| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Repenter
Junior Member
USA
21 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Jul 2004 : 14:47:07
|
Any of you have a copy of this case?
CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.
It supposed contain this two quotes:
"When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.
|
|
|
Werner Maximilian
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2004 : 17:10:02
|
I have not read this case in it's entirety,but it sounds encouraging.
Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People
– Supreme Court of the United States 1795
"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of
the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary,
having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity
with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any
law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate,
artificial persons and the contracts between them."
S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),
Supreme Court of the United States 1795
[--Not the "United States Supreme Court" –ed.] |
Edited by - Werner Maximilian on 12 Jul 2004 17:16:20 |
 |
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2004 : 13:39:32
|
Hello Werner,
I would be curious as to where you got your copy of Penhallow v. Doane. You see, the copy that I have, does not have the paragraph that you have quoted and that I have seen quoted by many other people. Perhaps yours is a more complete version, if so, where can I get a copy.
And yes, my copy expressly states "Supreme Court of the United States" and not U.S. Supreme Court.
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2004 : 15:03:22
|
Dear Vern;
The truthful quote is reinforcing the dual court system delirium. The nomenclature just has certain Patriots chasing fictions. That schizophrenic counterpart (U.S. Supreme Court v. Supreme Court of the United States) to the legal/true name identity crisis is just as pernicious.
That "poppycock" [as ruled by the Tenth Circuit justices] wastes a lot of time. See the latter passage linked below. This is such a classic example how a crazy theory about nomenclature can get good people chasing their tails. From GOOGLE:quote:
PATRICK FISHER
... Finally, Mr. Smith makes an elaborate, albeit misguided, argument challenging the jurisdiction of the district court, claiming a "United States District Court ...
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/97-1242.rtf - Cached
quote:
ECC Forum & Fellowship - "saving to suitors" clause of 1789... it in the graphics but until then I quote the justices of the Tenth Circuit: "Finally, Mr. Smith makes an elaborate, albeit misguided, argument challenging the...
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306&whichpage=11 - Cached
If you want to see functional use of the truth in your cite:
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=376&whichpage=2 and check out the abatement.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=332&whichpage=6 to see this quote below in the context I used it on another thread.
From "Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law" by Joseph Vining; footnote at the bottom of p. 22quote:
It would be interesting to discover the degree to which a person in early society was "born again' when he was made an official. A postulant was born again when he became a monk, a squire when he entered knighthood, or a woman when she married. Each took a new name. It may be that only as the notion of the double personality of officials grew did the new name not replace the old, but was rather added to the old, so that an official had both a "private" name and a "title." It is the phenomenon of two names, of course, that has made possible the practice of filing suits for judicial review against "named individuals.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 13 Jul 2004 16:03:40 |
|
|
|
Werner Maximilian
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2004 : 15:38:11
|
| Sorry Guys, I have to admit I'm guilty of a paste job of something I found in my E-mail that sounded like what Repenter was seeking. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2004 : 16:06:18
|
Thanks Werner Maximilian;
Great lesson! Sounded real good though huh, Lewis?
Regards,
David Merrill
P.S. Lewis;
Have you tried the court clerk? |
Edited by - David Merrill on 13 Jul 2004 16:09:07 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2004 : 12:22:25
|
quote:
That "poppycock" [as ruled by the Tenth Circuit justices] wastes a lot of time. See the latter passage linked below. This is such a classic example how a crazy theory about nomenclature can get good people chasing their tails. From GOOGLE:
Well, the Tenth Circuit justices can call it poppycock all they want, but Justice Hugo Black of the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the difference in an opinion for a case that he issued in 1966.
It is only poppycock if they can get you to believe it is poppycock.
David,
"Have I tried the court clerk?" I don't understand the question.
Peace to all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2004 : 19:41:24
|
Dear Lewis;
Not very convincing. At least I offered a link to Patrick Fisher's (the Tenth Circuit Court clerk) website. You can contact him for a certified copy I am sure.
You asked Vern for a complete copy of a case. That is why I suggested you contact the court clerk.
I will tone down the badgering. It is not really my style. Your lack of Rules of Evidence and that you seem to think you do people a favor with all this rumor-based gibberish really rubs me the wrong way. If people want to get clobbered in the flack of your wrecklessness, I will just start ignoring it. Maybe a curt warning here and there. People get clobbered out of their own ignorance every day. You just encourage it; like above in your Reply. Not very convincing.
As I understand it, Dan Meador developed the sophistry about two court systems in "Institutionalized Tyranny" but I have never read it. I perused it briefly and enjoyed Dan's approach to municipal structure. Dan makes the dual (de jure and de facto forums) seem quite convincing and I often think that is probably where Duane Smith (in the Tenth Circuit "poppycock" opinion) got the misdirection.
Regards,
David Merrill |
|
|
|
halbertson
Regular Member
USA
29 Posts |
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2004 : 12:25:30
|
Amazing how these "Legal Gurus" go out of their way to proof a point and not apply the maxims to the people's COURTS right here on this land.
"Never let a Minimum-Wage Person upset your day!!"
Nor a maximum-wage person either!!! :)
I am,
Manuel |
Edited by - Manuel on 19 Jul 2004 12:26:38 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2004 : 09:10:23
|
Dear Halbertson;
I find some of the references in the case to the Patroons interesting. I am related directly.
I should point out that the Federal Reserve Bulletin and Congressional Records clearly show the revision and implementation of the Trading With the Enemy Act (1917) suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus (as always, in the actual theater of war only) in 1933. So if you get interested in the link, keep that in mind. Character is everything. All citizens of the United States and legal names are in that same theater of war.
Regards,
David Merrill.
NOTE: I felt there was something fishy about the Cruden reference; that it was absent from the case. I was looking on Page 26 as the document appears on the computer. Not Page 26 on the page numbers of the document. Since I removed the comment so quickly I pull my foot from my mouth in the edit.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 20 Jul 2004 09:49:01 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2004 : 15:58:34
|
Dear Readers;
I would like to summarize my stance on the alleged Cruden quote (supposing it exists).
quote:
Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.
The quote is essentially true. The term is standing in judicio. That is why we will find legal names used even while there were de jure government judiciaries in place. Sexton v. Wheaton is a good example from 1827 if I remember right. But these folks were using family names for "last names" and forming an artificial entity to interface through in commercial intercouse.
A good book about this like I have said is "Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law". But I want to bring out the truthful perspective. Joseph Vining makes a wonderful dissertation from inside the corporate structure so this leaves us to deduction. Vern read the book and felt Vining was an apologist for the New World Order. Vining explains the necessity of the Cruden quote. When a man in his true name files in the district courts of the United States it can only be interpreted as a class action suit for all men and women. That is because only titles (citizen of the United States a/k/a government employees [read the de jure 13th Amendment carefully], painter, father etc.) have specific needs. My needs as a man are identical to your needs.
So until another Martin Mahoney* steps forward, these federal judges will not disqualify the entire national debt macroeconomic system at the expense of their career and future. Instead they allow the clerks to assassinate the character of the man or woman to pro se litigant by false branding.
Regards,
David Merrill
* Martin Mahoney ruled on the Credit River Money Decision. Available for reading on another thread. Martin was murdered about six months after publishing his memorandum and judgment c.1968. Jerome Daly, the litigant seems to have spent the remainder of his life hoping people would understand the significance of the Credit River Money Decision. He made an entry into the case file when he moved to California in 1991 hoping people might continue to contact him for information. I hear he is now deceased.
Because of recent interest in the case, I hear the Scott County (wherein Credit River Township sets) Court Clerk Audrey Brown has moved the entire case jacket out of mothballs and keeps it in her desk drawer. What you may find interesting is that she charges $10/per certified document, regardless of the size. I read an Internet copy of the transcript and found that intriguing. But I gave that away. However the price structure provides you could get the 100 or so pages for $10, last I spoke with Audrey. She can be contacted at (952) 496-8209 (her desk) or generally through the clerk at (952) 496-8200.
I tried twice and paid over $50 in filing fees to have the memorandum and judgment sent directly to my clerk but she was adamant not to send it to other jurisdictions. I have pondered that one no end...
The Township clerk is now Jerry Maas at (612) 414-1722 jmaas@prodigy.net and seems to enjoy talking about the case. He knows some of the Mahoneys who still live there in the Township. However when I was trying to figure out how to get Audrey to authenticate the documents by filing them directly with my clerk herself, I accused Jerry of being in collusion with that obfuscation. So he may be a little put out with me. But he is a great guy. He thinks that Audrey was doing everything she could to help me. But she said what she said and neither Jerry or I could figure why.
Sometimes it is hard to figure what the obstacle is. Almost like there is a subconscious tendency to protect the status quo. I wish I knew. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 20 Jul 2004 20:00:15 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2004 : 22:20:44
|
Dear Readers,
I paid $235.00 for the entire Credit River case, all the way up thru the State Supreme Court. That totals out at about 600 pages, if anyone is interested. I feel it was well worth the cost to have the complete story.
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2004 : 23:31:51
|
Dear Lewis;
Jerry Maas told me that there was no appeal to the decision. The problem being that the Bank would have to offer substantial consideration to cover the (then) $2 appellate court filing fee.
That would of course have been an admission the combinatorial mathematics of the Federal Reserve System was not substantial currency. The case was never appealed, at least according to the file jacket in the Scott County courthouse.
Jerry was quite helpful and is a very friendly guy. I am sticking with the research he did about a year ago. Maybe the bank jumped the appeal process (traversal) somehow but I give that process no credibility. The State Supreme Court in the State of Colorado is the State Bar - not common law. So I am suggesting that Lewis or somebody call or write Jerry and see if he will tell you about the case jacket there. He seemed interested enough. I just felt there was a reason he would not explain why he, as the clerk of Credit River Township could not get involved with acquiring the highest level of clerk-to-clerk authentication behind the local county clerk filing of the four page document. I recall he wanted to but the Township attorney just told him he had better things to be doing and helping me was not his job as Township clerk. So Jerry, being an engineer who basically volunteered as a civic duty to the Township, allowed the attorney to define his job duties. Sometimes I am blunt when people listen to attorneys instead of what makes sense to me. So be polite and respectful and Jerry will probably be glad to help you out.
With proper authentication from Audrey Brown and properly published, the papers can save homes from a failed UCC Redemption. It is a true judgment and the bank representatives gave truthful testimony about the nature of a mortgage loan. But the Credit River Money Decision (memorandum, judgment and decree) must properly back a Verified Statement of Right (in admiralty) and do so timely, with enough notice so that one does not get blindsided by abrogated process like the "vacations" by attorneys and the Sheriff (nobody can reach the players and so the illusion there is no culpability for the seizure).
So I should finally put my finger on it for you:
quote:
Any of you have a copy of this case?
Clerks are the custodians from whom to get certified true and correct copies of documentation. Quit looking to other researchers for information. It is like you intentionally avoid being courts of competent jurisdiction - like you intentionally avoid Rules of Evidence. Be careful not to waste $235 on hearsay. Especially garbage from the mouths of attorneys. [Jerry Maas is the custodian of the Township (even if he has inadvertently hired Audrey Brown at the County of Scott/METRO to hold the documents as his custodian. Therefore as I construct things, he could take a moment to handle the job of filing the common law judgment with my common law county clerk here, specially if I pay all expenses and even for his time and trouble. Maybe that is what happened here Lewis. When the case got transferred by traversal into the "statutory" jurisdiction, the attorneys felt they had commandeered it from common law and justified irregular appeals process. Thus Audrey told me she would not send it to any other jurisdiction; she would not allow a second traversal back into true common law from where which it came anyway. Crazy, it is obviously a common law matter). Townships, Parishes and even Frank Pledges are the conventional jural societies for common law venue.] If you are a man above the high tide mark, you have an absolute right to common law remedy. Avoid the "federal common law" refusal for cause. Look at your sources. That is called Rules of Evidence.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Thanks for bringing it to mind, Lewis. You may have noticed on Daniel's Calendar that a case was filed on the same day as the 31 Day Government Shutdown (corporate restructure).
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielCalendar.jpg
That was not just out of the blue. I formed a unique "in forma pauperis" taking exception that I must "pay" the filing fee in Federal Reserve Notes. Also I gave the proposed filing to an FBI agent again with about two weeks notice before I filed on December 17, 1995 and the Shutdown began December 18.
A more interesting note is that when returning from Denver about the "In Forma Pauperis" James Harlan, or "Jim H. Ayers" whom you dug that memorandum up on, I must have grabbed a message off my machine, because I called him from a truck stop. He offered to pay the filing fee. I said that was great but I wanted to see how my objection to FRNs worked out. He said he was only offering if I was going to turn around and get back up to Denver and get the suit filed that day. I declined. I wish my memory served me, whether or not I told Jim I was going to Denver that day. It seemed odd that I called him from the truck stop and his 'today only' offer was really odd. But I think Jim may have heard about my visit to the district court through 'back channels', not from me.
A couple years later Jim sold all his clientelle's portfolios on the eve of the 1998 Market Crash. Like a real Maximilian Cohen (lead character in Pi; Faith in Chaos by Darren Aronofsky) with his Fibonacci Sequence in action.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Jul 2004 10:26:39 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2004 : 12:00:44
|
Well Readers,
Once again, if it didn't come from David Merrill, it can't possibly be true. Jerry Maas told David that there was no appeal, so that must be the truth. David says so.
Hmm, well then, I wonder what all these papers are that I got from the state archivist, with the archivist's seal on them, that includes an appeal, a denial of the appeal, and the petition to the State Supreme Court to reverse the denial of the appeal. They couldn't possibly be legitimate because David has declared them to not be legitimate. I guess the seal of the archivist declaring them to be a true and correct copy is also a fake. Must be, because David has said so.
Well, whatever they are, they are quite interesting. The court papers include photocopies of the two one dollar federal reserve notes that were tendered by the bank for the appeal. The appeal was denied because the bank refused to tender lawful money in the form of gold or silver coin as required by the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 10, which is binding on the States and the Courts thereof. This is the reason given for the denial of the appeal. The denial of the appeal was carried up to the State Supreme Court by the bank, but was upheld by that court also. They again upheld the argument that only lawful money can be accepted by the State in payment of a debt.
Now, if David wants to claim this all a bunch of mush from a group of attorneys, so be it. But, when I see a Judge's signature, and a seal from a state archivist saying this is a true and correct copy, I am much more inclined to believe the archivist than I am to believe David.
Well good Readers, you believe who you will. I only offer the information I have and can prove to be legitimate.
Now, as to Jim Ayers, it was a personal close friend of mine who wrote the "Libel in Review" that Jim Ayers used against the IMF/IRS that David keeps referring to. This friend was a close associate of Jarome Daly, and has provided me with information about the Credit River Case that is on a personal level. I suspect I know a bit more about the case than does David.
Peace to you all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2004 : 12:23:16
|
Thank you Lewis;
For clearing that up. You made my point for me. The case never got into appeal. Since it made it up to the State of Minnesota Supreme Court I presumed you had some hogwash that the common law decision was overturned in the bankrupt State jurisdiction.
Jerry Maas is the clerk of the Credit River Township and therefore a good source of first-hand information, being qualified to create certified true and correct copies of original documentation.
quote:
Well good Readers, you believe who you will. I only offer the information I have and can prove to be legitimate.
So I still say that Lewis is not a good source of information when you can get it from court clerks direct. So why go to Lewis? Lewis is so quick to defend that he failed to see we agree the case was never properly appealed due to the confession inherent in the currency.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Look everybody; it is obvious I don't jockey my mouse around here lukewarm. I warn you regularly what you are now reading is Internet fluff. So most of you either enjoy the things I am saying as food for thought or you write me off as a complete freak. That is the way I intend it. One of my objectives is to help you become courts of competent jurisdiction, to advocate those rightful heirs apparent come forward and make their claim according to the Scripture.
Lewis never took the counterclaim he paid for to filing. He admitted his purpose was to share it with his private researcher (who never seems to disclose his name anyway. Jim referred to him as "Doc" I think) and determine "why the papers worked". Well I am repeating myself here but "it", the papers, doesn't work. The papers guide a man or woman through the process of developing confidence. If someone does not have the confidence or intent to become a suitor - a court of competent jurisdiction, the papers are a failure. Where there is no competence (confidence) the 'saving to suitors' clause is just some lofty and unattainable theory.
quote:
...where the common law is competent to give it [remedy];
It is a paradigm shift in cause and effect that Lewis was purchasing but he never figured out how to use it.
P.P.S. Lewis! You are a real piece of work! I just noticed that the price for the uncertified case File #19054 from Audrey Brown costs $235. I bet you got that order information from me to begin with. Not that I am trying to glorify myself as a great source of knowledge, but you should have mentioned where you got the information you are offering to pass along like you are the source.
Well, good readers. Get your information from Audrey. Lewis did.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Jul 2004 14:50:06 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2004 : 15:27:55
|
Dear David Merril and Lewis,
[Rant On]
What is it with you two? You are like two brothers who refuse to see
that the other has genuine value, and is fine for who and what he is.
If you are competing for attention, who is Mom and Dad? I personally
find the two of you to be the most knowledgably expressed men on interesting facts and process of law on the site. But it disheartens and annoys me that you are continually at each other. The difference in paradigms is huge, and I find it perfect that both perspectives with their different opportunities are exteneded to anyone patient enough to read through ecclesia. You can insist on acting like children if you want, but for both of you I experience it as detracting from your crediblity for anyone. I don't think when the
Anointed One asked us to be "as little children", he meant bickering.
[Rant Off]
Thank both of you for all that you share with us. I have found more valuable informaton that is comprehensible, feels significant, and seems accurate here on this site, than on any other site on the internet. You two are a large part of that, and I appreciate it.
Love & Blessings!,
Ishmael Aylwin
P.S. David Merill; I know more is going on for you than simply two men sharing on an Internet Forum. I even feel I have a genuine idea of what it is you are trying to do here. At the same time, I don't think getting into a one-upmanship with Lewis helps. It dampens resonance, and you are not really competing. Remember that resistance converts current to heat and/or light at specific areas, albeit while reducing the current. It would be wisest to assume that it is neccessary or beneficial, (i.e. forgoe paranoia,) and that an area simply needs more light shed on it. Yes, I have seen you already use it that way, and I understand that you too, are human. I just think that you could do it even more succesfully than you have. I hope I have not offended either of you, as I have truly learned a lot from you both already, and hope to continue.
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2004 : 18:20:31
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
Thanks for the comment. In the world of Reality TV etc. I suppose this bickering is welcome. I have grown to understand it as a necessary part of my overall treatise. An interactive protocol. You may see that I utilize the criticism and even the synical to bring forth experience I feel is relevant to the thread.
This particular thread seems to have a bi-line. The title is about the case and how corporate entities cannot interface with people. But the bi-line quickly became credibility. More accurately, sources and authentication. When it became clear to me that Lewis was trying to bolster credibility to himself off materials he got from a court clerk, it also became clear he is making my point about authenticity for me.
From my standpoint, I do not consider it one-upmanship. But that is only because I feel the readers who know me from my writing understand that if I had some insight into the case that cannot be found from the documentation, like Lewis claims to have, I would have shared it openly on the "Credit River" thread. But that is over there and this is here.
Credibility and authenticity. That is the bi-line here. Maybe I read this differently than you and the many readers who "pass through" without Reply. But I have not been directing anyone to think of myself as an authority on the Credit River Money Decision other than getting it authenticated by qualified clerks. I have only read the four pages of judgment and decree, and the memorandum. I read the transcript but that was not authenticated so it was more like entertainment than education. I direct people to get any information from the proper clerks and have even brought to light that I believe the appropriate clerks are in common law - Jerry Maas and Robert C. Balink. There is trouble authenticating because a de facto authority has somehow become custodian of the Decision; Audrey Brown with the County of Clark/METRO. I resent that Audrey has taken control from Jerry and will not send the certified true and correct copies back in traversal to Balink, my clerk here.
Your feedback is welcome. Because so many readers 'hit' the forum and read the thread, I have started to presume that the friction is worth the entertainment value as long as it is bringing out interesting and useful information and experience. Then again, next I hope Lewis will defend his position as an authority by sharing some of the wonderful "secrets" he boasts of. Do you see what I am saying?
I truly expect that Lewis is not suffering much stress and anxiety about my tactics. Which I feel are edifying and at the same time entertaining. I even have expectations that it is in part counterintelligence techniques between Lewis and his secret Researcher, to egg me with this transparent tactic, misdirecting people to Lewis for information when I am trying to show how to authenticate documents according to Rules of Evidence and common law. But you should step back and see the work-product without the bickering. You admit it is the bickering that dampens the resonance. I agree. I have simply learned that bickering is part of the forum.
Hopefully it is Lewis' turn to share some of the background events that are not in the documents. Instead of goading, I will simply say please share, Lewis. In closing I suggest you link us over to the Credit River Money Decision thread in your reply and tell us there.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Jul 2004 18:26:58 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 09:21:30
|
In Addendum;
I do not hear any edification from Lewis about the esoterics of the Credit River Money Decision. But then, I did not think the hearsay would hold any gravity compared to the judgment and decree, memorandum etc. already authenticated.quote:
Now, as to Jim Ayers, it was a personal close friend of mine who wrote the "Libel in Review" that Jim Ayers used against the IMF/IRS that David keeps referring to. This friend was a close associate of Jarome Daly, and has provided me with information about the Credit River Case that is on a personal level. I suspect I know a bit more about the case than does David.
That is really the contention I feel about Lewis promoting the UCC Redemption. In the hopes that exposing the risks would be both entertaining and edifying, I allowed Lewis to 'set me off' a bit.
I attribute much of the behavior I note on the forum to paranoia; all the externalizing. But that word 'paranoia' is really better kept in the traditional sense of an isolated patient who may be treated once diagnosed. Maybe it does not apply the same for societal maladies (anomia) like externalization - looking outward for the cause instead of focusing on introspective change to deal with the way the world seems. But it is still paranoia by any definition. To develop complex persecutions and placing the blame on "them". People repeatedly tell me, "I am not paranoid!" and I just confirm the illness in the denial. And so I just explained, the denial comes from the masses being paranoid.
So herein this thread, I believe we all saw that Lewis guides (misdirects) us to believe that he holds the truth and facts of history and law. As opposed to directing us to get these truths from qualified clerks same place he aquires truth for himself. He builds himself up as the repository instead of directing us to the same repository (Audrey Brown the court clerk) from whom he got the documents.
Examining Lewis' quote above here, Lewis' "close personal friend" may have never even told Lewis his name. It seems that was the way it was with Jim (years ago so I am not sure) but "Doc" may have never told Jim his name. Jim just referred to him as "Doc". And like Lewis, Jim would not tell me Doc's name. Well it should be no news by now that I would like to know the name of the man or woman I am listening to in order to evaluate credibility. Also, the Libel of Review does not work. It partially addresses remedy but does nothing for recourse; to redirect matters. The "diversity of citizenship" defined in Doc's Libel of Review presumes the States are competent when they are in fact bankrupt through the same 1933 Governors' Convention supporting the United States' bankruptcy. The Libel of Review is only another attorney trick, but well founded in that the bankrupt forums cannot be courts of competent jurisdiction. I adjusted it for partial functionality back in '95, petitioning the district court to waive the $120 filing fee because they would only accept FRNs, triggering the 31 Day Government Shutdown on filing day, and have since remade the entire process so that it functions in law.
My experience here is that the State of Colorado Supreme Court entertained a cause by a subdivision thereof called Attorney Regulation Counsel. The cause was titled "Unauthorized Practice of Law". I abated the matter for misnomer ("Legal Name a/k/a True Name). Just the same I pondered the source of the offense the State Bar had felt. The attorneys are truly the "Patriots for Hire" around here. They are the ones who understand the counterclaim is common law notice and grace upon agents of a foreign principal who only can operate here above the high tide mark by the individual's consent [at the mailbox usually]). But they prey on ignorance and the concept that they are the source, the Auricle (as in ear trumpet), that condenses truth. Since I was doing what they do for people but in a non-addictive manner (teaching men to fish instead of selling fish) they were forming an accusation that I had not acquired licensure from the State Bar - the Supreme Court. It is difficult to say how much money I have cost the Bar and non-registered Patriots for Hire.
What I said in the above Reply applies. I really would not have attacked Lewis publicly for being a Patriot for Hire but that I thought the warnings edifying and to some of the many readers who read but do not Reply, entertaining.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Jul 2004 09:48:58 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 12:50:00
|
Dear Readers,
Well, once again David is making it up as he goes. Note the following quote:
quote:
That is really the contention I feel about Lewis promoting the UCC Redemption.
Anyone who has actually been reading what I write will know that I walked away from the Redemption movement a year ago. I have publicly stated that while it may work, the only way you are going to get it to work is to use the black letter of the Law. You will have to drag them into a court and get your rememdy there. Very few people are willing to learn enough to do that.
Next quote:
quote:
So herein this thread, I believe we all saw that Lewis guides (misdirects) us to believe that he holds the truth and facts of history and law.
Once again David throws falsity into the program. I do believe I suggested that people would find the information enlightening if they went and got their own copy and read it.
Next quote:
quote:
He builds himself up as the repository instead of directing us to the same repository (Audrey Brown the court clerk) from whom he got the documents.
I did not get my copy form the court clerk Audrey Brown. I ordered it and received it from the Minnesota State Archives, which is where the only complete copy of everything about the case can be found. Once more David tries to twist the facts to support his view of the world.
Next quote:
quote:
Lewis' "close personal friend" may have never even told Lewis his name. It seems that was the way it was with Jim (years ago so I am not sure) but "Doc" may have never told Jim his name.
My "close personal friend" is known by the name of Anthony. More than that you do not need to know. He and "Doc" and three others developed the "Libel of Review".
Next quote:
quote:
Also, the Libel of Review does not work.
Well, for something that doesn't work, why did "they" go to the trouble of killing 2 of the five people who wrote it, attempted to kidnap the daughter of another, put guns to the heads of the 2 others, and almost killed my friend. For over a year my friend wasn't sure whether he was going to live or die. If it doesn't work, why did all of this happen. Oh, I know. It was a manifestation of their paranoia. Right David?
And for something that doesn't work, we have sure been having fun with it in North Carolina. It has put a complete halt to the actions of attorneys from two different law firms. But, I guess that doesn't count.
Next quote:
quote:
I really would not have attacked Lewis publicly for being a Patriot for Hire
.
Well, now David is accusing me of being an attorner. I definitely do not attorn anyone or for anyone. Get a life David.
Attorneys are foreign agents. It is clearly set forth in the 1947 Bar Treaty Act. Go read it for yourself.
By the way, we discovered that the North Carolina State Bar has some interesting relations. Take a look.
quote:
Business Name: NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR
Address: PO BOX 25908
RALEIGH NC 27611
Phone Number: (919)828-4620
Tax ID (FEIN): 566001933
Duns Number: 188663629
SIC Code: 96519903
Executive Name & Title: L THOMAS LUNSFORD, DIR
Parent Company Name: NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR
Reference Name: UNITED STATES DEPT TREASURY
Date Provided: 03-31-1996
Now what do you make of the Reference Name? What is a Department? Who are these persons? Why does a State Bar have a Federal Employer number? What about the fact that State Courts have Federal Employer numbers?
Peace to you all,
Lewis |
Edited by - Lewish on 24 Jul 2004 12:53:29 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 12:54:25
|
Writing and sharing thoughts of those which assume they are the keepers of "legal matters." They are the BAR APPROVED ACTORS.
Let us look on to the "OUT-BURSTS" of paranoia. Out-bursts can be said are a combination of reflexes, and many a time out of the anxiety to withhold the inner truth exibit signs of desparation.
Many of the BAR MEMBERS incapsulated on their struggle to maintain form, have instinctively and premeditatedly broadened their propaganda campaign, for those not of their faction, to "look the other way." Paranoia? Yes indeed!
Like co-caine addicts wipe their noses off, mellow their speed by consuming alcohol or downers, or heroin addicts hiding their "tracks" by using long sleeves, signs of being known is paranoia.
Whats behind the long black robe the BAR CLUB "mediators" wear? A HIRED-GUN?
Here is Truth: Even if the skies are cloudy, the sun is always there!
I am,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.
