| Author |
 Topic  |
|
charles8854
Regular Member
USA
40 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 16:57:18
|
Originally posted by oneisraelite
>Greetings and salutations brother Charles:
Peace be unto the house.
Peace unto your house also, oneisraelite.
>> You state: “coercively-imposed social-security-number”
>(1) …the synonym for coerce is force, do you believe we are “forced” to use this number,
Well i admit the "force" is rather indirect. But with all due respect, good sir; standard definitions of force include "threats" & similar non-physical non-forceable pressures up-on the victim. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition defines it as follows:
“Coercion: Compulsion; constraint; compelling by force of arms or threat. ... It may be actual, direct, or positive, as where physical force is used to compel act against ones will, or implied, legal or constructive, as where one party is constrained by subjugation to other to do what his free will would refuse. ... A person is guilty of criminal coercion if, with purpose to unlawfully restrict another’s freedom of action to his detriment, he threatens to: (a) commit any criminal offence; or (b) accuse anyone of a criminal offence; or (c) expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute; or (d) to take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action. Model penal code, ss 212.5:
Oregon Revised Statutes (which i cite frequently) ORS-163.275: clarifies the latter above elements by adding these details:
“(f) Testify falsely or provide false information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or
(g) Unlawfully use or abuse the person's position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely.”
“Coercion is a Class-C Felony” in Oregon.
As these elements are contemplated in juxtaposition to the normal sociological-pressures involved in brow-beating people into accepting the social-security number; I believe it is clear that the ssi number is “coercively imposed” on such people. If you or others of honorable character & reputation (schweitzer’s words) still cannot see how all of this fits together, I will make myself available to explain further.
> or do we "choose" to use it for convenience sake, i.e. benefits, privileges and advantages?
I think my words above clearly show that such is not the case, sir.
> (2) Do you perceive it to be High Treason to knowingly take the chattel number, i.e. become the chattel property, of another ruler?
Again with all due respect, good sir; your ultimate-premise contains a hidden-premise, the latter of which I do not agree with. You have pre-supposed that “knowingly taking a” social security “number”; is the “Lawful-Equivalent” of “becoming the chattel-property of another ruler”.
Such would all surely be governed by “contract-law; if it is to be considered enforceable at all; correct?
And from my above citations concerning the “Lawful-Definition” of “Coercion”; I believe I have shown that such contacts are both un-lawful & un-enforceable.
Further; honorable “spies” &/or “freedom-fighters” for godly-governments have long & frequently adopted the contractual-entanglements of the evil-countries in which they reside. This has been traditionally-approved in “the circle of christian nations”, so that such spiritual-warriors may gather strategic-information & accomplish other war-related tasks which ultimately work to the advancement of good over evil. The rulers of the good countries universally acknowledge such people as “heros” to the cause. They are not accused of “High Treason”, as you propose; sir.
> (3) Has it ever, in the history of the earth, been considered High Treason against one's government to use the medium of exchange of another country/nation, or to pay sales tax, gas tax, and etc., while sojourning in it?
No. We agree on that issue. We seem to only disagree on the former issue.
> We thank you in advance for your thoughtful answers on these points of interest.
I respectfully thank you for your obviously heart-felt communications about my admittedly un-fashionable views in our christian/israelite ecclesia-community.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 18:05:11
|
Batkol;
The closest I get is not endorsing the FRNs. Never leave the papertrail. This involves anyone who wants to give you a check, you have to request they cash it first.
One fellow reports that a stamp: "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE" on his paychecks above his signature worked well to define the cashing a non-taxable event. That is worth some thought.
Some suitors visiting from Texas pulled this bill at a coffee shop:
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_UsedOnlyByNecessity.jpg
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
Mark
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 18:28:20
|
David Merrill said:quote:
The concept of things getting more and more difficult to buy and sell is symptom of self-confirming paranoid delusions.
If I’m understanding you correctly David, then fact that I couldn’t get electricity turned on for a house I have just acquired, without first supplying them (SRP) a social security number (which I could not produce), is simply a symptom of my self-confirming paranoid delusions? Please explain, because I’m beginning to worry that I just might have to go see a shrink. Thank you.
Peace,
Mark |
Edited by - Mark on 25 Mar 2005 19:20:48 |
|
|
|
Mark
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 19:15:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark
David Merrill said:quote:
The concept of things getting more and more difficult to buy and sell is symptom of self-confirming paranoid delusions.
If I’m understanding you correctly David, then fact that I couldn’t get electricity turned on for a house I have just acquired, without first supplying them (SRP) a social security number (which I could not produce), is simply a symptom of my self-confirming paranoid delusions? Please explain, because I’m beginning to worry that I just might have to go see a shrink. Thank you.
Peace,
Mark
Correction:
Sorry, it wasn't the SSN directly that they required, but rather a State issued ID, which requires a SSN to obtain.
Peace,
Mark |
Edited by - Mark on 25 Mar 2005 19:21:21 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 20:17:52
|
No. It does not. (Speaking confidently for METRO State uniformity.)
quote:
From the Colorado Revised Statutes
(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), on and after October 1, 2000, an application for a driver's or minor driver's license shall include the applicant's social security number, which shall remain confidential and shall not be placed on the applicant's driver's or minor driver's license unless such applicant has waived such confidentiality; except that such confidentiality shall not extend to the state child support enforcement agency, the department, or a court of competent jurisdiction when requesting information in the course of activities authorized under article 13 of title 26, C.R.S.,or article 14 of title 14, C.R.S. If the applicant does not have a social security number, the applicant shall submit a sworn statement, together with the application, stating that the applicant does not have a social security number. The license issued as a result of said application may, at the applicant's option, contain an identification number, which shall be the applicant's social security number.
I was in a writing club with a psychotherapist and we were having lunch. I was discussing conspiracy themes for a story and he said, "Once you start down that road [paranoia], you can never get off it." What he meant was that one will start bringing off confirmations metaphysically in the environment.
But I proved him wrong. I wont refer you to such a defeatist.
If only it were true, that one must have a State ID to get electricity/utilities. My friend would just call that statute whenever the City/METRO bugs him for being off the grid. But alas, since there is no lawful way to impose a State ID on someone, there is no way to require it for services.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ebikes_in_a_row.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_off_the_grid.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ebiking.wmv
Without such protection of the law, now and again he has to abate little notices. We processed his counterclaim in early 2001 to cure bond on March 14. The bond cured waiver of tort for the national debt, which at that time was $5.5t. Bonding requirements made that 2X. Do you remember that $11t dissolved from the Stock Market that day?
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/VernsTrueBill.gif
Vern's True Bill
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Deadline.gif
The Deadline
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/2XBondrule.gif
Rule for 2X Bonding
Regards,
David Merrill.
United Nations' usage of "open spaces":
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leadership_Headquarters.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leadership_Center.jpg
"Grooming Governors One Actor at a Time"
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 25 Mar 2005 22:15:16 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 21:17:52
|
quote:
From the Colorado Revised Statutes
(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), on and after October 1, 2000, an application for a driver's or minor driver's license shall include the applicant's social security number, which shall remain confidential and shall not be placed on the applicant's driver's or minor driver's license unless such applicant has waived such confidentiality; except that such confidentiality shall not extend to the state child support enforcement agency, the department, or a court of competent jurisdiction when requesting information in the course of activities authorized under article 13 of title 26, C.R.S.,or article 14 of title 14, C.R.S. If the applicant does not have a social security number, the applicant shall submit a sworn statement, together with the application, stating that the applicant does not have a social security number. The license issued as a result of said application may, at the applicant's option, contain an identification number, which shall be the applicant's social security number.
From above quote, I saw this following "exception," which to me sounds like more fraud written by the hands of these whores, sluts, and pimps. The right to travel has been defined by these "KIDNAPPERS" as another one of their COMMERCIAL MOVING VIOLATIONS. I tell you, their garbage is worse than stealing ones locomotive apparatus and de-mand to be rewarded with the "CAR-PAYMENT AND INSURANCE" plus ALL MAINTANANCE.
They extort mans (including the blindly woman) firstborn, and siblings by way of their acomplices (WHORES, PIMPS AND SLUTS), through their "DEPARTMENTS OF TRANS-FORMATIONS."
"except that such confidentiality shall not extend to the state child support enforcement agency, the department, or a court of competent jurisdiction when requesting information in the course of activities authorized under article 13 of title 26, C.R.S.,or article 14 of title 14, C.R.S."
These CANON/TALMUD PRICKS use the sons and daughters, and their willing CON-spirators, therefore guilty by association, as CANNON FODDER, which has been described as "deadly more serious than co-cain and hero-in addiction."
What is best? The first, or the last?
The last is invented by the drunkards... those who's blood they cannot wash from their closed hands and minds. Those whom have caused evil with the many de-facto e-motions and "opinions" they CON-tinue to brand on the minds of of those ignorant, arrogant, or deceitful of His Laws, being led to the slaughter by the blind which lead the blind. Those wolves wearing sheeps clothing, which black robes and COURT-briefs are but filthy undergarments which stench pierces through their veils of unrightousness and mis-leading images. Blind guides, which for show-sakes sit around shinning, for the benefits of their monk-eys, their cups on the outside for which the inside is filthy, and full of everything unclean. |
Edited by - Manuel on 25 Mar 2005 21:54:11 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 22:20:43
|
Your war against the world aside Manuel, the provision is for collection of child support for the masses who choose to marry the State of Colorado as a third party in their wedding bed. After the happy couple chooses to part ways, the State seems to linger on... and on...
Kind of silly when it is widely published the State of Colorado fully recognizes common law marriage. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 25 Mar 2005 22:29:16 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 23:10:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Your war against the world aside Manuel, the provision is for collection of child support for the masses who choose to marry the State of Colorado as a third party in their wedding bed. After the happy couple chooses to part ways, the State seems to linger on... and on...
Kind of silly when it is widely published the State of Colorado fully recognizes common law marriage.
David Merrill... you attempt to hide an awful truth with whoremongering man/woman made deceptive lies. The very fermentation of wickedness.
Extremely mis-leading response by you, David Merrill. Which your mis-leading remarks reveals to me that you are another "adverserial man."
|
Edited by - Manuel on 25 Mar 2005 23:20:40 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 23:16:08
|
I beg to differ Manuel; the provision in the statute is clearly to give driver license and SSN information on "deadbeat dads". In the State of Colorado a deadbeat dad loses his license.
But I suppose that confirms the new "adversarial man" title - retained for those who disagree with you?
I think it is way to commonplace to construe "being in the world, not of the world" to mean you have to just fight the world and tag it with the mud-slinging in your Post Manuel.
Supposing this the tenth time I have set people off with my broadswipe use of the term "Paranoia"; I apologize. That is just my reality. It seems to me you waste so much energy and heat. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 25 Mar 2005 23:26:29 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 23:26:48
|
| Another evil response by you... David Merrill. You are the evil "mud-slinging" one...David Merrill... which chosses to hide from what I, and others have witnessed. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 23:39:35
|
Tag it as you will tag everything that does not agree with you Manuel. Thing is you are not even talking about the stipulation of the code you underlined in the quote above. You are just taking the time and space to call me evil. That is all.
Well I will tell you Manuel, I feel good. Not evil. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 25 Mar 2005 23:43:35 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 23:43:08
|
| Yes... David Merrill... I "tagged" you alright. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 23:46:53
|
| Something is really bugging you. Have you been drinking? |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 23:55:39
|
From David Merill:
"Well I will tell you Manuel, I feel good. Not evil."
"Something is really bugging you. Have you been drinking?"
David Merrill... your last two comments are UNDER-statements.
|
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2005 : 01:41:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
... the provision in the statute is clearly to give driver license and SSN information on "deadbeat dads". In the State of Colorado a deadbeat dad loses his license.
But I suppose that confirms the new "adversarial man" title - retained for those who disagree with you?
I think it is way to commonplace to construe "being in the world, not of the world" to mean you have to just fight the world and tag it with the mud-slinging in your Post Manuel.
Supposing this the tenth time I have set people off with my broadswipe use of the term "Paranoia"; I apologize. That is just my reality. It seems to me you waste so much energy and heat....
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
The STATE OF MONTANA's MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE uses it's Form number 21-1800 (Revised Sep-00) as a CLASS D DRIVER LICENSE RENEWAL form.
That form contains the following words:
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER * _________________________________
[required by Mont. code Ann.61-5-107 and 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13); collected as data, used for child support enforcement and other identification purposes; will not be displayed on your driver's license unless you expressly authorize its use as your driver's license number**]
Question A: Is it a coinkydink (coincident) that the section that relates to this "requirement" is 666?
Question B: Why is the Social Security Number being required for "other identification purposes" when the original cards issued to "persons" contains the words "not for identification purposes"?
Question C: What is the specific definition of "Paranoid" as used in this topic.
Question D: Would a man, such as Manual, be considered "paranoid" by that specific definition for being concerned that the very same people controlling the the Social Security System who once stated that the number was "not for identification purposes" are now saying that that very same number is for "other identification purposes " pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13)?
Question E: Would a man that noticed that the very same numbers that the "requirement" quote (i.e. Section 666 and subsection 13) are the numbers in the Holy Scriptures used in The Book of the Revelation Chapter 13 to warn men concerning the number 666 and wondered whether or not this was an additional coinkydink (coincident) be "paranoid" by the specific definition of "paranoid" used hereinabove?
Respectfully Submitted,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 26 Mar 2005 08:56:28 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2005 : 07:55:10
|
Dear Manuel;
I am sorry. A good night's sleep brought back memories of some of you comments in the past. You have been burned by your choice to marry into the State and it has burnt you badly in child custody. You have railed against the evil-doing decisionmakers before. Since you just railed off again without talking about the statute (in detail) I was insensitive. I suppose all you were looking for is agreement you have been wronged and I provided the opposite.
My point is that you sat down at the clerk's counter with the State (assuming USA) and swore out an alliance with that State. Sometimes when I have to wait at my clerk's office while a couple marries the State I bite my sarcastic tongue on, "Oh my! How beautiful a ceremony! Swearing the State of Colorado to share your wedding bed!"
For multiple questions Marty I prefer a Q. & A. colored font:
quote:
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
The STATE OF MONTANA's MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE uses it's Form number 21-1800 (Revised Sep-00) as a CLASS D DRIVER LICENSE RENEWAL form.
That form contains the following words:
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER * _________________________________
You just pointed out the primary flaw. You are allowing the Department of Justice to regulate the form. If you search some of the words through several search engines you will probably find a similar clause in the Revised Montana Statutes. One could then leave the SSN in the DOJ form blank and cite the RMS. Bring in the asseveration (and a copy of the "statute" [in quotes because it is 'revised' and not yet a statute]) if you really want a driver license. Just write "exempt RMS 61-XX-XXXX" in the blank.
[required by Mont. code Ann.61-5-107 and 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13); collected as data, used for child support enforcement and other identification purposes; will not be displayed on your driver's license unless you expressly authorize its use as your driver's license number**]
There it is Marty! Right around there in Title 61. You will probably find the code saying one can asseverate there is no SSN. Use keywords from the Colorado "statute" in a search engine and see what hits.
Question A: Is it a coinkydink (coincident) that the section that relates to this "requirement" is 666?
This is why I was acute with Manuel. He just called me evil and gave me nothing to work with. Nothing to debate but how I feel; good or evil. So thank you Marty.
Eric Temple BELL wrote Numerology in 1933. It was primarily about Somerfeld's Fine Structure Constant 1916 and its theoretical perfection being that Somerfeld thought it could be cancelled. High School algebra proves otherwise - www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/key.jpg But during the course of a whole book on it, Bell reveals numerous "beasting" parties on the Stanford campus and many in his home. This is like beasting Bill Gates III in ASCII; (= 666). The imaginitive students and staff would spend the evening beasting any name they could think of and what was the interesting challenge ongoing was that nobody could ever get Eric beasted. No matter what language, or code, or alphabet... Eric feigned terrible discomfort that communal effort could beast anyone but himself.
Beasting is the tradition of Gamatria (one of the three divisions of Qabbalah). Christianity being a newer sect of Judaism this is properly called Christian Qabbalah. Read about it in Cabala in Encyclopedia Judaica. The Book of Revelation is a very clear statement on the Judaism at the time combined with militant rhetoric against Rome. The Jews believe that Messiah ben Joseph who will be defeated will preceed Messiah ben David who will prevail. That's the Book of Revelation. Read Raphael Patai's The Messiah Texts; chapter 16 by the title Messiah ben Joseph.
After sound and artistic research combined I tend to believe that the 666 number is 216. That is the 72-Fold Name = 6x6x6. Not six hundred and sixty-six. www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/72foldName.gif - http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Pi-snippet.wmv That whole topic originates from Exodus 14:19-21 being the three verses are exactly 72 letters in length.
Question B: Why is the Social Security Number being required for "other identification purposes when the original cards issued to "persons" contains the words not for identification purposes?
Here is the symptom of letting the Department of Justice legislate. If you prefer the policies of the Social Security Administration cite them like the Revised Montana Statutes. Either way you do not have to use the SSN for identification purposes; especially if you know better. You have denied separation of powers to yourself by falling into the illusion of "government". Notice the gold fringes law of the flag - they are reserved for the President acting as Commander-in-Chief over the Army and the Navy - Article II. Not Article I. Checks and Balances in government is a good thing Marty. You have to be cognizant of law and enforce it with your adeptness in judicio- Article III. If you have a just cause why there is no judicial review available, read the following rule carefully:
quote:
From the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims
Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must promptly issue a summons and a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.
In other words if you can prove they will not give you a driver license, get that testimony in writing. Then show that to a police officer instead. The State of Montana will testify at trial (and any subsequent show about the trial (on the side of the road) that you are not of the character within the scope of persons required to be carrying a driver license.
Question C: What is the specific definition of "Paranoid" as used in this topic.
The same you will find in any dictionary or dictionary of psychology.
Question D: Would a man, such as Manual, be considered "paranoid" by that specific definition for being concerned that the very same people controlling the the Social Security System who once stated that the number was not for identification purposes are now saying that that very same number is for other identification purposes pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13)?
By my research on beasting and 666, exactly. You and I both speaking for Manuel; he has bought into a mental illusion (Christianity & Roman/Greco pagan syncrotism of Judaism with the resurrection rumor in Asia Minor that fabricated Paul's War by Propaganda) that puts him at war with the world. Before he became at war with the world he feels that his obligations with the world are binding. War calls off all those contracts and charters so he is left fighting the world without an army. The survival of Jesus, the erroneous belief that Jesus is God-in-the-flesh (idolatry) abandons Manuel when he needs God to fight for him. Very frustrating.
Question E: Would a man that noticed that the very same numbers that the "requirement" quote (i.e. Section 666 and subsection 13) are the numbers in the Holy Scriptures used in The Book of the Revelation Chapter 13 to warn men concerning the number 666 and wondered whether or not this was an additional coinkydink (coincident) be "paranoid" by the specific definition of "paranoid" used hereinabove?
You may find your answer to E above. Maybe not. "Mathematics worth pondering" may give you more clues. Definitely on my thoughts. This would be a very lengthy Post if I start repeating myself about 72 and the Pentagram connecting the Fibonacci Sequence. The angles of a pentagram are 360/5=72. http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_SpiralFromPentagram.jpg
Respectfully Submitted,
Marty
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 26 Mar 2005 15:25:54 |
|
|
|
Mark
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2005 : 10:38:02
|
quote:
No. It does not. (Speaking confidently for METRO State uniformity.)
quote:
From the Colorado Revised Statutes
(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), on and after October 1, 2000, an application for a driver's or minor driver's license shall include the applicant's social security number, which shall remain confidential and shall not be placed on the applicant's driver's or minor driver's license unless such applicant has waived such confidentiality; except that such confidentiality shall not extend to the state child support enforcement agency, the department, or a court of competent jurisdiction when requesting information in the course of activities authorized under article 13 of title 26, C.R.S.,or article 14 of title 14, C.R.S. If the applicant does not have a social security number, the applicant shall submit a sworn statement, together with the application, stating that the applicant does not have a social security number. The license issued as a result of said application may, at the applicant's option, contain an identification number, which shall be the applicant's social security number.
OK, I stand corrected, thanks.
But…
Wouldn’t I still have to except a new name; LAWRENCE M. w/ LAST NAME (a 'person' controlled and taxed by the State & Federal governments), and bear false witness by swearing to a birth date in which I have no first hand knowledge of?
Peace,
Mark
|
Edited by - Mark on 26 Mar 2005 18:15:06 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2005 : 15:41:46
|
From David Merrill:
"You have been burned by your choice to marry into the State and it has burnt you badly in child custody."
Wrong again... David Merrill. Whether "marrying into the STATE" or not, the whores, pimps, blacked-robed cronies, chums, pals, attorn-ey POLI-TICKS, and their WILLING CONSPIRATORS have made it their goal to CON-tinue having THEIR WHORES ride on THEIR BEAST. It is part of their recruitment PROP-AGENDA to further feed their chemically, biologically, nihilistic and their many EMPLOYEE DRIVEN WORLDLY PARASITICAL NATURES. That is the way they "FEED THEIR METERS," for as many know... they BANK FOR THEIR LEADERS.
So get off of your banana tree... David Merrill... you can fool some... but you cannot fool everybody. As far as your ad-hominem attacks, constantly repeating "PARANOIA," like a squirrel looking for a nut, get off from your four limbs and look up. |
Edited by - Manuel on 26 Mar 2005 15:55:30 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2005 : 16:36:24
|
I was recalling a rant like that where you were really getting angry about dividing families up and taking children away. That was some time ago but I surmised you were speaking from experience.
It is very difficult to relate. Again I do not feel evil or like a squirrel in a banana tree. And why would I be trying to fool anyone? So I will file this ranting under the "ventilating" I mentioned opening this Topic and hope it does you some good Manuel. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 26 Mar 2005 17:31:34 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Psychoanalyzing David Merrill
