| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Jul 2004 : 08:57:33
|
Dear Manuel;
That reminds me. I was the man who triggered the Montana Freeman Standoff.
I remember when Leroy Michael was issuing the Comptroller Warrant for “International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service + David Merrill, FAMILY NOMEN” he began to chuckle. The couple after me waiting there in the office got a kick out of it too. We discussed the repercussions for a moment but that was a long time ago. I wish now that was a recorded conversation.
About two weeks later I sent the registered letter to Ogden and recall going to the Post Office in Colorado Springs with a news reporter who wanted to document the (presumed) collapse of the Federal Reserve Bank. At least that is what was to happen in theory. But it turned out that Leroy Michael and Dan S. PETERSEN were poised scapegoats at that moment anyway; thus “triggered” instead of saying I “caused” the Montana Freeman Standoff.
The reporter and I went to the Post Office on Wednesday afternoon, I believe, maybe Tuesday. So if that went quickly to Ogden, the IMF was looking at it on Friday afternoon. Saturday morning Dan S. PETERSEN and Leroy Michael SCHWIETZER were taken into custody upon their morning trip to the remote rural post office a couple miles south of the Justus Township.
While there Dan wanted me to have the records of the Township – the common law writs. Only one of the disks wants to play - with the general writs. The specific records disk clatters and comes up "not formatted" but it may follow if I get serious. I am sending these along for Admin to .zip and link. Some of you who like to speak in the old common law lingo may find some of these writs worthwhile.
Link to Writs Zip file
[this is a large 470kb zip file containing 58 MS-Word ".doc" files]
Those were interesting days. The District Attorney got in a fit about me opening an account in the court for tickets (no license tags) etc. When he wanted to investigate me I served (yes served) likely the same video on him. Leroy Michael gave me the three video set and told me that it was his habeas corpus. Kind of like he knew I would serve it on an attorney sooner or later.
Then when things were starting to get nasty, I notified everyone that the DA had sworn to uphold the State constitution, which specifies that he would activate his tour of duty by filing the same oath with the Secretary of State. I acquired a Certificate of Fact that he had never filed in Denver and when I entered this into the private (case) record, he quit going to work. It was only five or six weeks to the election, which he was expected to lose after eight years anyway and his assistant took over for him. She is now the DA. But the newspapers wanted to know why he would not finish his term and he would not reply to the question. I suppose he did not want the public to know he had been running a vacant office intentionally for eight years.
Lewish dug up an old memorandum of law on a Libel of Review by James Harlan AYERS. You can read that over on the "Saving to suitors" thread. A couple months after the new DA was seated, Jim went to Denver and wanted a Certificate of Fact on her. They treated Jim like they were going to take him (in his 90's) to jail. But he got out of there with a promise he would get his Certificate in the mail. It showed up two weeks later and showing that Jeanne Smith had sworn out her oath of office with the Secretary a week after Jim's visit.
Regards,
David Merrill
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 06 Jul 2004 19:25:48 |
 |
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2004 : 20:34:40
|
David,
While I figure out how to open the file (Writs zip file)above, I can relate to the DA's as being DEVILS ADVOCATES.
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2004 : 08:51:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Manuel
While I figure out how to open the file (Writs zip file)above, I can relate to the DA's as being DEVILS ADVOCATES.
You can download WinZip for free at this link:
www.winzip.com/downwz.htm |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2004 : 09:34:06
|
Thank you Bondservant,
I still remember the tiny scenes the MEDIA portrayed of the Montańa Hombres Libres (Montana Free Men). There was one in particular which had a t-shirt resembling Fathers Rights.
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2004 : 13:21:37
|
Again, thank you for the WinZip.
Ezekiel chapter 33, verses 7 through 9;
“And you, Son of Adam,--- I have appointed you as a watchman for the House of Israel: ---- therefore listen to the command from My mouth, and warn them by it. If I say to the wicked that he shall die for his wickedness, and you do not speak to warn the sinner from his wicked way, he will die by his sin, ---- but I will seek his blood on your hand. But when you warn the wicked to turn from his way, ---- and he does not turn from his course, ---- he will die for his sin, ---- but you will have delivered your soul. ” |
Edited by - Manuel on 07 Jul 2004 13:23:05 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 09:09:09
|
Dear Readers;
Be very careful about the promotion of Schweitzer doctrine. I was there. I was in the audience while that particular video was being recorded.
When you jockey your mouse to Charles' doctrine first notice two important points; 1) He intends a worldwide privatized common law of Christianity - territorially based. You can plainly see that by the maps of the world and United States. 2) that people have the inherent sense to stay away from the site.
Something annoying is that Charles has copy-and-pasted lengthy conversations and debates between me and him to his General Assembly page. Once there he can make me say whatever he pleases. So please, do not bother reading any of that. Get the debates here where I can control what I write and the last editing date and time are displayed plainly. Otherwise that "technique" to build posts is such an unusual and maybe even innovative shill, I am not quite sure what to make of it. I will not be going over there much but to monitor what Charles Bruce spins.quote:
This is better than Law School folks. Mr Schweitzer did so much for this movement, that in this author's opinion, he is the greatest hero of modern times. His Lawless ImPrisonment is just another testimony of Faith in Christ/Messaih Jesus/Yeshuah, who was also Tortured & Brutalized as he was Nailed to the Cross/Stake by the exact...
The "movement" is obviously toward a Christian elitism and he proposes it worldwide at that. I know there are a lot of similar minded people who find this movement attractive. So I implore you to ask yourself 'What is wrong with this picture?' Why aren't Christians flocking to the Christian Common Law?
Answer: World dominion is elitism. The Christian mission as I understand it has been fulfilled - to present (commercial term) the Word of God to the world, let people choose and leave it to God to judge. Now you may see why Charles' website has flopped so miserably.
Here is a snippet regarding securing the birthright - becoming heirs apparent upon the general bill of exchange for venue. Note in the snippet, as you already know, there is no money - there are no papers of title [removed from the Grand Register after the War Between the States]. The surfacing of such doctrine is wonderful confidence and security building foundation for the true bill. Thank you Charles Bruce. [But with no counterclaim (writ of privilege, the "other half of the action") to effect offets the Readers here will only grasp the bill academically, from my experience here. But that is a step in the right direction.] See http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306&whichpage=3 "Posted - Jan 02 2004 : 12:45:57 PM"
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leroy_on_bills.wmv
One must have experience with the Freemen to understand the inherent flaws in their workup of the common law. And Charles does not. He was not there to hear about Dan Petersen's Bible interpretation and that he hung a puppy for the children to show them what Freemen are made of. (To Leroy's right on the wall; a hangman's noose.) The inherent stand to state of the people who led the 13-Week standoff were holding Justus Township as asylum state - trying to seal the breach in the close so that Leroy and Dan would have a place to be remanded habeas corpus.
Maybe more important was the Tyrannasaurus Rex skull; upper jaw and eye above the door on Leroy's left. That was found on the hill above the farmhouse and signifies an intact fossil worth millions of dollars - probably excavated by now.
Also what a frail house of cards it all was. My Comptroller Warrant would have arrived in Ogden properly endorsed without UCC cites and to "International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service" (instead of the Puerto Rican/Deleware corporation "IRS") the day before Leroy Michael and Dan Petersen, the UCC citing signors were picked up. Leroy Michael really got a kick out of drafting that warrant. He knew. The guy was no fool; just a little overconfident in immenentizing the Christian eschelon. So goes the warning here. Do not waste the time watching all that Latin jargon. You can dedicate yourself to it as much as Charles does and it is still useless.
So there you have it. The flaw was that the UCC is in fact a subset of the common law. [Admiralty; the UCC is the codified Law Merchant.] Not the Christian (private) Common Law. You may have to watch the snippet a few times and consider that there is only one bill of exchange on the original estate since it cured on September 11, 2001. All competing bills are false as the one that collapsed the tiny White Supremacist regime called Justus Township.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 1
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 2
You can order up certified copies of the bill at (719) 520-6200 by the Reception # on the face.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 29 Mar 2005 10:01:14 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 18:37:07
|
quote:
He was not there to hear about Dan Petersen's Bible interpretation and that he hung a puppy for the children to show them what Freemen are made of. (To Leroy's right on the wall; a hangman's noose.)
Maybe more important was the Tyrannasaurus Rex skull; upper jaw and eye above the door on Leroy's left. That was found on the hill above the farmhouse and signifies an intact fossil worth millions of dollars - probably excavated by now.
If this is true - and there is no reason I know of to doubt you as a first "person" witness, David Merrill - then there is far more to learn about the "Montana Freemen" than most of us have been privy to.
As with all matters of inherant concern in Life, there is more to it all than the naked eye sees... or perhaps the naked eye sees the Truth and wishes not to accept it...
Please, since you were there, give us the Truthful and factual observations. Opinions are not important, but actions of all concerned ARE. I simply ask, as one who seeks Truth, that you keep to the facts of what you saw and exactly what was said, regardless of any opinion, so that the ecclesia can all discern and understand what IS and what IS NOT. Nom sain?
Then let this continue objectively... and let us all find out what factually took place in Justus County, Montana. Legend may or may not be factual. Let us all spiritually discern what was and is and is to come. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 20:12:15
|
quote:
As with all matters of inherant concern in Life, there is more to it all than the naked eye sees... or perhaps the naked eye sees the Truth and wishes not to accept it...
Fair enough. Understand it was a long time ago and I have changed a lot since then. I am not sure but think that Dan Petersen filled in on the preaching for Dale Jacobi that weekend. I had three videotapes but they were of course prior to that weekend and so there may be some things in my mind Dale said that I might attribute to Dan saying. Things like that. I did not like either man saying those things and this was all before I had ever read the Bible or attended Bible study. So I probably never sat through the video and only sat through Dan's (or Dale's) lecture because I had to. It was required that you at least hear the rare interpretation, mostly of Genesis before you could go on to the commercial presentations of Leroy and others. I hope that is the way the other witness remembers it.
I remember that Leroy was wearing the T-shirt and explained that is why he was not wearing a badge, he had no pocket to clip it in. I also remember that coughing, and there were two cameras going. I presumed both were private to the students but the one up front by the door is the angle of the video I linked to. We were not all introduced to each other so if you can believe a quieter David Merrill back then, it is no surprise that the twenty or so students do not remember each other after so long. I cannot remember doing anything or asking anything special that the others would remember. My voice is very distinctive so if I asked any questions* I will spot that immediately. I do not recall asking any questions. I sat in about the middle of the classroom and recall a man and a black woman (assistant/receptionist) sat on my left but on the second day they couldn't stomach the White Supremacist doctrine any longer and left in disgust. A lot of sexist stuff too.
I remember Dan, when confronted about the Bible would and at least twice, point to the door and tell the man or woman to leave. Once he opened the door wide and it was all tense for a moment. Tuition was $100/head.
If the other witness remembers differently then maybe we were there different weekends. I checked with a calendar and Leroy spoke on a Friday, December 12. That is how I remember it. Dan (or Dale) spoke on Thursday afternoon.
Other than that, my memory is pretty good. The reader is expected to understand that commentary like above is my opinion and judgment. If Charles Bruce has videos of Dan and/or Dale with the scriptural take of the Freemen, that would not surprise me. What would surprise me is if he would link that part of the 'show'. I think it would put off a lot of people when he is trying to promote principles they adhered to.
About the puppy. During breaks we would mull around outside the class room on the concrete driveway. Montana was mud. The whole state. But we would talk and complain among ourselves about Dan's behavior and that is where I heard about him hanging a puppy to death. Then during the Standoff that came out in the news and I began to repeat it as more than a rumor. It may be Dale who hung the puppy and Dan substitute teaching for Dale has me mixed up.
That evening a Mormon fellow student staying at the motel in Jordan said, "You realize that stuff he was saying is false doctrine, don't you?" I was not Bible read so we talked it over a while. But I had little knowledge to reference that to so it is kind of blury.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Having triggered the Standoff with the peculiar, completely common law approach of endorsing and naming parties on the Warrant, I have very little interest in sitting through the video. I watched a little and grabbed the snippet because Leroy was addressing the two-halves of Refusal for Cause actions. That was cool.
My opinion in a nutshell is that the Freemen thought of the UCC as part of the common law, which it certainly is. A subset if you will. But if you know me by my words here, especially the dispute I had with Source, Christian Common Law is private law. The UCC is not a subset of Christian Common Law because of Christianity's inherent warring with the world and perception of government as satanic or Masonic or whatever. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Mar 2005 20:57:02 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2005 : 23:17:42
|
Leroy Michael, Schweitzer, on a 1996 seminar video we viewed recently, emphatically states the following:
"You cannot be denied the right to have Habeas Corpus heard in the original jurisdiction"....(later in that same video he states).... "Every one of these videos going on now is my habeas corpus" [*link omitted by Moderator].
quote:
David Merrill wrote:
Those were interesting days. The District Attorney got in a fit about me opening an account in the court for tickets (no license tags) etc. When he wanted to investigate me I served (yes served) likely the same video on him. Leroy Michael gave me the three video set and told me that it was his habeas corpus. Kind of like he knew I would serve it on an attorney sooner or later.
Black's Law Dictionary, Third Edition states that "Habeas Corpus" are the Latin words meaning "You have the body".
The definition in Black's Third Edition goes on to say...Habeas Corpus is "the name given to a variety of writs, (of which these were anciently the emphatic words,) having for their object to bring a party before a court or judge.
In common usage, and whenever these words are used alone, they are understood to mean habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (see infra).
Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum - A writ directed to the person detaining another, and commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner, (or person detained,) with the day and cause of his caption and detention, ad faciendum, subjiciendum et recipiendum, to do, to submit, and receive whatsoever the judge or court awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf. 3 Bl. Comm. 13; 3 Steph. Comm. 695.
This is the well known remedy for deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William Blackstone the most celebrated writ in the English law, and the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement. 3 Bl. Comm. 129
There are questions we have about what was meant by Leroy Michael, Schweitzer and by David Merrill regarding the video as a "habeas corpus."
We have posted these questions at: [*link omitted by Moderator].
If any of you have answers to those questions we would appreciate the enlightenment we can gain from your input.
Best Regards,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 28 Mar 2005 23:25:48 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 00:04:37
|
The Great Writ is always suspended with the Constitution in the actual theater of war. I read that in Constitutional Law - American Jurisprudence. I think it was §95 or so.
But I think it was subsequently removed as they update the volumes. I tried to find that old volume but the library said if nobody bought it discount then it went into the trash. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 29 Mar 2005 00:06:19 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 08:10:43
|
Above, quoting myself;
quote:
So there you have it. The flaw was that the UCC is in fact a subset of the common law. [Admiralty; the UCC is the codified Law Merchant.] Not the Christian (private) Common Law. You may have to watch the snippet a few times and consider that there is only one bill of exchange on the original estate since it cured on September 11, 2001. All competing bills are false as the one that collapsed the tiny White Supremacist regime called Justus Township.
Intelligently cross-index http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/
So according to Leroy's theories on "money" in the clip http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leroy_on_bills.wmv since June 2004 the IMF through the Bloodline Club de Paris has released (not including an open ended postponement for Tsunami victim nations) $18.4b in "fair share". [I figured Gabon's Euros in Dollars so this figure is rough.] This executed by curing the bill on September 11, 2001 and Ronald Dean posting sunset of the Bretton Woods Agreement for April 4, 2006.
That is the function of the 'rider' bill being wealth-based instead of debt based. As the debt is forgiven, the original estate is paid out to people. Leroy Michael calls it securing Birthright - I call suitors Heirs Apparent. Execution of counterclaim, what Leroy calls the other "half of the [R4C - Refusal for Cause] action". Change of venue (from the counterfeit estate to the original estate). Writ of Removal or Privilege.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 1
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 2
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement1.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 1
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement2.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 2
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement3.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 3
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement4.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 4
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 5
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavitofservice.gif
Verified Statement of Right - Affidavit of Service
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant1.gif
Miscellaneous ReceiptWarrant “FILED UNDER SEAL” Page 1
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant2.gif
Warrant “FILED UNDER SEAL” Page 2
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/1-HR3812.jpg
HR 3812 Page 1
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/2-HR3812.jpg
HR 3812 Page 2
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/3-HR3812.jpg
HR 3812 Page 3
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/4-HR3812.jpg
HR 3812 Page 4
Ronald Dean’s prosecution
Conspiracy buffs like to call it "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" but the mathematics works just the same as in electronics and optronics.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/page1.jpg
Zionism Cancellation Algorithm Page 1
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/page2.jpg
Zionism Cancellation Algorithm Page 2
The paranoid slant is to constue the trustees are calling themselves the beneficiaries. I do not read it that way. The trustees are declaring the educated and even illuminated the beneficiaries. The remainder will stay slaves by choice and consent:
quote:
Energy
Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.
All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?
The manual (TM - 7905.1) goes on:
quote:
In 1954 [The completion of the five-year Harvard Economics Research Project] this was the issue of primary concern [naming the beneficiary]. Although the so-called "moral issues" were raised, in view of the law of natural selection it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.
See? If the trustees considered themselves beneficiaries, then the question could no logically arise.
I know that is a stretch of reality for most Readers. I have understood it since before Leroy Michael articulated it. Maybe that is why I was able after all these years to find it on the video stream without even having to view the video. Who knows? But having it part of my reality, advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics most certainly has led to a myriad of similar conclusions I believe to be true.
I have even noted a very convincing confirmation. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency recently was commissioned to deter the bill of exchange's mission with the "final rule". You may not quickly see the significance of "final rule" in general instead of a specific "Final Rule". So give that some thought. I spotted that because it was the only thing they could do*. So it was refused for cause.
http://www.occ.treas.gov/fr/fedregister/69fr50293.pdf
final rule
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_final_rule_R4C.jpg
Refusal for cause in the federal register
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1894.htm
Departure of John D. Hawke, Jr Comptroller of the Currency
Compliment Leroy's assertion they (government) are comptrollers of the bank with this article just in:
http://www.swissamerica.com/article.php?=SID&art=03-2005/200503211042mn.txt Click on FANNIE IS SCREAMING DANGER! -Rich Spohr, SATC
Regards,
David Merrill.
* My roommate in college and I were pondering several chicks in a cardboard box another roommate had brought into the house. We wondered why they kept stretching out one or the other of their legs and fluttering their little wings. Finally we concluded; that is all they can do. True induction. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 29 Mar 2005 11:41:23 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 11:42:39
|
The following exchange occurred on or about 1/28/2005 on page 13 of the “ARE YOU A PERSON?” topic:quote:
sucker4lush: Could someone who(m?) knows spare a couple sentences explaining what the oft-mentioned (top of this page) BOE is and does.
What is the significance of its 911 relationship if any.
Oh yeah, what is a fidelity bond- i keep seeing that one also...
did you guys all go to business school or something?
David Merrill wrote: I really appreciate your questions.
It tells me that people are not just blanking over while reading about this rather unbelievable bill and its effects on the course of human history.
You may be the first here to mention the "oft-mentioned" bill of exchange other than me.
Being into behavioral statistical probabilities and biomathmatica it makes me wonder how so many intelligent people focus only on subjective topics and debates.
Here is somebody who just blurts out three succinct but pertinent questions on his or her first Post.
Werner Maximilian: I suspect that many of us involved do not want to appear ignorant, uninformed or "out of the loop" when it comes to all this information, so it's much easier to pretend we know what the heck your talking about.
Probably a leftover survival mechanism from our public school days.
Cornerstone foundation wrote:
We did “go to business school or something “ such as suck4lush mentioned above. Yet we find that we have the same disadvantages as sucker4lush and Werner Maximilian.
We were considered by the standards of each of the two business schools we received degrees from, to be a student that was far above average.
In retrospect, we now believe the standards of each of the two business schools we received degrees from must have been far too low.
We say this because we can most certainly identify with Werner Maximilian’s comments above in that quite often we “do not know what the heck [David Merrill and Leroy Michael] are talking about.”
Therefore at the risk of having those two “institutions of higher learning" revoke our credentials, we will begin to ask a series of basic and fundamental questions as our schedule permits.
We are handicapped, in that most of our “education” in earning those degrees was acquired in the public school system. Our goal is to eliminate that impairment by communicating with those of you who do know “what the heck [David Merrill and Leroy Michael] are talking about”.
We have questions concerning comments Leroy Michael and David Merrill have made about Habeas Corpus.
We have posted these questions at: [*link omitted by Moderator]
We have questions here, below, about the Bill of Exchange (BOE):quote:
David Merrill wrote:
The bill is cured waiver of tort.
Simply speaking now I place good faith in the original estate.
I no longer have a bank account or sign indorsement on debt instruments (checks for FRNs).
Thirty days is the cure time in law for such notice - see Daniel Chapter 6. So the bill cured from August 13 to September 11, 2001.
[Finally someone got curious enough to ask!]
We would appreciate it if David or any others who have insight into to these matters will answer the following questions so that we can build a foundation for an understanding of these issues.
Please communicate in words and phrases that are at least of a low enough level that a public school business graduate can understand “what the heck you are talking about.”
Question A: What is the definition of “Bill of Exchange”?
Question B: What did David Merrill mean when he said “the bill [of exchange] is cured waiver of tort”?
We expect to have more questions later.
Respectfully submitted,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 29 Mar 2005 12:13:35 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 11:49:11
|
Question A: What is the definition of “Bill of Exchange”?
Dictionary definitions in layman's terms seem to just say IOU (notes). In economics textbooks the definitions rely on the reader knowing a handful of other terms fluently. That might work for you Marty but you have college level training.
Carrol Quigley explains the history of bills of exchange in Tragedy and Hope; A History of the World in Our Time. Getting from say, Turkey to Cyprus was a fairly risky task. Ships sunk and pirates plundered etc. So break down international trade into four components. The seller's product. The seller's gold coin. The buyer's product. The buyer's gold coin. Now eliminate the need to figure 'buyer' and 'seller'. Nation 1 and Nation 2.
A PBS special on Islam agrees in concept: http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Checks_are_Islamic.wmv
If Nation 1 has a ship full of goods and gets it to Nation 2, does it make sense to sail the ship back to Nation 1 empty except for the gold coin tendered by Nation 2? No. So leave the gold coin there on credit in a bank and instead, carry Nation 2's goods back to Nation 1 in the hull. In turn, do not carry Nation 2's gold coin back to them, risking that it will be lost or stolen in route. Thus developed bills of exchange (on the foreign exchange market).
Question B: What did David Merrill mean when he said “the bill [of exchange] is cured waiver of tort”?
Waiver of tort is like saying, "Instead of the jail time or lashings or whatever required by law as a criminal punishment, I am billing you $5000."
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 31 Mar 2005 06:41:44 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 12:27:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill:
Question A: What is the definition of "Bill of Exchange"?
Dictionary definitions in layman's terms seem to just say IOU (notes).
In economics textbooks the definitions rely on the reader knowing a handful of other terms fluently.
That might work for you Marty but you have college level training.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Is the fact that we have college level training an advantage or a detriment?
We are interested in having David Merrill's views on this as well as the opinions of others who will contemplate the question and comment on it.
Should we encourage others to acquire a public school college "education" or not?
Best Regards,
Marty
|
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 29 Mar 2005 12:45:10 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 12:48:52
|
David,
You have provided an explanation concerning the definition of "Bill of Exchange" that, in our opinion, serves as a good starting place for this discussion.
The definition is presented in a manner that even we can understand.
We appreciate that and suggest that such technique be used as a model for explaining other terms to be discussed later.
Best Regards,
Marty
|
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 29 Mar 2005 12:51:29 |
|
|
|
sucker4lush
Regular Member
Albania
33 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 18:39:54
|
Hold on, wait a sec...you can circumvent jail time by telling 'em to send you a bill???
quote:
Waiver of tort is like saying, "Instead of the jail time or lashings or whatever required by law as a criminal punishment, I am billing you $5000."
If I'm starting to get this stuff, then the little "l" in "law" means statutory stuff. But everything, even murder cases are routinely handled statutorily... I was helping my dad drive to Vegas last month and was wondering about the "Littering highways unlawful"(not "illegal") signs. So it would work for pretty-much everything but littering...I'm in!
quote:
...Suitors, courts of competent jurisdiction and some of which are doctors using the bill for liquidity instead of malpractice insurance may use the bill of exchange to cover judgment whether in the operating room or the sure-dunk judgment - "did you have a judgment in place, properly filed in the district courts of the United States before you came after me, or not?" See the January 2, 2004 Post http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306&whichpage=3 - the simple Libel of Review counterclaim.
All I needed to see were the words liquidity and insurance, and my whole 2nd post(Are you a person, pg. 14, Feb. 9) was to be upfront about my intentions and see if I would still get help. About a week after David Merrill wrote the quote above, I had my glutes at the DMV to start the suitormorphosis. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2005 : 18:45:20
|
No. You read that backwards. The imposition of criminal punishment for breach of contract (admiralty fringes) works the opposite. The judge might say, "30 dollars or 30 days!"
The way I meant it was if you are the victim, not the defendant.
quote:
All I needed to see were the words liquidity and insurance, and my whole 2nd post(Are you a person, pg. 14, Feb. 9) was to be upfront about my intentions and see if I would still get help. About a week after David Merrill wrote the quote above, I had my glutes at the DMV to start the suitormorphosis.
I gather you mean you renewed or acquired a Driver License signing "True Name dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST". Cool! If I am correct, how did they treat you at the DMV? What State?
You also say:
quote:
If I'm starting to get this stuff, then the little "l" in "law" means statutory stuff.
I have been down a similar road about upper case "C" and lower case "c" in courts. Just start looking at nouns in general verse nouns in specific. That will probably make a lot more sense.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 29 Mar 2005 22:48:15 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2005 : 09:39:13
|
The purpose of this post is to pose a question to nail down exactly what the Bill of Exchange (BOE) is.
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Question A: What is the definition of “Bill of Exchange”?
Dictionary definitions in layman's terms seem to just say IOU (notes).
Carrol Quigley explains the history of bills of exchange in Tragedy and Hope; A History of the World in Our Time.
Getting from say, Turkey to Cyprus was a fairly risky task. Ships sunk and pirates plundered etc.
So break down international trade into four components. The seller's product. The seller's gold coin. The buyer's product. The buyer's gold coin.
Now eliminate the need to figure 'buyer' and 'seller'. Nation 1 and Nation 2.
If Nation 1 has a ship full of goods and gets it to Nation 2, does it make sense to sail the ship back to Nation 1 empty except for the gold coin tendered by Nation 2? No.
So leave the gold coin there on credit in a bank and instead, carry Nation 2's goods back to Nation 1 in the hull.
In turn, do not carry Nation 2's gold coin back to them, risking that it will be lost or stolen in route.
Thus developed bills of exchange (on the foreign exchange market).
Question 1: In the scenerio described above, would the warehouse receipt for the gold coin on credit in a bank be the specific document entitled Bill of Exchange (BOE)?
Best Regards,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 30 Mar 2005 13:44:42 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2005 : 12:43:13
|
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
At the following link, we asked a specific questions about the Bill of Exchange (BOE). http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=383&whichpage=2 in our post made on 3/30/2005 at 9:39:13 AM.
This specific question was asked:
Question 1: In the scenerio described above, would the warehouse receipt for the gold coin on credit in a bank be the specific document entitled Bill of Exchange (BOE)?
The following answer was given: quote:
David Merrill wrote:
The bill of exchange subject and in context is a new animal.
It accompanies the "new name" of the Bible. The Acquittal.
Criminals (slaves) are removed from the inheritance.
Leroy understood this but not in the context that Judah is appointed custodian by God and that the Abrahamic Covenant and Messianic fulfillment are for the nations of the world, not just the Christians.
The Christians were the convenveyance (transmission) utility only.
The answer provided appears to be non-responsive to the specific question asked.
We will appreciate it if David Merrill, or anyone else who knows the answer to the question, will please respond to the specific question asked.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 30 Mar 2005 13:43:16 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2005 : 16:20:51
|
Greetings to all,
I just had another flashback, and do not know if it is significant, but the old "cracker-jack" commercial came to mind. Remember how it went:
"What do you get... when you gotta-have something...
and it has to be sweet... and its gotta be a lot...
and you gotta have it now...
whatta you get...."
As these lyrics are going on, the young boy pulls out everything hes got on his pocket, which are objects he cherishes, like marbles, jacks, a few other objects etc., and lays them all out on the table. The "trading store owner" grins at this young mans eager bartering ability, and pro-ceeds to hand the young man his Cracker Jack box, with a price inside too!
And that's all I have to say at this time :)
I am,
Manuel
Here is a price:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7145715713
"HEY... WHERES THE BEEF!" |
Edited by - Manuel on 30 Mar 2005 16:37:37 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Schweitzer Video on Common Law
