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

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 The Common Law
 Is this the David Merrill Process??
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

legalbear
Senior Member

USA
55 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2005 :  23:04:11  Show Profile  Visit legalbear's Homepage  Send legalbear a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Here is a news article about the leading poster on this forum:


Saturday, August 18, 2001

Judge casts out man's suit against Jesus
Karen Abbott -- Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer -- Aug. 18, 2001

David Merrill and his motor scooter are really unhappy with Jesus Christ. They sued him in federal court Wednesday.

Denver U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham was really unhappy that they did.

He threw the case out Thursday.

Nottingham's written order called Merrill's lawsuit a "rambling, nonsensical, incoherent blotch on this court's docket."

The judge then quoted a one-line book review by the satirical writer Ambrose Bierce.

"The covers of this book are too far apart," Bierce wrote.

"So, too," wrote Nottingham, "were the beginning and end of this pleading."

Merrill, 43, declined to be interviewed.

He and his motor scooter -- named as plaintiffs in the filing -- also sued the United Nations, the El Paso County sheriff, the Colorado Springs police chief and the Sanhedrin -- the highest court and council of the ancient Jewish nation at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

The lawsuit is laced with obscure legal terms. It also contains references to Dutch settlement in North America; Nazis; Jews; obscure mathematical texts; a speech in May by President Bush about Social Security; and some darkly mysterious organizations whose secret agents allegedly hold powerful positions.

A careful reading, however, disclosed that Merrill didn't sue the real Jesus Christ.

He sued someone he thought was posing as the savior in a prank telephone call in May 2000, when Merrill had been given 10 days to redeem his confiscated car.

"This man addressed me by name and told me that he, 'Jesus Christ' did not like to see 10-day notices, that they made him look bad," Merrill's lawsuit said.

Then Merrill's motor scooter was seized on grounds that he was driving it with expired license plates, no proof of insurance and no driver's license. Merrill has a history of similar driving-related charges in El Paso County.

Convicted by a jury, he spent some time in jail. When he didn't pay impound charges to redeem his motor scooter, it was scheduled to be sold.

Merrill wants it back. He also wants $5,000 for his confiscated car. He wants several other things, too, and if he doesn't get them, he wants $12.6 million from someone working at the New York Stock Exchange.

"Jesus Christ of Nazareth paid the ransom in blood for me on the cross and my motorcycle is part of the eternal inheritance in general," Merrill wrote in his complaint.

He signed it with his thumbprint.

Ellis Mirsky - 8:15 AM
http://www.trial.com/Blogger/2001_08_01_lightersideblogarchive.htm

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 02 Jul 2005 :  11:00:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
LegalBear;

Wonderful to have you back!

Many times I have to say it out loud, "This is not my process." But people impose charlatinism upon me. They insist that the law is mine to sell. They insist that I am telling them things that they do not already know in their hearts. Just because I charge $500/pop to walk them through my intellectual property (Libel of Review) and bring them to a place where they can prove they are courts of competent jurisdiction - a properly signed and sealed judgment in common law.

Thank you for the aspersion. It is so great to bring what I do into the light.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Note that Karen admits I did not sue the real Jesus Christ in the article.

P.P.S. Admin; please leave latitude like with "Psychoanalyzing David Merrill" on this Topic. If it becomes a slander mill against the taste of this fine forum of course, just delete it.

Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Jul 2005 11:05:05
Go to Top of Page

IanAnd
Regular Member

USA
31 Posts

Posted - 16 Jun 2006 :  11:15:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill


Many times I have to say it out loud, "This is not my process." . . . Just because I charge $500/pop to walk them through my intellectual property (Libel of Review) and bring them to a place where they can prove they are courts of competent jurisdiction - a properly signed and sealed judgment in common law.

Thank you for the aspersion. It is so great to bring what I do into the light.

Regards,

David Merrill.



Apparently, my initial posting of this inquiry was in the wrong forum. I will try again here, hopefully with better results.

Has anyone here successfully followed the process proposed by David Merrill of refusal for cause through in regard to property taxes issued by the county?

If so, I would be interested to correspond off line about this process and the intricacies of using it. I am in need of clarification on a few points. I can be contacted through my email address in the profile.

Thank you, in advance, to any who care to correspond.

Best Regards,

Ian
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 17 Jun 2006 :  17:34:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My presumption is that you are looking for independent support about the effectiveness of R4C.


http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/8154-question-about-refusal-cause.html#post72875

However I am very good at convincing readers myself.

One suitor got a traffic ticket just prior to meeting me. So he filed the Libel of Review about another issue but showed up in the courthouse for the hearing. He was arraigned and given a yellow slip of paper notice about the upcoming trial readiness hearing. He pulled out a pen and wrote "Refusal for Cause" accross it and walked it up to the bench saying, "Let the record show this presentment has been refused for cause timely and returned to the presenter." He set it on the judge's bench and left the courthouse.

One suitor got a curbside bid about his roof. He accepted the bid and told the roofer he would think it over and call him if he wanted a new roof. Four days later he came home to a new roof. He said he would not pay. But they worked out a compromise; he needed a new roof anyway. But until he learned about R4C he was a little mystified at how confident the roofer was that he would pay up - settle in or out of court.

When a certified letter from the Treasury came the wife was nervous about signing for it. Her husband was at work. The postman said, "Just open it, write "Refusal for Cause" on it and send it back to the IRS. It will go away."

I am not making this up. The people who told me the anecdotes may have been but in context of me teaching the most effective way to say "No, thank you." in international law, I believe every word.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 17 Jun 2006 17:44:12
Go to Top of Page

IanAnd
Regular Member

USA
31 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2006 :  20:24:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
David,

Thank you for the link. Actually, I was looking for answers to questions previously asked but left unresponded to.

quote:

Miscellaneous quotes:

Hold court on your kitchen table six days a week. You bring in the suits from that courthouse out front called the mailbox and hear them. First do it slowly and carefully until you get the mathematics down. Now pick up the first suit; Is that your name? (Probably not.) - - Who is it from? (Who is the plaintiff?). Do you want to appear? (By tearing the envelope open.) Does it hold enough gravity in the contract affairs of your household (Dept. of Revenue or Treasury) to be worth $25? ($12 Registered Mail back to the Presenter and to your evidence repository in the US Courthouse.)

And really, I don't care what the Rules say in an administrative tribunal before municipal magistrates about "last known address" being adaquate notice. Misnomer is a fatal error in any court's jurisdiction - especially if they refuse to correct it (abatement for misnomer).

If there is any gravity to the suit then copy it (the envelope) and take it down to the post office. Get the clerk who accepts it back to Return to Sender to roundate your copy only. Do not pay any postage.

Regardless, it was my contention that the document was fatally flawed and fraudulent for numerous reasons, and therefore timeliness is insignificant, if not completely irrelevant.

When he gets good at spotting the initial contract presentment in the future he will get good at saying yes if he wants things to proceed to agreement; or say no thank you if he wants them to terminate then and there.


So, from this you seem to be saying that refusing to open a presenter's envelope with an obvious misnomer and just writing on it, "Return to Sender, Not Properly Addressed" is/might be enough to stop their process? And if it doesn't stop it, to just keep doing the same each time they send a subsequent presentment? Is this understanding correct?

How does one arrive at the conclusion that a presentment "holds enough gravity" to be worth the $25 registered mailing back to the presenter and the evidence repository in the U.S. courthouse? I understood the one example of the attorney posing as a federal judge and why one may want to do the registered mailing in that instance, but what about something like a county property tax? I have no idea how these things generally proceed and whether or not this would rise to the level of "holding enough gravity." Wouldn't it be the case that if service was not accomplished, that there are no grounds on which to proceed until service has been accomplished? In other words, they have to have someone "refusing" to pay in order to proceed against that "person"? Is it likely that they would proceed without such a person? And if they did, what would that mean to the suitor (intended recipient of the presentment which was never received) and how would he proceed? Or might/would such a proceeding against the suitor be just a bluff, to see if he might make a mistake and appear?

Best Regards,

Ian Allan.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2006 :  21:35:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
So, from this you seem to be saying that refusing to open a presenter's envelope with an obvious misnomer and just writing on it, "Return to Sender, Not Properly Addressed" is/might be enough to stop their process? And if it doesn't stop it, to just keep doing the same each time they send a subsequent presentment? Is this understanding correct?


Of course it will. It takes some sense about the presenter though. Suppose the presenter is Radio Shack. They simply will quit wasting money sending you those glossy catalogues. Now if the presenter is suing you for a month's worth of utilities (the Utility Company) then you better settle that out of court. If you don't like appearing just drop in again and pay ahead (arrears). They have nothing to complain about if your bills come back "Return to Sender; Not Residing Here". If they whine just tell them what your true name is and if they want you to accept mail, send it to the proper name.

quote:
How does one arrive at the conclusion that a presentment "holds enough gravity" to be worth the $25 registered mailing back to the presenter and the evidence repository in the U.S. courthouse? I understood the one example of the attorney posing as a federal judge and why one may want to do the registered mailing in that instance, but what about something like a county property tax?


I don't think you understood the use of the evidence repository. That just saves you $12 or so if the presenter (federal judge) is at the same address as the repository (case jacket).

I suppose the note on a home is a good example. If you appear at a foreclosure hearing demanding the original note, which was cashed like a check so there is not going to be any show of the original note. The court record would then show that you are the creditor. Big mistake.

Instead the clerk/judge at the hearing will simply take note that you appeared and therefore presume you made payments and that there is an agreement. He or she may allow the trustee to promise to show the original note as required by statute. But that is just lip service. The original note will never be shown because it proves that you, not the bank are the creditor. The bank wrote a loan against your credit.

I suppose the point is to teach people how to Refuse for Cause correctly. I cannot possibly take responsibility for making people behave themselves.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Jun 2006 00:04:47
Go to Top of Page

IanAnd
Regular Member

USA
31 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2006 :  20:37:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hello David,

Thank you for your recent reply.

After reading more, it seems that you have altered your approach somewhat re: the strategy that you are now recommending regarding the full R4C process, is that correct? No more "Libel of Review" is needed? Is it, then, superflous? And what about the authorized summons? How does this come into play, if it still does? It would seem from reading the information below that all that is really necessary is the original refused for cause sent back to the presenter and a copy sent to the evidence repository at the U.S. district courthouse to establish original cognizance.

quote:

OK, I do get it David. I was just under the assumption that we needed to clearly spell out our reasons for refusing in the R4C, so that the uneducated clerks that receive them will know why they have been refused. I mean, we can't just stamp or write across them refused without giving a reason or two, right? I just thought it would be neat to point out why the savings for suitors applies. I guess I'll just have to get used to your methods of teaching. I do appreciate your responses. Thanks.

I propose that is the tendency to explain that I am not encouraging. It is a matter of law from 1789.

You are welcome. Sometimes an attorney in a black robe will mention that no reason was given, however acknowledgment of the R4C is quite enough in law. So most of these attorneys only mention it because some presenter/collector went whining to his bench about you understanding your absolute right of avoidance. Experience has it that explanations are interpreted to be appearance - which cures all defects in jurisdiction. You "bracket"* yourself by accepting the benefit of discussion (by initiating discussion) in a quasi-court martial.

Does it hold enough gravity in the contract affairs of your household (Dept. of Revenue or Treasury) to be worth $25? ($12 Registered Mail back to the Presenter and to your evidence repository in the US Courthouse.)

So, in elevating the authority of, say, a presentment for property tax for example, one would do the original red ink refusal for cause on the property tax notice, make a copy of this for the U.S. district court, open a miscellaneous case file ($39) at the U.S.d.c. into which this refusal can be filed, and send by registered mail the original refused for cause notice back to the presenter and the copy to the evidence repository at the U.S. district court.

Is there still a need, if it hasn't been done yet, to include a certified copy of the de jure 13th Amendment (a copy of which I have obtained from your county recorder in Colorado, Robert Balink) to have on file in that same miscellaneous case file? The reason I ask is, I'm reading about so many different processes here that it is confusing which one I should be considering, and I want it to be clear in my mind just exactly what needs to be done, if this is the first such case of its kind filed with the district courthouse.

Is the following, taken from one of your earlier posts, still pertinent: [Note: a $30 miscellaneous case jacket will accomplish the objective evidence repository but the suitor will forfeit the published default judgment and its ability to convince bankers, employers and credit reporting agencies that the presenter is proceeding on a false claim; garnishments, levys etc.]

Also, might you be able to also clear up one other point of interest. After one has opened up a miscellaneous case file, can it then be added to, without having to pay further filing fees in the future, when other nuisance presentments are made that require this registered mail process, or does one have to open up a new case file each time a new presentment is made in order to get it into an evidence repository? What I've read thus far on this point has not been clearly stated and therefore remains confusing and unclear.

Are you still recommending the $150 filing with the district court, which, if I recall, was a more complete initial filing, establishing more evidence in the repository, including a default judgment? (I liked the default judgment touch. It kind of finalized the whole procedure.) I am just endeavoring to get clear on what my options are here, that is all, so I will be able to take an informed decision. If you could explain all this in a simple and straightforward manner it would be much appreciated.

Best Regards,

Ian Allan.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 22 Jun 2006 :  06:31:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Good questions. Thanks!

The purpose of the Libel of Review is to get an authorized summons to answer/appear. After 21 days of not answering the question, "Did this agent of a foreign principal file in the district courts of the US prior to exercising a claim?" then a default judgment is in order. The US being in receivership and the Fed being run (Chairman Bernanke) by a man who believes inflation is a curall for the economy, many of us have to weigh that judgment in common law costing $350 for a case that will be dismissed by a federal magistrate calling himself judge, with no authority in the matter against $39 to simply acquire the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States:*

quote:
"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, 2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.


In an honest world however, simply write Refusal for Cause on the presentment and give it back to the presenter within about three days.

No trial or court proceeding is anything but a show performed to validate or disqualify the real trial - what happened on the roadside or mailbox. That is where court is really being held, in the actions that led to court proceedings.

quote:
Are you still recommending the $150 filing with the district court, which, if I recall, was a more complete initial filing,...


Since it is $350 plus service fees and typically $500 in my pocket out of yours, I am suggesting I am a supreme charlatan selling you the law (saving to suitors clause) which is not mine to sell. When it comes down to teaching you your name I am not even telling you anything you did not already know. So suitors are either the biggest bunch of idiots on earth or there is something in the product. Because I do not advertise. All in all $1K and six months later, when the suitor realizes the benefits of being a court of competent jurisdiction and the fruits of being in control of contracts around the house become objects of envy to family and friends the suitor becomes weary enough of trying to explain how simple contract law is and gives out my number.

When I have refused to help somebody shoving cash in my face, that is when the real animosity forms. I should have saved the one or two emails from the rejected suitors. One even went ahead and filed and began to accept legal advice from Robert, the self-appointed expert on "David Merrill" process, a deputy clerk in the US Courthouse. That was a mess! He was pretty nasty until the suitor who referred him spoke to him.

So I will continue only working on reference because that way it is clear from past experience there will be no dissatisfied customers. If I help a little old lady across the street I am offering legal advice. I simply hope that the Attorney Regulation Counsel of the Supreme Court (State of Colorado) will await the lady's complaint before serving process on me. They got hold of some process I wrote for a fellow and filed a civil suit misnaming me and for "unauthorized practice of law". The fellow providing all the evidence never complained! He was happy as all get out (international child custody matter where he kept the child and the mother in Canada still got to visit her son). The civil suit was just the attorneys whining about me teaching people how to fish when they have an industry of passing out fish to feed people for a day.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* Catherine, a deputy clerk in Denver made up a rule that only one document gets filed per $39 case jacket. At the last filing, it was convenient (injunction against attorneys speaking with David Merrill) to do that so I have not called her on it - clerks legislating new rules. The injunction was being served by a professional process server and I did not want to cause any headaches. In the future I will simply present the $39 receipt (copy) and assume breach of contract on the clerk's part. Her boss, the clerk will straighten her out about the matter.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Rubber_Stamp_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Rubber_Stamp_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Default_Judgment_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Default_Judgment_2.jpg
Quiet Rubber Stamp

Edited by - David Merrill on 22 Jun 2006 08:01:25
Go to Top of Page

IanAnd
Regular Member

USA
31 Posts

Posted - 22 Jun 2006 :  19:18:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hello David,

Thank you for your reply.

However, the links you provided are unreadable and therefore useless. Any suggestions on how to make them readable? I would be genuinely interested to read your documents if such is possible.

Best Regards,

Ian Allan.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 22 Jun 2006 :  20:10:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes. After you get the image rest your mouse on it for a moment. Some icons for saving, sending etc. should appear in the upper left hand area of the image. A box with four outward arrows should appear opposite in the lower right some short time afterward. Click that box to get the full resolution I scanned it at. I try to keep it at a happy medium for the free buffer service.
Go to Top of Page

IanAnd
Regular Member

USA
31 Posts

Posted - 23 Jun 2006 :  00:27:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hello David,

Thank you for the instructions on being able to read the JPEG. It worked like a charm.

And for once, you proved that you could answer a question in simple and straightforward language, without your usual meandering about the bush and over into the other county, leaving the reader confused and frustrated.

Do you think you might be up to doing it again (that is, giving a simple and straightforward answer to a question)?

In a previous thread you made mention of what you called a "Civil Cover Sheet," a form required at filing of a countersuit or libel in review in the district court and gave implicit instructions about how to fill it out. When one is opening the $39 miscellaneous file for evidence repository, are there any little surprises like this "Civil" form which one needs to be aware of and how to fill them out properly? If so, could you run through the procedure for filling them out properly. Or is it the same as for the "cover sheet" you've already described?

You've done this before, I haven't. I have no idea what I'm going to run into down there, and it would be nice to know beforehand what it is one is likely to run into.

Also, do they assign a case number to these miscellaneous files? Could you also run through the procedure on how these work. Is one able to go in and request a misc. file be opened without having anything to put into it, or does one need to wait until one has something to put into it? I'm asking this in regard to putting the case number into the paper work beforehand. Otherwise, will just need to leave space for it to be hand written in. If there is anything else that you can think of regarding this procedure, it would be helpful to mention it here. (These may sound like pedestrian questions to you, but I am sure that there are others new to this out there who would also appreciate knowing how this works.)

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best Regards,

Ian Allan.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 23 Jun 2006 :  09:05:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
There is even indication from a clerk in Texas, and since there are no Article III judges functional anymore, and since no judge is assigned to a miscellaneous jacket, that you open a truly Article III case for $39. The clerk in Texas is rumored to have been confused and when he finally got it blurted, "Oh! You mean an Article III case jacket!"

I have no idea what you may run into down there at the US Courthouse. You might simply purchase a Certificate of Search on your true name Ian Allen and enter that into the case jacket. Call first and the deputy clerk will run the search as a matter of routine. They do that all day. After the results are in request a Certificate of Search (in writing). That will cost about $20 and although it can be printed out immediately may take up to a day or so to prepare for pickup.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_falsified.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_corrected.jpg

If they indicate that Allen is your last name show them printout of these two Certs. Show them the date and tell them you hear that Congress was paid $350 to look into the falsification of court documents during that month it took the Denver US Court to correct the document.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 23 Jun 2006 09:10:56
Go to Top of Page

IanAnd
Regular Member

USA
31 Posts

Posted - 23 Jun 2006 :  19:30:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
You might simply purchase a Certificate of Search on your true name Ian Allan and enter that into the case jacket.

Thanks, David, for the suggestion about the Certificate of Search. I have one already in my other name (it's complicated), and so could just place that in the jacket to begin with.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, the refusal for cause process can be made as simple or as complicated as one feels the need for. As a matter of rule, though, it is probably best to establish a paper trail of evidence just in case someone (attorney or other such s--bag) gets to feeling frisky or is just totally ignorant of the law and decides to pursue their "case." So, as long as there is evidence of the original offer being refused timely in the cognizance of the U. S. district court, a miscellaneous case jacket should do the trick, right? They apparently (from my reading of it) are ignoring the summons and the default judgment, and if anything just keep coming at one with bluff after bluff to see if they can trip you up. Am I correct in that last assumption?

Heck, if I'd known it was that easy, I wouldn't have asked so many questions. It's just that with the way the administrative courts are today, one never knows what they're libable to do unless one covers all the bases.

Best Regards,

Ian Allan.

Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 24 Jun 2006 :  08:51:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Of course. There is no proper claim in the US District Court against whatever legal name you go by.

Just yesterday a suitor called because she had just received a summons and interrogatories. I reminded her about the R4C process and then she called back a moment later to tell me the cause was nearly identical to a R4C two years ago. Well there you have it. When you see the same cause afresh two years later; the R4C two years ago worked. Otherwise they simply would have ridden that cause to judgment.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Several years back this same suitor took her Certificate of Search on her car with her to registration. When they discovered she drove there and had it parked without insurance at the meter out front, they pulled her into isolation (office) and informed her that she was under arrest (or being served a citation to appear on charges anyway) and her car was going to impound. She showed them the Certificate and they went out for a meeting in another office. When they returned her Certificate she was allowed to register the vehicle without any problems.


Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Jun 2006 08:54:34
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.88 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000