cyanide was found. Well dichloroethyl sulfide (mustard gas) has no cyanide in it. See the misdirection. One popular symbol can be substituted into a lecture and because everybody in the seats around you is buying it, so do you. Then you all turn to each other for confirmation. It is a yet uncharacterized disease and now I must find a more appropriate term than "psychotomimetic delirium of pseudonomania". At least I must find a better word than 'delirium' (thank you again, Other Suitor).

So my final comment agrees with my first reaction to your email. "I just do not believe it."

Then you got me thinking why I do not believe it. Sure, it was interesting enough to explore the "landmark" lecture before the Commonwealth Club or whatever. But I did not get to the lecture, I dismissed the matter at the introduction. First off the bat Ruppert does not seem to know his own name. Maybe he does and chooses to lecture under his legal name, I do not know so let's drop that. First off the bat, Ruppert uses his popularity as a banner that he is correct in his theories, hypothesis and presumptions. But what really gets me is the audience.

Something is not correct logically or mathematically. By the previous guest lecturer list, the politicians and renouned scholars, it would seem that Ruppert is telling the conspirators about their own conspiracy. So the query seemed to be trying to convince me this lecture hall full of Commonwealth Clubbers is full of evil plotters who got curious enough to find out how much Ruppert knows about their pernicious 911 mass murder?

Well it just seems to me that if there was evidence behind Ruppert's bizarre claims then Dick Cheney would be under some kind of indictment instead of standing righteous next to W at the Convention in New York, bashing the opposition.

So I set it down. I just do not believe it.

Regards,

David Merrill.

---

quote:

---

Dear Suitors;


An amusing thought just occurred to me. Last week a medical doctor/suitor who was having difficulties with the attorneys (I mentioned this fellow and some of the antics going on around his counterclaims and judgments) told me he had formed a bond behind his order to quash the whole mess.

The bond was based in our bill of exchange. Certified copies of the bill of exchange and the Credit River Money Decision were served on John D. Hawke, Jr. August 30. This intrepid suitor assured me the bond had been properly formed. This might further explain "Jerry" Hawke's sudden and unexplained "departure" from the Treasury's OCC - Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Maybe the Genii is finally out? http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1894.htm


Regards,

David Merrill.

---

quote:

---

Dear Suitors;

This lesson is so old for me that I may have never shared it. I call you "suitors" in conformity with the 'saving to suitors' clause but you may not be familiar with the linguistics. Think about where you have heard the term before?

A man persuading a woman for her hand in marriage is a 'suitor'.

Yesterday I met with a visiting uncle and when asked what he is doing he replied, "I am still practicing... One of these days I will get it right." He is an attorney. I will explain 'in' and 'at' law.

The same man would not say I am practicing a marriage with my wife. Or, "I am practicing at marriage." "We are at marriage." etc. They are married "in" wedlock; various stages of intercourse (sexual or commercial. In fact sexual intercourse is called "in" congress). The marriage licensing from the State is a perfect example. The only people required to apply are engaging in an intermarriage (commerce) and seek the State's approval for the sexual intercourse that will ensue - approval of the interbred offspring. The State acts as the church or ecclesia Parens Patreae.

One may find the requirement of NOM DE GUERRE or legal name for commercial transactions (intercourse). This is due to the use of foreign currency FRNs - "foreign" being debt based rather than from out of the country. So a dead entity must be created to create the credit behind the note.*

So attorneys practice "at" law. They never get true access to any law and the Colorado REVISED Statutes are not law. They are a necessary provision in the theater of war declared by revisions to the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 amended into the Banker's Holiday to fight Roosevelt's war on the Great Depression. The CRS are still in revision and bear no enacting clause because the General Assembly is impotent; "at" law instead of operating intimately "in" law. That word "impotent" with all the sexual connotations attached. Instead of an enacting clause after Revision is finished, each and every bill carries a "necessity" clause trailer.

You suitors have traversed, or endured an opposite attornment back into the original estate where you are in law. Like the institution of marriage - not with the State as a third party but in the traditional sense, where you might inherit a "Father-in-law". Marriage in law. Like that.

Therefore it is so foreign to and useless to try edifying an attorney, even in a black robe. Under the terms of war and martial rule, appearance cures all defects in jurisdiction. Anything you say aside from R4C as abatement of a nuisance presentment is construed as application for benefit of discussion for which you pay with loss and conveyance of all sovereign authority. We, the the foreign forum, are only pro se defendants representing ourselves as our own attorneys. The only proper arraignment is mental disorder, a malady of schizophrenia. If fact it has occurred to me that at any stage of any of these de facto proceedings all one (in theory) has to say to stall the entire proceeding is say, "I have not been arraigned." Then when the attorney-in-the-black-robe tells you that you were arraigned at the FAC (First Appearance Center of whatever) on such-and-such a date you say, "I was not aware that was arraignment. I do not think I was arraigned. There has been no arraignment."

Then the nisi pruis tribunal must begin again by explaining the nature and cause of the accusation (violation of banking policies) against the artificial entity you are presumed to be representing as an attorney at law, that is being attached to the man or woman. All the while trying to convince you there is some kind of contract you have violated without ever disclosing that contract or its terms. So once that is said and done, at the next hearing say, "I do not think I have been arraigned..."

I heard about a man who kept up proceedings for over a year until the attorney attempting to arraign him gave up and dismissed the case.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* John D. Hawke, Jr. has "departed" the Treasury. Like a ceremonial career assassination for failing to install the final rule. He has not "retired" or "resigned" or even been "terminated". He has "departed" like dead.

---

quote:

---

Dinah

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 9
Location: Vale, Oregon Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 8:33 pm Post subject: QUESTION FOR CATHERINE Interesting fact......Carlyle group

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not question your expertise or your mathematics Catherine,,,, I am at a loss to understand how 600,000 Americans taking their money out of the major banking coporations,,will get the attention of some banking interests......but how is it going to stop the Masonic war machine in the Whitehouse and the Congress,,,,such as this carlyle group that I!m finding out about.....

Wouldn!t it have to take the resources of all the people of the world to dry up the source?? Money matters and world economies are not my strong points.... I do not have checking account, and I bank at a Federal Credit Union, I pay my bills cash, or with money orders,..I can manage my own money without paying for a checking account, and doing the bookwork their way, on their time, with my money.....regards Duane

Back to top


Catherine

Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 1137
Location: Hickory Valley, Tennessee (USA) Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 4:48 am Post subject: 600,000 would have a major impact

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duane:

600,000 would have quite an impact. The financial system is highly leveraged. That means a tiny switch in cash flows can have a dramatic influence.

In addition, 600,000 will create a lot of increased resources for those who run small banks. They can do far more positive with this in terms of creating jobs and momentum at the local level.

Everything is incremental. If 6 billion people would vote with their prayers and their money there would be no more war and much less organized crime.

Time to start. Mustard seeds grow. What is relevant is what solves the problems.

Best,

Catherine

Back to top


David Merrill

Guest Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:04 pm Post subject: resonance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Catherine Austin but after watching the effects of ripples call it advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics. A good example is May 12, 1999 when I filed Return of Bill of Indictment on Robert E. Rubin (former Secretary of the Treasury) at about 11:00 AM and watched his notice of resignation by the 5:00 PM news (with two hours robbed from the time zones). I do not know or really care who made the phone calls or if the conveyance utility was even verbal/electronic communication. I can however prove the above facts with documentation that was in place over a month in advance. [Order up the bill and then check May 13, 1999 headlines at your library - (719) 520-6200 ask for Reception #99075970 filed May 12.] The foundation was a marker on top of Mount Herman here in Colorado and this established through the Department of the Interior and US Geologic Survey testimony that I was speaking from 9,053’ above sea level -law of the land independent of the admiralty gold fringes (Reception #99057108). A few months later somebody climbed the trail with a sledge hammer, destroyed the marker but left the two reference markers (90º brass plates with arrows pointing at the main marker about 12’ away). Not your typical vandals huh? After climbing a mountain with a double-jack they only destroyed one of the three plates? They even destroyed the 700 pound granite stone the main plate was mounted on so that could not be used for a monument. Broke it to bits.

Take a look at the links I have provided on the New York Solari report thread. http://solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php? And see the repeat "departure" of John D. Hawke, Jr. Comptroller of the Currency after being served refusal for cause on the final rule August 30, 2004. Same with Paul O’Neill, formerly Secretary of the Treasury when served a federal summons by a suitor I drafted remedy for a couple years ago. Judgment on abrogation of right of arrest is currently being served on John Snow, current Secretary so we will see how long he lasts.

Small ripples can have great effect in the realm of harmonics and resonance. Properly timed process is supreme law.

You mention the Carlyle Group and the Masons. I would not give that any credit due to the time. A wonderful mathematician named Jesus tells us about the timing at Matthew 24:15 telling his inner apocalyptic mystery cult (John 4:10-12) exactly what to look for at the end of the Age. That has already transpired. http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielCalendar.jpg The 1290 days (Daniel 12:11) was the timeframe between default of the United States (including the 501(C)(3) Christian church) March 18, 1997 and September 28, 2000 when Ariel Sharon scaled the Temple Mount and declared Intifada. Remember the Palestinian father whose son got shot dead at the Western Wall? That violence cancelled Tabernacles. So the conveyance of the original estate from Schedule A of the public trust to the rightful heirs apparent is underway. Don't get all worried about the Masons. They fulfilled thier commission well - key word past tense. Breaking the monument on Mount Herman typifies their current impotence in law.

The Masons, they have played their role in Jacob/Israel’s prophecy well (Genesis 49:10). The Masonic museum clearly exposes two different men playing the historical role of Washington http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Washington---Weishaupt.jpg and research show the subsequent leader, the Founding Father is Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Bavarian Seers (Illuminatti). The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution. If the truth got out then, the Revolution would have gone the other way. The Masons saved the day and thus have their pentagrams all over the place. Washington DC is a big Masonic symbol. Rightly so. http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Washington.jpg The Bloodline claim of the French Merovingians is on display and public notice through the Khazarians in the lobby at my clerk’s office - http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DavidStar.jpg Notice these identical symbols adorn my Templar sword - http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/sword.jpg The Knights Templar are the military arm of the Priory of Sion authors and of the original Protocols (before Sergei Nilus butchered it up to frame the Jews) and founders of the Patroons here in Manhattan Island – METRO global municipality.

It is a little mind boggling at first to try to make the paradigm shift and catch up. So look carefully at the top timeline on Daniel’s calendar linked above. Note 1776 AD. See? Something wonderful has happened. And wonderful things are thus happening. Catherine Austin’s marvelous background, resume and experience gives her insight and albeit we may disagree on a lot of topics, I agree with her on her note above. These lofty ideals and pure theoretical/mathematical plasmas can be guided into a better world by collapsing favorable probabilities (standing waves); a restored world (Hebrew: TIKKUN) governed by right according to the rule of law.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Back to top


David Merrill

Guest Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:25 pm Post subject: capital integration

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fancy way of saying "get your head together" - capital integration.

I meant to cite Mark 4:10-12 above, not John. Look carefully at the mathematics. Integration is the opposite of taking a derivative. Simplifying a parabola (parable) is finding a tangent to the curve by taking a derivative. Velocity is the first derivative of the true motion and acceleration is the first derivative of the velocity (second derivative of the true motion). So we read about Jesus telling his mystery coven (Jesus was leader and number 12+1=13) that the key to unlock the mystery of heaven on earth will be revealed so that those outside the esoteric will come into that kingdom. At the end of the Age, the esoteric will become exoteric - the hidden will be revealed.

The simplest implementation of the key is to understand your true name and legal name (including other artifices) are distinctly different names. Identity leads to relationship (proper contract understandings). This can be extended into the presumptions of social compact always at play.


Regards,

David Merrill.

---

quote:

---

The study of this Pentagram could not but lead the Magi to the knowledge of the New Name which was about to raise itself above all names, and cause all creatures capable of adoration to bend the knee.

---