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
 Non-Statutory Abatements
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

LimboBoy
Regular Member

USA
25 Posts

Posted - 16 Apr 2003 :  02:08:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by doer

"Non-Statutory Abatements" are NON-STATUTORY! That means, you NEVER, NEVER, EVER mix them up with ANY statute, else they become completely invalid! Their power is in the Common Law -- the lex non scripta (unwritten Law). So be perfectly clear on that -- or Caesar will nail you to the cross -- and he uses really BIG nails!



Thank you, Doer. I think that much is plainly understood, but since it's such a major Don't your telling me about it is very much appreciated in the compassionate spirit in which it was meant. I would use UCCs and Penal Code cites within an abatement about as much as I'd invoke the laws of Switzerland within it (and perhaps less so!). We're talking acids and bases here when it comes to what kind of Law goes into a non-Statutory abatement. My questions concern whether serving an abatement precludes the use of a commercial lien against other people in a separate endeavor. My thought is that because God's Law and the Common Law both beat Roman military law, if I serve an abatement with God's Law and then use the Common Law process of a commercial lien later, the provisional government under Roman military law can't question that because it lacks the standing to criticize any form of Law with more authority than itself. ("No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will not consume any energy field bigger than my head" - Rule Twenty-two of the Evil Overlord Checklist) Because a commercial lien as a means of redressing a grievance is pre-judicial (similar to the way in which the abatement is non-Statutory) and does not require someone to define themselves as surety for Caesar's legally fictitious ascribed name, I would think it would be fine. I definately have some checking to do, and I appreciate the references you've shared. I was just wondering if anyone had experience or research with using both those approaches (abatement and commercial lien) separately. Even a Common Law application of mercantile law has me cautious given what I've read on abatements, but it still isn't answering as a surety for a "person".

Joy to you,
LimboBoy

Edited by - LimboBoy on 16 Apr 2003 02:12:46
Go to Top of Page

doer
Advanced Member

uSA
198 Posts

Posted - 16 Apr 2003 :  05:36:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
LimboBoy,

You will be OK, so long as you do not sully yourself with the corrupted nature of the Strawman. A SOVEREIGN can use any process available to him, but he must always take care to ensure his standing as Sovereign -- being constantly clear about his own True Identity (relative to his Creator, as opposed to commerce).

I am not educated yet in the various commercial processes, so cannot judge how to go about this with any particular method. Perhaps Lewis can he of help here, as he is familiar with some aspects of this.

Be Well,
Doer
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 17 Apr 2003 :  13:06:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi LimboBoy,

Avoid the commercial lien. That puts you back in Caesar's court. You don't want to be there. There is a process called "Notorial Dishonor" which when followed thru will achieve the same results and you never set foot in a court house.

About 8 years ago, the I.R.S. tried to steal a 1600 acre farm belonging to the uncle of one of my friends. The uncle was already familiar with Randy Lee and his stuff. So, he used the non-Statutory Abatement and served on the I.R.S. agent who had presented him with the seizure notice. (an aside for a moment. They were trying to steal the farm because it adjoins the military base in Moses Lake, Wash. and they wanted to expand the base without spending any money) Within 24 hours of his handing the I.R.S. agent the non-Statutory Abatement papers, all seizure procedings were halted, and they have tried since. However, the agent got the Federal Judge to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of my friend's uncle. But that only could be executed if the uncle set foot inside the Federal Courthouse. Because of that warrant, the uncle did a notorial process against the agent and foreclosed on his home. It was done totally outside of the court house.

Avoid Caesar and his Laws whenever possible,

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

LimboBoy
Regular Member

USA
25 Posts

Posted - 17 Apr 2003 :  21:37:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thank you for the response Lewis. It is much appreciated.

I like the anecdote you've shared about Notorial Dishonor. Is it effective against actions of non-government officials? That is primarily the purpose for which I am considering a commercial lien. Google seems not to have heard of the phrase "notorial dishonor". Where can I find more information about the approach?

Could you help me understand what specifically about the use of a commercial lien would put me back in Caesar's court? My understanding is that I can do all things through Christ which strengthen me. That would seem to include making those who threaten and injure me liable for the consequences of their actions, making them unable to continue doing so.

There is a group of "persons" injuring me in ways that are in violation of even Caesar's laws. My intention is to invoke the established conventions of vicarious liability (through the maxim accessorius sequit naturam sui principalis, "An accessary follows the nature of his principal.") in the context of a commercial lien to establish a liability that is beyond the ability of any individual "person" involved to compensate for. I can then enter into an agreement with them individually to release them from the lien if they leave Caesar's domain, submit the names and locations of other persons they are aware of who are also a party to the actions so that I may approach them with the same liability, provide me significantly reduced compensation (to allow me to continue this endeavor), and never become a party to that kind of activity again (or else be in breach of the agreement which protects them from the full liability of their actions). In this way the idea is to compel them to leave Caesar's domain because they cannot fully compensate me for the injuries they have been a party to. Would a Notorial Dishonor accomplish this as effectively? The vast majority of those involved are not government agents. I don't think that this is truly "commerce" either, as it is not a form of profit but a trade of something (injury done me) for something (compensation). Perhaps there is a means of approaching this which would be more in accordance with Law?

Joy to you,
LimboBoy

Edited by - LimboBoy on 17 Apr 2003 21:39:42
Go to Top of Page

james
Regular Member

Canada
28 Posts

Posted - 30 Aug 2003 :  20:59:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I am having trouble finding any reference to a Holy "Parent in my Bible.
*********************************************
quote:
Originally posted by n/a

Some new things have been learned about Law, written Law, the Bible and the subject of Non-Statutory Abatement (sometimes called Ecclesiastical Abatements, although the first people to design and use these abatements prefer not to call them "Ecclesiastical", as that term tends to have a specialised meaning, relating only to the (Roman) Catholic Church (a Canon-Law corporation existing in a self-created 'State' known as 'Vatican City' or The Holy See. Official website: http://www.vatican.va/)

The main thing other than the "importance of the words we speak/use" that makes an Abatement effective, in fact the primary thing that makes Non-Statutory Abatements work, is the fact of what types of ACTIVITIES the abator engages in; if one lives in MAN's un-natural, un-Good-ly cities and gathers even gold and silver coin to himself, that man is behaving as someone of the 'world' and not as a child of Good, subjecting themselves to the dominion of the 'officers' (police, ATF, IRS, DEA MJTF, court 'officers', et cetera).

Only by living the peaceful way of Life, which is the way of Jesus, can we truly free ourselves from the grip of these worldly minions of evil.

The written Non-Statutory Abatements *might* be needed, but if one lives on the good land given to us by the Holy Spirit of Good, respecting all of the creation of Good by living and eating without killing, the written Non-Statutory Abatements may never be needed.

Many people, including myself, have exclaimed, 'These Abatements are all well and good, but they aren't EFFECTIVE in the "REAL WORLD".. even Randy Lee of the Christ's assembly at California has told me that "they can choose to ignore it [the Abatement] or they can choose to honour it.. depends on how the judge is feeling that day...", which seemed a real let-down for me.

I asked Randy how I can go around this Big Island of Hawai'i and plant fruit trees, without signing paperwork creating joinder to the dead, worldly government AND without losing the car/truck/boat whatever transportation if I choose to avoid applying for a license for same, and Randy just told me that those things are of the world anyway and that that was part of 'rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's', that the automobile is just a polluting machine designed to create profit for the evil-doing entities destroying the Holy Parent's creation, to not be attached to such things, and to
realise that "the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof", which means I don't own anything anyway... hence I also wouldn't be able to get back any
'property' I was using or possessing anyway...

Randy said, "what I do is just get another car, I buy them for like a couple hundred dollars and rarely use them" (paraphrase).. so they are easily replaceable. Randy suggested that it is all right, but not preferred, to temporarily use the car to get the Project's plantings of fruit trees started, and at some later time I could junk the title to the car and stop using it. I figured out that I would probably be on the road for about a couple of hours maximum before I'd be pulled over for not having State license plates, etc. and so the automobile idea would be ineffective that way. There is little in the way of public transportation, and of course boats are also regulated for "persons" in the State; any boat I would use, without me having applied for and paid for a license to use it would likely also be confiscated.

I thought about all that and said to myself, "then what is the point of doing all this Non-Statutory Abatement stuff if we wind up impeded in doing our part of upholding the Holy Parent's Law?, losing all the still-necessary-to-make-it-practical things like automobiles, boats, whatever? "

I realised that for one main thing, just living by that Law would protect us.. the words in the Book of the Hundreds came back to me, "the abator must be what he says he is"... this led me to realise that the only way to be totally free of the evils of the modern world is to leave it all behind and restore Paradise on earth.... in the meantime, it *might* be okay to have the drivers' license, State-paid insurance, et cetera ... especially since I am already receiving, and long-term though not permanently in need of, SSI checks (paid to a legal fiction entity) and food stamps to help me get by... If I am planting the food and good gardens and make that my primary focus, I will be able to free myself completely from 'the system', not needing to buy or sell, work and support 'the beast' of 'the system', not needing automobiles or otherwise, because the land, nature and the Good nature in people (and everything else!) will support us 100%... we won't even NEED to go from place to place to get things (no need for cars, etc.) because everything we need will be right there on the land.

One other good thing to remember:

1) You cannot be held in jail for longer than 72 hours maximum unless you sign their ticket or paper (they don't get paid unless you sign... maybe you never thought of why it is they seem to NEED that signature!!)

2) You don't have to sign the ticket or paper (that's why they give you a choice... the 72 hours of holding cell time is only a means of coercion to get you to sign the paper so that they will get paid for your stay in jail; it's just a racket and amounts to extortion... too bad they won't punish the jail and court system's minions under the RICO statutes... they take care of their own)

3) If you need to abate their abandoned paper/ticket/whatever, they cannot proceed further in prosecution; the 72 hours, and any confiscation and impoundment of things in your possession are all they can do to you

and most importantly:

3) Living in the worldly scene and being subject to the minions of that realm
of evil is TEMPORARY, so long as you are truly living by the Way of the Holy Parent designed for us to live by, which may be called the Way of Paradise.

"Paradisian".

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly radio show:
http://www.truthradio.com/mchla.html

Go to Top of Page

DanielJacob
Advanced Member

USA
138 Posts

Posted - 31 Aug 2003 :  12:58:36  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
James,

Paradisian, a former poster on this forum until he decided to do some dirty laundry airing, had a particular view of our Heavenly Father. Many times in his writings he referred our Heavenly Father as the "Holy Parent" and also He/She. He seemed to me to embrace some of what I would define as "new age" language and thought when speaking in spiritual terms. Hope that help clear things up.

God Bless…
Go to Top of Page

DanielJacob
Advanced Member

USA
138 Posts

Posted - 31 Aug 2003 :  19:32:23  Show Profile  Visit DanielJacob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Brothers,

I thought that it would be appropriate to post an article written by the author of the Non-Statutory Abatement so that there will be no mistakes concerning these processes. The article was included in the Jurial Society's Newsletter, now known as "Matters Concerning His Lawful Assembly", in issue the seventh of 1995/6.

Non-Statutory Abatements:


What They Are, and
What They Were Never Meant To Be!


By Randy Lee


In a recent case up north in Oregon, a 'person' used an abatement and went to jail.
In another case, a 'person' in Louisiana used the abatement after appearing in court and complained bitterly when it failed.
And, one of those 'abatement gurus' who plagiarized and 'improved' our first abatement package, saw to it that 'his people' shammed their abatement when they tried to use his 'new and improved process.'
Do I have your attention yet???
From the moment I released the Non-Statutory Abatement process in January of 1995, there has been a concerted effort by some in the 'patriot movement' to discredit the process for one reason or another, none of which has damaged the process, but instead, has damaged these so-called 'experts in common law' and their unsuspecting victims.
These so-called 'patriots' not only have their own special 'insight' into how the process should be done, but have acquired 'pirated' material of the first abatement package and are selling it at sometimes exorbitant prices and leaving my phone number in it, so that I get all of the questions. In one case, an ex-bar attorney charged a man $7,800, called him a 'sentient human being' (meaning, a conscious animal) in the abatement and the man ended up loosing his house over it.
These tactics are nothing new in the law reform movement, which is one reason for the movements' tarnished name. These people are, in some cases, more corrupt than the 'government' they say needs to be reformed. The Scriptural injunction at Matthew 7:3 concerning the mote in anothers' eye is apropos here.
Examples of the abuse of the process are: removing all references to Christ and Christianity from the abatement; telling people to use such un-Godly sites as the U.C.C., Title 42, Title 4, etc., which is private commercial statute law, in a Non-Statutory instrument; telling people to file the process into a court instead of serving it on a defendant personally; telling people to send the abatement Certified mail instead of Registered, thereby injecting it into a commercial venue; telling people to call themselves Respondent instead of Demandants; telling people that it's not necessary to serve the default if you don't hear from the Defendant's; telling people that being located at General Delivery is not necessary to do an abatement; and finally, promoting the idea that one can use the abatement to threaten judges and I.R.S. agents.
I have the following to say about the above catalogue of abuses:
One. The abatement works when it uses the highest possible Law, which is God's Law. Removing Christ from the abatement reduces it to a form of law that can be easily dispensed with.
Two. Using statutory cites in a non-statutory abatement process guarantees that the abatement will be ignored.
Three. If you file, instead of serve the process, you lose your court and are asking the un-Godly to decide against you.
Four. If you serve the abatement by Certified instead of Registered Mail, it will not have a chain of recorded custody in the process and you will be ignored, unless the court or agency is just as ignorant as one who uses Certified Mail. Certified Mail is also a commercial war measure instrument begun during Lincoln's War.
Five. Calling yourself a Respondent is an equity term that has no place in Christian common law and you are looked at in their law as a fictional persona. The parties will be cast with the wrong standing if this is done and guess who will lose in the conflict.
Six. Serving the Default and making Public Notice of same is absolutely essential.
Seven. Being located at General Delivery and not at an 'address' is absolutely essential to have a successful abatement.
Eight. Using any form of process to threaten anyone, constitutes attempted extortion in all forms of law.
This last tactic has resulted in at least one arrest for threatening a judicial officer to date. This is precisely why the woman in Oregon who made the threat of filing a commercial lien on a judge for $10,000,000 if he did not obey her abatement, was ignored and went to jail.
The man in Louisiana, while he was complaining, revealed that all the while he was trying to use abatements, he had two other cases going in the same court and had an attorney as well. One cannot render unto Caesar and unto God at the same time.
Remember, there's always a rusty nail in the top of the fence for those who think they can ride both sides of it.
And, in the series of cases that were lost, mentioned above, it seems that the abatement package that was used had been 'improved' by an Ohio Title 42 'guru' and his business partner. Apparently their Title 42 business was not doing as well as they would like and thus, one week after learning about the abatement at one of our seminars, they were 'experts' and began doing seminars with the 'new and improved' statutory abatement. There is other such nonsense going on in other areas of the country as well. These problems will work themselves out in the end.
When a non-statutory abatement is commercially improved, it becomes a statutory abatement, which, of course, has no force and effect anywhere, not even in Fantasyland at Disneyland or with Alice in Wonderland.
Those who have Title 42 'businesses' and spend their lives encouraging people to 'hang 'em in court,' have a commercial twist in mind that once was very profitable. Losses in court, however, have a tendency to depress one's stock in such ventures.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the commercially oriented types will never be successful with an instrument like a Non-Statutory Abatement, which is Christian-based, simple when accompanied with diligent study and common sense, and non-commercial.
Those who inject their own 'ideas' of law, based as they are on absolutely no Lawful Authority, actually believe that the court cannot tell the difference. It is so obvious in most cases that even those who are public 'drool' graduates with no prior experience in law can see when the abatement changes its character from a Godly one — to an un-Godly and lawless one.
Its like someone trying to improve on Shakespeare's Sonnets. Ludicrous!
The point is this: common law process is well known for its rigidity of form. When one varies from certain pre-set guidelines established through long-standing usage and custom, one not only appears ignorant of the Law, but at the same time, shams their abatement.
Therefore, just as the literati know the difference in style between Bacon and Shakespeare, so do the courts recognize when these 'sentient common law sovereign citizen human beings' start injecting their convoluted diatribe into the Abatement, thereby creating a conflict of law within it.
Some will read this article who may feel that I'm expressing a certain type of arrogance in what I've written above. Let them believe what they will believe, or in other words, let the blind lead the blind or let the dead bury the dead..
The truth is, The Christian Jural Society Press and The King's Men were developing and using the Abatements a year before I released it to the country. We did the original research and writ writing — from the authoritative sources. Others have done the plagiarizing, and mutilation.
This abuse and the deliberate moves to discredit the abatement process by some has come to the point where it is time for Me to speak out against all of those who engage in such tactics and then call, write, or fax us, with the problems that result.

Randy and John Joseph have done much work/improvement to this process since the early days, however the above article is still, if not more so, relevant today as it was when written.

God Bless...
Go to Top of Page

ParadiseRestored
Junior Member

USA
19 Posts

Posted - 09 Dec 2003 :  15:01:43  Show Profile  Visit ParadiseRestored's Homepage  Send ParadiseRestored an AOL message  Click to see ParadiseRestored's MSN Messenger address  Send ParadiseRestored a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Warm greetings to all in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It has been a long while since I have posted here; most of the posts I made are in this thread so I decided to post here again.

One. Introduction to and purpose of this message.

The purpose of this message is to state some things for the record;
to summarise, I can say here in this introduction to this message,
that I have been Led to know that the Essene Gospel of Peace of Jesus, the Christ is good for learning and teaching but should not be used for purposes of quoting such scriptures for use in Non-Statutory Abatements or for our written Law.

Two. Concise Statement, correcting statements I made in the past regarding using the Essene Gospel of Peace for written Law.

The Matters concerning His Lawful assembly website has been updated
to reflect what I have learned and now is, to the best of my knowledge, in full agreement with the writings of the 'King's men' (the 'King's men' I refer to here are primarily Randy Lee, John Quade, John Joseph, Richard Anthony and others, who have written and write the Book of the Hundreds, the Matters concerning His Lawful assembly newsletters and other material made available by those of the Christ's Lawful assembly near Piru, California).

References to the Essene Gospel of Peace have been limited to a single
link from the Matters concerning His Lawful assembly main website to the Liberty Archive audio file download site, which mentions the existence of an audio interview with Keith Akers on proving that Jesus was in fact a vegetarian Ebionite, who was very influenced by the Essenes.

More similar links may be added there but should appear only on the Liberty Archives page because they are not written Law which can be presented and/or served in order to Abate a matter which disturbs His Peace and Dominions.

I have learned that the way we may know false prophets (and therefore false prophecy) from true prophets (and therefore true prophecy, at least as it regards its use for written Law) is "by their fruits"; here I quote Jesus, the Christ:

Matthew 7:15 ¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I have applied the words and Spirit of the teaching in the Essene Gospel of Peace in my own life and it has brought forth much "good fruit", both literally and figuratively; as a direct and unique result of such application, have improved my health both physically and spiritually.

***However, I have seen that trying to use the Essene Gospel of Peace of Jesus, the Christ, for any part of scriptural Law has born "evil fruit"; it has driven apart what was once a good fellowship between myself and other of the 'King's men', it has created confusion amongst members of this Ecclesiastic Commonweath Community Forum, and may have been one of the causes for the Matters concerning His Lawful assembly radio show on Truth Radio to come to an end, again to the effect ("evil fruit") of division and confusion..

Also I went to the scripture and read and meditated prayerfully
for guidance in this matter, for God's will to be done. The Lord put it upon my heart and mind that the phrase "it is written" was very important .. Jesus, the Christ said it many times:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Matthew 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Matthew 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Matthew 26:31 ¶Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Mark 9:12 And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.

Mark 9:13 But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.

Mark 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

Mark 14:27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Luke 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:

Luke 7:27 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Luke 19:46 Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

John 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

(King James Version)

The point in Jesus saying "it is written" was to show the words
of Truth to those that did not already 'have the words written on their hearts'; it was said those that displayed that did not know and/or live with the Truth, so Jesus had to not only show them those words of Truth, but also had to show them that those words could be
found even in the writings which they (legalistically) believed in and enforced... perhaps those that do not know or 'have the words of Truth written on their hearts' can learn the Truth through the mind studying the words; perhaps if the mind can accept the logic of the Truth, the heart will follow:

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Ezekiel 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Scriptures such as the Essene Gospel of Peace for instant example, that are not at this time well accepted by those who tend to be more legalistic (those who do not 'have the words of Truth written on their hearts') could therefore not at this time be scriptures that are of the type that would be accepted by the 'minds' of those who do not already know these things 'in their hearts'.. these people must be reached through their minds and usually the mind prefers to believe in or trust in things that are well-established;

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2 Corinthians 13:1 ¶This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Of course, there are far more than two or three witnesses to establish the truth of the words in the Essene Gospel of Peace or many other writings; yet there is a need for greater than two or three witnesses in order to first 'preach the gospel to all creatures, and all nations', before the return of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords :

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

To conclude this line of thought regarding what should and should not, according to God's Law, be used for our written Law:

The gospel cannot really *be* preached to "all nations" and "every creature" if what is preached as gospel is not well corroborated enough.

Scriptures such as the Essene Gospel of Peace, which have far less corroboration validating their ancient origin than do the Old and New Testaments, will likely not be read, believed or known by "every creature" in "every nation" (it is generally thought that the closer a document is written to the time when the actual events occured, the more likely the document is accurate).

Therefore, using scriptures such as the Essene Gospel of Peace for Law to present to those who attempt to or who do disturb the Peace of His Dominions is in error; instead we use those scriptures that are "established" in the "mouth" of not only two or three witnesses,
but by "every creature", as our standard we use for what we call
written Law.


(It is, however, worthy of important note that the very scarcity of Ebionites/Essenes and also the scarcity of their sacred scriptures which would by matter of course occur under the circumstances of persecution and oppression the Ebionites and Essenes lived with every day, would tend to necessitate using a less strict standard of proof of validity with regard to the existence of large numbers of ancient manuscripts or the lack of large numbers of ancient manuscripts, et cetera),

It is my considered position at this time that the true Old and New Testaments and the Essene Gospel of Peace both contain words of the Truth, and could both be used for written Law, providing God sees it fitting to command the Essene Gospel of Peace to become so widely known, and hopefully also far better validated than it is today, so that it too would be preached to "every creature" in "every nation", therefore I have included a link to the Essene Gospel of Peace of Jesus, the Christ, in the Links section of the Matters concerning His Lawful assembly website, for further study and possibly broad publishment, if it is His will to do so.

I would like to point out here that many have told me that they have checked out or read the Essene Gospel of Peace and found that it has Jesus telling his followers to worship both the Heavenly Father and the Earthly Mother, which has been mis-interpreted to mean that we should engage in pagan worship. Actually pagans do not believe in or
worship the Heavenly Father at all, they only worship the 'Earthly Mother'..

******"Worship".

Before I continue with this study, as it does relate to "worship", the word "worship" should be clearly defined:

According to Webster's, (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary), "worship" comes from the Middle English word "worshipe", from the Old English word "weorthscipe", meaning "worthiness" from Old English "weorth" which means "worth".

"2. Reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence."

According to scripture, there is not only nothing wrong with offering reverence to a divine being or supernatural power; after all, God the Father Himself is both divine and supernatural; God is beyond what is merely "natural" just as a God-ly man is beyond what is being merely
a "natural man". The only prohibition we find in scripture against worshipping anything other than God the Father is against worshipping "other gods", 'the host of heaven', any image whether
made of gold or otherwise, or any man or people, and against serving (read: 'serving'!, not 'worshipping'!) anything other than God:

Matthew 4:10  Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Luke 4:8  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

There is no prohibition in scripture, either Old/New Testament on the one hand, or the Essene Gospel of Peace on the other, against offering reverence to the divine being or expressing such reverence to the divine being which is God's creation and footstool which we call earth and its inhabitants.

We are even told again and again in scripture to offer reverence not only to God the Father but to all His creation, in that we "owe" only "to love one another" as we love God, and as we are taught in scriptural Truth, "God is Love" and therefore Love is the highest
reverence, and we are also told in scripture that "the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord", that the entire earth and all creation are "very good" and therefore are "worthy" (remember that "worship" comes from "worthy").

Keep in mind that when the word "earth" is used in the Old/New Testament, it refers to the planet not just in terms of the (round?) God-created mass which is commonly called 'earth', but includes all the inhabitants of that God-created mass, every time it is used after the first time the word "earth" is used in Genesis, as at the time of creation of "the earth", there was at that time nothing but dry land there; used later in scripture the term "earth" has the larger meaning which includes the waters, the heavens above the earth and the
inhabitants of the earth's waters and land, including man, made in God's image (Truth) :

1 John 4:8  He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Matthew 22:34  ¶But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

35  Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36  Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38  This is the first and great commandment.

39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Romans 13:8  Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Genesis 1:1  ¶In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

9  ¶And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

After this, God created the plants, birds, fish, other animals and finally man, which is made in His own image, and says it is all "very good" (what is "good" is also "worthy", and therefore deserving of Loving reverence ["worship", correctly defined]:

Genesis 1:31  ¶And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Isaiah 11:9  They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Habakkuk 2:14  For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Isaiah 51:3  For the LORD shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody.

"Worthy" compared: the word is used to describe God, "worthy" men and, by definition, as has already been discussed, things of His creation that are "good", according to God:

God is "worthy":

Psalms 18:3  I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised:
so shall I be saved from mine enemies.

Revelation 4:11  Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Man, and even his "house" (meaning 'family' here) can also be "worthy":

Matthew 10:11  And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.

12  And when ye come into an house, salute it.

13  And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

37  He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me:
and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38  And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Furthermore, "the earth" is (also) "worthy" as we have seen above, and also from reading in scripture the many references to God's people restoring the earth back to its original Edenic glory, a reflection of the glory of God the Father:

Genesis 2:5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth,
and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Genesis 3:23  Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Numbers 14:21  But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.

1 Samuel 2:8  He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.

Isaiah 6:3  And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

Isaiah 24:16  ¶From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous. ...

Jeremiah 9:24  But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

Matthew 6:9  ¶After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10  Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Matthew 9:35  ¶And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

36  But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

37  Then saith he unto his disciples,

The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;

38  Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

Matthew 13:24  ¶Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,
The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

Matthew 13:31  Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,
The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

Matthew 13:44  ¶Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

Luke 9:62  And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Genesis 2:8  And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15  And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Genesis 2:16  ¶And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:23  Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Genesis 3:24  So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

****Notice it says "keep" the way of the tree of life, not "prevent" the way of the tree of life!

Isaiah 51:3  For the LORD shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody.

Isaiah 35:1  ¶The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.

Isaiah 58:6  Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

7  Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

8  ¶Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health
shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward.

9  Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry,
and he shall say, Here I am.

If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;

10  And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday:

11  And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

****12  And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.

John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(According to Jesus, the Christ himself, "water" is one of the first things God created on the earth, and said it was "good"; both the Spirit of God and the water of earth of God's creation are necessary [read: necessary!] for a man to enter into the kingdom of God!)

...Continuing with the discourse between the pharisee Nicodemus and Jesus, the Christ, in the book of John:

John 3:10  Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11  Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12  If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Matthew 16:19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18  Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:19  Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Isaiah 65:16  That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.

17  ¶For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Psalms 37:11  But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight
themselves in the abundance of peace.

Matthew 5:5  Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Genesis 8:22  While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Matthew 24:37  But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39  And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

40  Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41  Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

42  Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

The last sentence there (Matthew 24:42) is saying that we should be "expressing reverence" ('worship') to both God and God's earthly creation, by showing our appreciation and dedication to Him by respecting (rendered "worship" in the Essene Gospel of Peace)
His creation ... and that that worship of God and His creation should start now, and not after 'all the evildoers have been destroyed by God', and death, hell, and 'the devil' or 'the beast' (KJV) are destroyed by being cast into the "lake of fire"

(as Watchtower Society-worshipping "Jehovah's Witnesses" believe,
which according to the guidance I have received from the Holy Spirit, is little more than an excuse made by them, so that they may feel justified to continue in their 'sin of omission' of shirking their duty to God of restoring their own bodies and minds through prayer and fasting and Godly living, and their 'sin of omission' of rebelling
against God's command to restore the earth back to an Edenic paradise).

Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897), in defining "worship", gives us this:

"Worship - homage rendered to God which it is sinful (idolatry) to render to any created being (Ex. 34:14; Isa. 2:8).

Such worship was refused by Peter (Acts 10:25,26) and by an angel (Rev. 22:8,9)."

Exodus 34:14  For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Isaiah 2:8  Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:

Acts 10:25  And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26  But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Revelation 22:8  And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9  Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

God the Father (Love) created and sustains all things. God also is always referred to as 'male'; For example, He is called the "bridegroom"... and, as man is made in God's image;

Genesis 1:26  ¶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The Heavenly Father God is similar to man as man is similar to the Heavenly Father God in that man is made in God's image, and God is it very important to note that, along the same lines, God is also referred to as the "bridegroom" and His "bride" is referred to as the whole earth and all its inhabitants which glorify Him:

Isaiah 62:4  Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.

5  For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Hosea 2:16  And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.

17  For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.

18  And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.

19  And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.

20  I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.

Mark 10:4  And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5  And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8  And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Matthew 25:1  ¶Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

The point here is that, these phrases, in both the Old and New Testament scriptures on the one hand, and the Essene Gospel of Peace on the other, can be seen to be both be saying to 'worship' both the Heavenly Father and the Earthly Mother, in that the Earthly Mother (earth) contains all the knowledge of the Lord:

Isaiah 11:9  They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain:
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Isaiah 65:16  That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.

Psalms 134:3  The LORD that made heaven and earth bless thee out of Zion.

Both scriptures (Old/New Testaments) and the Essene Gospel of Peace, can be misinterpreted unprayerfully and literally to appear to be advocating some sort of pagan earth worship, but in reality both scriptures advocate worshipping (offering reverence to that which is "worthy") to both the Heavenly Father and the Earthly Mother, including all the inhabitants of the earth including its waters and the heavens above the earth.

Thus it can be seen that, despite misinterpretations based on little study, biblioidolatry (means 'bible idolatry', or the worship of books [biblios, Greek] that comes from studying unprayerfully), literal interpretation, and self-will, the Old and New Testaments both agree with the Essene Gospel of Peace.

So please stop criticising the Essene Gospel of Peace as some sort of work of paganism which is contrary to God and scripture, because it is not, but, at least unless or until it is God's will to properly corroborate and broadly publish such scriptures as the Essene Gospel of Peace, again, it should be used but not used for our written Law.

Three. Matters concerning His Lawful assembly website and Liberty Archive website and URL hyperlinks to the sites.

The Matters concerning His Lawful assembly website has also been updated; it is still at this time, to my knowledge, the only place on the 'Web' where one may find the entire Book of the Hundreds; I have updated the Non-Statutory Abatement material to keep up with the most current revisions; the other two parts of the Book of the Hundreds, Prolegomena to Current Martial Rule, and the Matters concerning His Lawful Assembly handbook remain unchanged in the latest editions of the printed version of the book, therefore they also remain unchanged on the Matters concerning His Lawful assembly website.

As I am guided by the Holy Spirit, I may eventually include the entire text and graphics from all of the Matters concerning His Lawful Assembly newsletters, and possibly also Christian Jural Society Press newsletters, on the Matters concerning His Lawful assembly website (The inclusion of the older, at times very out-dated material is for the purpose of including additional, historical, and detailed background research material primarily; these are often out-dated in many ways but can also be very informative in other ways).

The Liberty Library is a separate 'Web' page and includes, for free download, Matters concerning His Lawful assembly and Free Indeed radio shows where matters concerning His Lawful assembly have been discussed.

The audio archives include, but are not limited to:

Materials directly from the King's Men:

*The Christian Liberty Seminar from
Dallas, Texas, USA, from '1996'
in twelve parts and

featuring John Quade

(this *used to* be available via a reference to a Hotline file server program link from the Redemptive Missions webpage at

http://www.angelfire.com/sd2/rdm/mvsw.html

and was/is called the "MV Spoken Word Server" .. poster RDM posted the original message about it, with regard to free download of the 'King's men''s "Liberty Seminar" in this Forum, at

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=85&whichpage=1

[post made "Jul 24 2002 : 10:54:40 AM by Forum member: rdm]

and information about that audio archive server was recently requested again by member "nolimit", at

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=105&whichpage=3).

"John 16:24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." En-joy, nolimit and others! :) .

(King James Version)

Liberty Archive - Audio Downloads - Partial Contents
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*John Quade interview on KLAV Radio, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA,
on Joe Bauer's L.I.F.E. (Liberty, Information, Freedom and Education)
show, from early 1997.

Joe Bauer, John Quade, John Rizzo, an ex-municipal court judge
and talk show host Lou Epton discuss the matters of the
Non-Statutory Abatement and the formation of "Christian jural societies".

(Today we do not form "Christian jural societies"; instead we gather together those members of the Body which are His Lawful assemblies [ekklesia, ecclesia, which means "called out of 'Mystery, Babylon'", the merchant cities]), same as "Sought out, a place not forsaken":

(Esaias) Isaiah 62:4 62:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert: for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, and thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited.

(Esaias) Isaiah 62:12 62:12 And one shall call them the holy people, the redeemed of the Lord: and thou shalt be called a city sought out, and not forsaken.

(from the Septuagint)

++++++++++++

Other materials which may be of interest to diligent students
of God's Law:

Just added 'December 3, 2003' :

*Keith Akers Interview - On Jesus, the Vegetarian, and the Ebionite Essenes
(Meria Heller Show, 'August 26, 2001')

---------------
{Some of the data presented in the audio files by the King's Men are out-dated and the listener is advised to contact the King's Men directly for updates and/or refer to Richard Anthony's Devoted To Truth website for the latest updates on the Non-Statutory Abatement
and other matters concerning His Lawful assembly.}

**************
Matters concerning his Lawful Assembly website:
http://matters.now.nu
**************
Liberty Archives - Free Audio Downloads website:
(linked from above website)
http://206.126.9.50/matters/LibertyArchives/
**************

Aloha and God blessed ... :D

Edited by - ParadiseRestored on 14 Dec 2003 13:44:19
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 18 Dec 2003 :  08:34:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I abated about five nuisance suits a few years back. At the same time I was dabbling in Libel of Review in the United States Courthouse (Admiralty). Lately I revisited the abatement process by Randy Lee and immediately spotted the formula in one sentence of the lengthy process, "Therefore your papers are returned to you timely refused for cause with no recourse to me." All the history and religious dross was nonsensical considering an attorney is not there in anyway to learn from you, the suitor. It is silly to waste breath teaching these folks about history or Christianity. They are already trained professionals.

Therefore I will open a new topic that is related to this titled, "Counterclaim in Admiralty" about Diversity of Citizenship and how it was intended to be used in an Article III forum. Maybe there will be some productive discussion around the fact in international law that any agent of a foreign principal is required to file and acquire judgment in the district court before proceeding against the property rights of a man or woman on the land (inland seizure and presumed forfeiture).

So if you are interested in the distilled process and truly nipping nuisance suits (refusing potentially hostile presentments) in the bud (almost always at the mailbox), and your absolute right of avoidance, keep your eyes open for "Counterclaim in Admiralty). Also see Title 28 USC §§ 1331, 1333 'saving to suitors'.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 04 Mar 2005 :  08:03:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Another Daniel in the Lions' Den?

I have changed by substitution some of the names for the sake of privacy. However I have not changed anything significant in the conversation.

Dale Daniel had hired his own court reporter who provided these transcripts. This is because Dale retains his court of record - court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore if the judge behaves biased, like an attorney (who he barred from the court earlier, attorneys) then a writ of error may properly issue coram vobis.

Notice this is happening in small claims court - where attorneys are forbidden. In a pretrial conference the judge denied an attorney to represent the defendant. In about a week maybe, we will know how the judge rules - but note strangely, he specifically makes no promises to even rule. Take special note that delaying a decision in small claims for two weeks may be nearly unprecedented. Anybody watching small equity decisions of this nature like on Judge Judy or Wopner (People's Court) know that it is just a gut-reaction blurt and 'next case'. But the plaintiff says it was like the judge became suddenly fatigued. Maybe he understood the magnitude of his decision?

Most useful to note is that the bank manager says near the end:

quote:
13 MS. SMITH: Yes. I just would like to -- I don't

14 know if it's too late to give you a copy of the

15 depository agreement that he did sign when he signed

16 the signature card, he did agree and accept a copy of

17 this when he first opened the accounts.



It is very useful to understand that the suitor never signed the tariff itself - he is considered by the bank to have signed it sight unseen by signing the signature card. It is plain by his testimony that he did not receive a copy of the tariff when he opened his accounts. Also it took them five minutes to get the tariff from behind locked doors when he finally asked for it last year. [Supplemented by a local suitor being treated quite rudely for even requesting the full documentation behind the signature card.] There is a chance the judge would not allow her to enter it late because it was admission to badgering the suitor into an unconscionable contract?


1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAGE

3 Small Claims Department

4

5

6

7 DALE DANIEL, )
)
8 Plaintiff, )
)
9 vs. ) No. SC044535
)
10 JESSICA SMITH, )
)
11 Defendant. )

12

13

14 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

15 Thursday, February 24, 2005

16

17

18

19 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, the above-entitled matter

20 came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable

21 Thomas Clemson, Judge Pro Tempore for the County of

22 SAGE, State of Oregon, commencing on the 24th

23 day of February, 2005.

24

25






2


1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 THE COURT: Daniel versus Smith, Small Claims case

3 number 043216. Anyone that's going to testify in

4 this matter, please come forward, raise your right

5 hand and be sworn.

6 MR. DANIEL: Is testifying as far as answering

7 questions and things?

8 THE COURT: If you're going to be talking to me

9 and explaining the facts, that's testifying. You've

10 got to be under oath.

11 MR. DANIEL: Okay. I would like to request to

12 modify the oath to conform with my scriptural beliefs

13 that I aver that my yes is a yes and my no is a no

14 according to Matthew 5:3 through 37 and James 5:12.

15 THE COURT: So what are you telling me, sir?

16 MR. DANIEL: That my yes is yes and my no is no

17 according to holy scripture.

18 THE COURT: Are you telling me if you say yes

19 it's the truth?

20 MR. DANIEL: Absolutely.

21 THE COURT: That's all I care about. I don't

22 care if you swear or affirm so long as you indicate

23 that what you're telling me is going to be the

24 truth.

25 And you've got your right hand on your Bible






3


1 there, so I assume that that has some significance to

2 you?

3 MR. DANIEL: That's right.

4 THE COURT: Anyone else that's going to testify,

5 please raise your right hand.

6

7 DALE DANIEL, JESSICA SMITH, DEBBIE TURNBY

8 having been sworn or affirmed, was examined and

9 testified under penalties of perjury as follows:

10

11 THE COURT: Are you Mr. Daniel?

12 MR. DANIEL: I'm Dale Daniel.

13 THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

14 I'm in receipt of Ms. Smith's memo. And I have a

15 claim and a notice of claims for Mr. Daniel against

16 Ms. Smith that they owe him $4,990 for violation of a

17 contract.

18 Mr. Daniel, it is your burden of proof to

19 convince me by a preponderance of the evidence that

20 you're entitled to prevail and that the amount you're

21 seeking is the proper amount.

22 If you fail to meet your burden of proof and

23 convince me that you're entitled to prevail, I'll

24 dismiss your case. If at the end of all the evidence

25 I am convinced that you have met your burden of proof






4


1 and that you're entitled to prevail, I will award the

2 amount that I think is appropriate, with this

3 exception: I cannot award more than what you have

4 asked for in your complaint. So, Mr. Daniel, you may

5 proceed.

6 MR. DANIEL: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

7 In the transcript of the last proceedings from

8 you, Judge Clemson, you prevented any attorneys

9 from speaking or giving, even giving any direct

10 counsel in Small Claims Court here. And I wanted to

11 thank you for providing this court or forum where we

12 can discuss this in plain English.

13 I have relinquished the majority of my injury,

14 keeping my claim to less than $5,000 instead of the

15 $22,000 that was stolen, just to keep the sophistry

16 of attorneys out of these proceedings.

17 Based on your ruling that attorneys are not

18 allowed in this common law forum and understanding

19 your personal representation for impartiality, I

20 believe that you in spite of your bar card will act

21 as a neutral and impartial arbitrator.

22 THE COURT: And that's fine. No sense throwing

23 fog at me, sir. Why don't you tell me about the

24 merits of your case, that's what I'm here to decide

25 on.






5


1 MR. DANIEL: Okay. I'm just looking for

2 assurance that unlike the defendant, there is -- that

3 people do not think there is some kind of contract or

4 agreement between the Treasury and me, that if they

5 think I owe them some money, it is true without due

6 process of law.

7 THE COURT: Here's what I assure you, sir: I

8 will listen to the evidence and I will rule on the

9 evidence, the facts, as I deem, as I find them to be

10 truthful and accurate. And I will apply the facts,

11 as I find them, to the law. Whether or not that

12 complies with what your belief of the law is or what

13 your standards are, that's not of my concern.

14 I am here sworn to uphold the law of the State

15 of Oregon, the Constitution of the State of Oregon.

16 So with that being said, proceed with your

17 case. I want to hear facts about your case, I don't

18 want to hear anything that detracts from that. So

19 please present your case.

20 MR. DANIEL: Okay. Upon opening my bank account

21 at US Bank several years ago, no one indicated a

22 contract or tariff between us was a lengthy

23 document. I presumed full disclosure and felt the

24 contract was shown to me.

25 On 8/14/2004 I discovered the contract between






6


1 myself and my bank had clauses stating the bank could

2 give my funds away to whomever and wherever, whenever

3 it pleased.

4 The premise between banker and account holder is

5 one of safety of the funds. The good faith agreement

6 is the money is safe in the bank, safe for the actual

7 owner of the funds to get them at any point in time.

8 When I read the agreement, I was shocked. So I

9 obtained a fresh copy, struck out the provisions that

10 were troubling me. I returned the contract with the

11 revisions and expressly informed Jessica Smith, the

12 branch manager of US Bank, this is our new contract,

13 and asked her to direct this to her legal team.

14 The contract, proof of service and the novations

15 are attached in the exhibits.

16 THE COURT: Okay.

17 MR. DANIEL: Three days passed and the bank made

18 no contact to refuse for cause the novations. In

19 fact, nobody has addressed me about the novations at

20 all.

21 After a month without response from the bank and

22 the new agreement in place, I began to feel more

23 secure and started placing some funds in the account

24 for operating capital.

25 On 10/18/04, I was informed by US Bank that the






7


1 funds in the accounts were frozen in the amounts of

2 $18,604.02 and $3,595.88 from bank accounts BCW

3 Northerly, Inc., account number 2424 8678 2421 and

4 BCW --

5 THE COURT: Let's go back again. I'm not quite

6 as able to write as fast as you can talk.

7 MR. DANIEL: I'm sorry.

8 THE COURT: What is the amount that was --

9 eighteen thousand what?

10 MR. DANIEL: $18,604.02.

11 THE COURT: Okay.

12 MR. DANIEL: And $3,595.88. And there are two

13 different accounts from BCW Northerly, one is a

14 cafeteria account, 2424 8678 2421, that is the

15 employees cafeteria account money.

16 THE COURT: Whose employees?

17 MR. DANIEL: Pardon me?

18 THE COURT: Whose employees?

19 MR. DANIEL: Mine.

20 THE COURT: Okay. And what's the other

21 account?

22 MR. DANIEL: The main BCW account, 2524 5454

23 6364.

24 THE COURT: Is that a checking account?

25 MR. DANIEL: It's a checking account.






8


1 THE COURT: And that's yours?

2 MR. DANIEL: That's my account.

3 THE COURT: Go ahead.

4 MR. DANIEL: Especially after the express

5 novations to the working agreement, this diversion of

6 funds is simply breach of contract. I thought my

7 money was safe at the bank, and it turns out that

8 even after expressly forbidding the bank to give my

9 money away, Jessica Smith did so to a private party,

10 and even without my novation in place, by giving my

11 funds away to a private person third party simply

12 because it claimed I owed them money.

13 I have never consciously given consent for any

14 third party to remove property from me without

15 judicial due process.

16 Ms. Smith in her memorandum believes that consent

17 was given to this unconscionable contract even

18 without my consent, and nothing could be further from

19 the truth.

20 I'd like to call my witnesses at this time.

21 THE COURT: Just a second.

22 [Discussion off the record]

23 THE COURT: Mr. Daniel, go ahead.

24 MR. DANIEL: I'd like to call our witnesses in.

25 THE COURT: Who is your witness?






9


1 MR. DANIEL: Is first one is Donald M. Cinnamond

2 in the US District Court.

3 THE COURT: I don't see him in the court.

4 MR. DANIEL: No. He has been subpoenaed, and

5 they filed a motion to quash that. So in place of

6 that, I would just like to present the evidence, and

7 this has been gone over with Ms. Smith, filed in

8 Federal District Court from any and all Treasury

9 presentments showing that via registered mail and all

10 green cards, receipts, that all Treasury presentments

11 have been properly refused for cause and that there

12 is no contract between myself and the Treasury.

13 THE COURT: These are documents that you filed

14 in Federal Court?

15 MR. DANIEL: Absolutely. In case number CV

16 45466342-887.

17 THE COURT: And --

18 MR. DANIEL: And so they're documented in my

19 evidence repository.

20 THE COURT: And what do they have to do with

21 this small claims case?

22 MR. DANIEL: Indicating that there's no contract

23 between myself and the Treasury, as presumed by the

24 defendant.

25 THE COURT: Your position on that? Any






10


1 objection?

2 MS. TURNBY: US Bank is acting on behalf of our

3 legal requirements and obligations per federal law.

4 THE COURT: I'm asking if you have any objection

5 to me receiving those documents.

6 MS. TURNBY: No, that's fine. Sure.

7 MS. SMITH: No.

8 THE COURT: That's fine. I'll receive them.

9 What else do you have?

10 MR. DANIEL: Next witness would be Ms. Cynthia

11 Smith.

12 THE COURT: Ms. Smith? Which one of you is Ms.

13 Smith?

14 MS. SMITH: I'm Ms. Smith.

15 THE COURT: Go ahead and have a seat.

16 And before you testify, I'm going to recall this

17 case.

18 [Discussion off the record]

19 THE COURT: Okay. State your full name, spell

20 your last name, please.

21 MS. SMITH: Jessica Renee Smith.

22 THE COURT: You may inquire. Mr. Daniel?

23 MR. DANIEL: Yes.

24 THE COURT: You may inquire.

25 MR. DANIEL: Thank you.






11


1 DIRECT EXAMINATION

2 BY-MR. DANIEL:

3 Q. On 8/13/04 I hand delivered this notice of deposit

4 account terms and condition changes. Do you recall

5 me handing those to you?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. On 8/13/2004 I also sent a certified copy via

8 registered mail to you. Do you recall receiving that

9 notice via registered mail?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 MR. DANIEL: And I'd like to let the record show

12 that the defendant received the notice of contract

13 change and was entered into the case as Exhibit A,

14 along with the proper proof of service, the

15 originals.

16 THE COURT: Who says it was entered into the

17 case?

18 MR. DANIEL: It was filed as the original

19 documents in the case.

20 THE COURT: Which case?

21 MR. DANIEL: This case, small claims --

22 THE COURT: It's not entered in this case unless

23 it's offered to me and there's no objection and I

24 received it, or it's offered and they object and I

25 overrule it, receiving it.






12


1 Are you offering that?

2 MR. DANIEL: Yes, I am offering this.

3 THE COURT: Do you object?

4 MS. TURNBY: No.

5 MR. DANIEL: Can I ask a question, Your Honor?

6 How does this person get to object rather than Ms.

7 Smith? Is she an attorney?

8 MS. TURNBY: No.

9 THE COURT: Ms. Smith, I should have asked you.

10 Do you have any objection?

11 MS. SMITH: No.

12 THE COURT: All right. It will be received.

13 BY-MR. DANIEL: [Continuing]

14 Q. Thank you.

15 Did you read the notice thoroughly?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Being a bank manager, I'm sure you're well trained

18 concerning contracts; is that correct?

19 A. No, that's not correct.

20 Q. Okay. So you're saying you don't sign for bank

21 loans, equity loans, have no understanding of

22 contracts and their binding force?

23 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir, but I'm not going to

24 allow you to go there. That's not a fair question.

25 That's not what she said.






13


1 MR. DANIEL: Okay.

2 THE COURT: What she said is she was not trained

3 in contracts, and you started running on that. I'm

4 not going to allow that.

5 MR. DANIEL: Okay. I understand. I apologize.

6 THE COURT: No need to apologize, it's just my

7 job to keep things running on an appropriate course.

8 Go ahead.

9 MR. DANIEL: Okay.

10 BY-MR. DANIEL: [Continuing]

11 Q. Did you pass the notice and amended terms and account

12 agreement to the bank's legal counsel as I requested?

13 A. I passed it on up to my district office, yes.

14 Q. Do you have any proof that they've received this?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Has that been entered in the evidence?

17 A. It's -- My witness.

18 Q. Okay. Is that what you're testifying to?

19 THE COURT: She just testified they received it.

20 MR. DANIEL: Okay.

21 THE COURT: What more do you want?

22 MR. DANIEL: Well, I thought the witness was

23 going to say something.

24 Q. Were you aware on October 14th that over $22,000 was

25 diverted from my account to the US Treasury?






14


1 A. On what date?

2 Q. October 14th, 2004.

3 A. No, I was not.

4 Q. Okay. Did your supervisors notify you of that?

5 A. No, they did not.

6 Q. Okay. Have you ever been -- Well, let's --

7 Have your supervisors ever contacted you back

8 about the account agreement?

9 A. Yes, they have.

10 Q. Okay. And have you ever contacted me about that

11 account agreement?

12 A. No, I have not.

13 Q. Okay. So in essence, you've received the contract,

14 it's been read by the attorneys, and there's been no

15 refusal or objection from your attorneys and counsel

16 at any point in time?

17 A. Yes, there has.

18 Q. And how would we know that?

19 A. You did not get acceptance of the change of

20 depository agreement from US Bank.

21 Q. Okay. So your -- We've made a contract change, and

22 they have not notified me in over three months, four

23 months?

24 A. Not that I'm aware of.

25 Q. Okay. Are you aware of the Truth-in-Lending Act,






15


1 Regulation Z, 12 CFR and portions of 15 USC --

2 A. Yes, I am.

3 Q. Okay. I believe that is agreement that service has

4 been processed and we're in full harmony in this

5 contract as far as what agreement has been reached.

6 THE COURT: Are you asking a question or are you

7 testifying?

8 MR. DANIEL: I believe what I'm saying is she

9 agrees that --

10 THE COURT: If you want to ask her a question,

11 you can ask her a question. If you're done asking

12 questions, I'm going to have her sit down, then you

13 can testify. But I'm not going to let you testify

14 and then ask a question, let you testify and then ask

15 a question. You do one or the other. If you have

16 questions about her, about her knowledge of the

17 Truth-in-Lending Act and it's relevant to this

18 proceeding, I'll allow it. So go ahead.

19 BY-MR. DANIEL: [Continuing]

20 Q. Okay. So is it true then if the bank has contacted

21 you that there's been no agreement but you have not

22 contacted me?

23 A. State that again.

24 Q. You're saying that your attorneys have contacted you,

25 that there is no agreement --






16


1 A. I have not talked to my attorneys about -- I haven't

2 talked to the bank -- bank's attorneys about this at

3 all. I dealt with my district office, my district

4 manager in regards to handing over the depository

5 agreement.

6 Q. Okay. So it didn't go to the attorneys as I

7 requested?

8 A. It's -- Yes -- No, I don't -- I'm not sure if it has

9 or not. I mean, I did what I needed to do. I took

10 it from you and I turned it over to my district

11 office.

12 Q. As my account manager, you didn't follow up with

13 this?

14 THE COURT: Her testimony is that she gave it to

15 her district office account manager. That's what she

16 did with it. Move it along. I know that. I know

17 what she did with it. If it doesn't suit you, you

18 can testify about that.

19 MR. DANIEL: That's fine. No further questions.

20 THE COURT: Do you have anything you wish to put

21 in at this point? You're entitled to cross-examine

22 yourself. Go ahead.

23 THE WITNESS: No, I've got my stuff back there.

24 THE COURT: Next witness.

25 MR. DANIEL: No more witnesses. I would just






17


1 like to go through the -- I believe this is my only

2 chance to speak; is that correct?

3 THE COURT: No. It depends on what you do. If

4 you have evidence to offer, this is your chance to

5 offer evidence. If you just want to sum up the case,

6 then you've got to wait till they're done.

7 MR. DANIEL: Okay. I would like to present the

8 evidence from the standpoint of countering the motion

9 that was put in by Ms. Smith.

10 THE COURT: What motion? I have a memorandum.

11 MR. DANIEL: Memorandum. I'm sorry.

12 THE COURT: Okay. If you want to address that

13 memo with evidence, you may. If you want to argue

14 about it and you're done with evidence, that's what I

15 need to know. Are you going to put on any evidence?

16 MR. DANIEL: No. I guess we can just sum up at

17 the end.

18 THE COURT: Okay. We'll sum up at the end. You

19 can talk about all that at the end.

20 MR. DANIEL: Okay.

21 THE COURT: Okay.

22 MR. DANIEL: Thanks.

23 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Smith.

24 MS. SMITH: Yes.

25 THE COURT: Do you have any evidence to put on?






18


1 MS. SMITH: I do have his business registry with

2 the State showing how he's registered and what his

3 name is on the registration versus how he's suing me

4 in the court; there's two different names.

5 THE COURT: How does it tie in with the names on

6 the account?

7 MS. SMITH: I am being sued by Dale Daniel, and

8 the account that we have opened with US Bank was

9 filed under the name of Dale Colby. It's registered

10 with the State. And the account signature cards are

11 signed by Dale Colby.

12 THE COURT: Okay. I would like to see whatever

13 you have indicating the account is in the name of

14 Dale Colby.

15 While you're getting that, did Metro come to an

16 agreement on that other case?

17 A VOICE: No, we did not, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Okay.

19 Mr. Daniel, do you have any objection to me

20 receiving these documents?

21 MR. DANIEL: No, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: They will be received.

23 MR. DANIEL: My name is Dale Daniel, not Mr.

24 Daniel.

25 THE COURT: Our court rules require that I






19


1 address you by "Mr." and require that I address her

2 by "Ms." I am not allowed to address anybody by

3 their first name.

4 MR. DANIEL: Okay.

5 THE COURT: Do you have anything further?

6 MS. SMITH: No.

7 THE COURT: I want to know where these funds

8 went to.

9 MS. SMITH: They were turned over to the IRS.

10 THE COURT: And pursuant to what?

11 MS. SMITH: Two IRS tax levies that were served

12 to US Bank in the amount of $119,829.17.

13 THE COURT: One hundred nineteen thousand what?

14 MS. SMITH: 119,829.17.

15 THE COURT: And do you have any documentation to

16 show that?

17 MS. SMITH: Yes, I do.

18 MR. DANIEL: And I will object not to any

19 documentation she provides, but the fact of her

20 terminology as a levy versus a notice of levy.

21 There's a significant difference.

22 THE COURT: The documents you have are for a

23 notice of levy?

24 MS. SMITH: Yes.

25 THE COURT: Okay. I would like to see those.






20


1 Was there more than one of these notices of

2 levy?

3 MS. SMITH: No. That's for the full amount.

4 THE COURT: And did this basically drain his

5 accounts?

6 MS. SMITH: No. The amount that was taken from

7 the two accounts totaled $22,191.90.

8 MR. DANIEL: That drained the account, Your

9 Honor.

10 THE COURT: Was there any balance left in those

11 accounts?

12 MS. SMITH: No.

13 THE COURT: Then how did it not drain them?

14 MS. SMITH: I'm sorry. It drained the account,

15 it didn't satisfy the IRS levy.

16 THE COURT: That isn't what I asked you.

17 So it did drain the accounts?

18 MS. SMITH: Mm-hmm [affirmative response].

19 THE COURT: Okay. Anything further?

20 MS. SMITH: No other documentation.

21 THE COURT: All right.

22 Mr. Daniel, do you have any cross-examination for

23 Ms. Smith and the evidence that she's submitted?

24 MR. DANIEL: Yes. I would like to explain the

25 name situation.






21


1 Ms. Smith requests that the Court should dismiss

2 this case in her memorandum because Dale Daniel is

3 not the account holder.

4 THE COURT: Go ahead and put on your evidence

5 about the name situation.

6 MR. DANIEL: My name is Dale Daniel. And I

7 could easily create the illusion that BCW is a living

8 being, capable of making its own decisions. However,

9 I am the owner, creator, decision maker. I'm

10 responsible for the welfare of 16 full-time people,

11 several other part-time workers. And I've realized

12 for years that the corporate structure is a mechanism

13 of limited liability.

14 THE COURT: So who is Dale Colby?

15 MR. DANIEL: Dale Colby is a legal name. My

16 given name is Dale Daniel, I do business as Dale D.

17 Colby or as BCW Northerly. Dale Daniel is my given

18 name.

19 THE COURT: Have you registered Dale Colby as a

20 dba for Dale Daniel?

21 MR. DANIEL: No. I use that as a dba, I use BCW

22 Northerly as a dba under full rights as a man able to

23 do that.

24 So Ms. Smith states that on the day we transacted

25 the account agreement change there was a customer






22


1 withdrawal of $424,000.

2 I want the record to show that I withdrew that

3 amount and I have the cashier receipts to prove it.

4 THE COURT: Wait a second. There may be a

5 misunderstanding. You need to realize that whatever

6 is submitted to me in memorandum is not evidence.

7 MR. DANIEL: Okay.

8 THE COURT: It's not evidence. There is no

9 evidence before me about this kind of a withdrawal.

10 A memo is just something that apprises a judge

11 of the legal position being taken by the person that

12 submitted it. The person that submits the memo still

13 has their burden to affirmatively establish whatever

14 is in the memo. So neither is anything that you

15 submitted with your complaint evidence either.

16 The only evidence that I can decide a case on is

17 based upon the evidence that I heard at trial. And

18 so I'm at this point, unless there's something that

19 changes along the way, I don't anticipate making any

20 ruling based on any factual assertion that is not

21 presented to me either in the form of testimony or

22 documents that are received or without objection.

23 MR. DANIEL: Are you saying that when I speak to

24 you, that testimony is evidence then?

25 THE COURT: That's evidence.






23


1 MR. DANIEL: Okay. I am Dale Daniel. I've

2 been Dale Daniel since my dad --

3 THE COURT: I didn't ask you who Dale Daniel

4 was.

5 I asked you who Dale Colby was. You told me

6 that's a dba that you have. Do I understand that

7 correctly?

8 MR. DANIEL: That's correct.

9 THE COURT: Okay. What else do you have for me,

10 sir?

11 MR. DANIEL: Well, if there's anything in the

12 memorandum that -- if that's all worthless, then I

13 could just -- We can just go to the sum-up.

14 THE COURT: Again, here's what I'm telling you:

15 If it's a memorandum and there are factual assertions

16 in the memorandum, those factual assertions cannot be

17 considered by me unless there is evidence of that.

18 So you could put anything you want to in a memo,

19 you could put that the sun rises in the west, but if

20 I don't have any evidence of that, I won't consider

21 it.

22 So I'm not telling you it's worthless. There

23 may be things in there that have merit such as

24 positions of law, but if there's any factual

25 assertions in there and there's no evidence to






24


1 support them, then I don't deem that portion of the

2 memo to have merit.

3 MR. DANIEL: Okay.

4 THE COURT: I can only decide a case based upon

5 the evidence that's presented at the time of trial.

6 MR. DANIEL: Okay.

7 THE COURT: Go ahead.

8 MR. DANIEL: Well, the factual assertion, when

9 she handed you the notice of levy and called it a

10 levy --

11 THE COURT: And she changed that. She said it

12 is a notice of levy. I have received the actual

13 document.

14 MR. DANIEL: Okay. So then I guess we can wait,

15 go to the end and sum up what a notice of levy

16 actually is.

17 THE COURT: Are you done presenting evidence to

18 me?

19 MR. DANIEL: The contract in place is evidence,

20 my evidence.

21 THE COURT: If that's a document that you have

22 offered and that I have received, I will consider

23 it.

24 MR. DANIEL: Yes.

25 THE COURT: Do you have any other evidence,






25


1 either documentary or testimonial, that you wish me

2 to consider?

3 MR. DANIEL: I have testimonial evidence I would

4 like you to consider, yes.

5 THE COURT: Okay.

6 MR. DANIEL: I thought you wanted that at the

7 end.

8 THE COURT: There's a difference between

9 evidence and argument. So if there's a factual

10 assertion you want to tell me about, go ahead.

11 MR. DANIEL: Okay. Okay. In order for a levy to

12 be in force, there must be distraint warrants in

13 place by a judge.

14 US versus O'Dell, 160 F2d 304 (1947) states in

15 part, "The method for accomplishing a levy... is the

16 issuing of warrants of distraint..." and "With the

17 notice of levy, a copy of the warrants of distraint

18 and the notice of lien." Also, "a levy is not

19 effected by mere notice."

20 So there is no -- can be no levy without a

21 judicial action to support it. And that's why I'm

22 only arguing this in small claims, in order to get

23 away from -- we can just stick to the facts.

24 Ms. Smith has presented no evidence of any Court

25 judgment or distraint warrant making a notice of levy






26


1 into a levy. Am I -- I did not see the document they

2 presented, but there can be no -- I don't believe,

3 Your Honor, that there is a distraint warrant

4 attached.

5 THE COURT: Go ahead and take a look at the

6 documents that she submitted. Have you seen those

7 documents now, sir?

8 MR. DANIEL: Yes. I have seen no distraint

9 warrant on there. So I've seen no evidence that

10 there has been any judicial process through the

11 Treasury to US Bank or Ms. Smith to turn over these

12 funds.

13 I would also like to present evidence from the

14 standpoint of when those were taken.

15 THE COURT: When you say, "when those were

16 taken," what were you saying?

17 MR. DANIEL: When the funds were taken.

18 THE COURT: Funds. Okay.

19 MR. DANIEL: They were properly notified by US

20 Bank, they were properly refused for cause, and I'd

21 like to enter this into evidence which is a refusal

22 for cause filed in District Court, and also went to

23 Ms. Smith with proper service via registered mail.

24 THE COURT: Ms. Smith, do you have any objection

25 to my receiving those?






27


1 MS. SMITH: No.

2 THE COURT: They will be received.

3 MR. DANIEL: On page --

4 THE COURT: Let me clarify. I'm looking at a

5 document that says US Bancorp dated October 14, 2004,

6 and across the face of it is "refusal for cause."

7 Did you write that on there?

8 MR. DANIEL: Correct, I did.

9 THE COURT: And anyplace where any of those

10 documents show "refusal for cause," is that something

11 that you added to the document?

12 MR. DANIEL: That is correct.

13 THE COURT: When you did refusal for cause, did

14 you then return it to the US Bank?

15 MR. DANIEL: Yes, directly to US Bank, copies to

16 Jessica Smith.

17 THE COURT: Okay. I understand. Go ahead.

18 MR. DANIEL: Okay. In her memorandum, when she

19 states when US Bank received the IRS levy on October

20 2004, the bank sent letters notifying customers ESA

21 Northwest and BCWCAF of the levy. The bank sent

22 those letters to the address, those letters of

23 notification were returned to the bank, they had been

24 marked "refusal for cause" in handwriting. So they

25 did receive that.






28


1 What I want to say about this is when the bank

2 notified me about the diversion of funds, this was

3 three days after the fact. My refusal for cause was

4 proper order to show cause for administrative remedy,

5 notifying Ms. Smith and US Bank to provide the

6 judicial order or the contract allowing the transfer

7 of my funds.

8 THE COURT: Where does it say that?

9 MR. DANIEL: Right in the refusal for cause.

10 That's administrative remedy, there is no contract.

11 THE COURT: No. All I'm seeing on here is it

12 says "refusal for cause." Where in this packet of

13 materials you handed me does it say that you wish to

14 be provided with any copies of a contract?

15 MR. DANIEL: No, I'm not asking for copies of a

16 contract. I'm saying that's showing that there is no

17 contract.

18 THE COURT: How does it show that?

19 MR. DANIEL: Because when you refuse for cause a

20 document, that's proper notification that you're not

21 accepting a contract from another party. How else,

22 if --

23 THE COURT: What's the basis of your assertion

24 on the meaning of "refusal for cause"?

25 MR. DANIEL: "Refusal for cause" is evidence that






29


1 there is no contract, I have not accepted your

2 contract of taking my funds. This was an offer by

3 the notice -- this was an offer by the Treasury

4 Department. A notice of levy is a mere offer to the

5 bank to say, hey, give me your funds, you can duke it

6 out with him.

7 And they accepted that offer in spite of the

8 fact that the contract agreement says you cannot

9 divert my funds for any reason. And when they did, I

10 immediately responded with a refusal for cause

11 showing that there is no contract, I'm not accepting

12 your contract to divert my funds, and that is my

13 administrative remedy. It is a clear, simple

14 contract.

15 Everything in law is contract, straight from

16 back from the Bible when God told Adam, and I can

17 quote Genesis for you, offer and acceptance from the

18 very beginning, when he gave Adam free will to make

19 decisions. Everything is a contract offer.

20 And that is what governs societies in general.

21 You either accept or refuse by your acquiescence.

22 And even statute law is all contract, because

23 you align yourself by your allegiance to accept,

24 whether it's Oregon State statute law, US

25 Constitutional statute law or whatever, that






30


1 allegiance is governing by your acceptance.

2 THE COURT: Sir, are you telling me you're

3 governed by those laws?

4 MR. DANIEL: I am telling you that -- What was

5 your question?

6 THE COURT: Are you telling me you're governed

7 by those laws?

8 MR. DANIEL: Which laws?

9 THE COURT: You just talked about the laws of

10 the State of Oregon, the United States and the

11 Federal Constitution. Are you governed by any of

12 those?

13 MR. DANIEL: Absolutely not. My allegiance is to

14 my creator Lord.

15 THE COURT: So you're saying you're immune from

16 the laws of the State of Oregon, the laws of the

17 United States or laws of the Constitution of the

18 United States?

19 MR. DANIEL: I'm saying that I can provide you

20 documents, that I have my baptismal certificate. I

21 am following the creator Lord and I do not have any

22 allegiances for their laws or anything else.

23 THE COURT: I didn't ask you about your

24 allegiances. I asked you if you had to follow the

25 law. Are you allowed to disobey laws that you






31


1 choose?

2 MR. DANIEL: Christ told me that I am to obey the

3 governing laws, and I do that through him.

4 THE COURT: So then you are bound by the laws

5 of --

6 MR. DANIEL: I am bound to Christ, to serve him

7 and obey his laws. And in doing that, I will follow

8 your laws to the best of my ability.

9 THE COURT: Okay. What else do you have for me,

10 sir?

11 MR. DANIEL: That's it.

12 THE COURT: Ms. Smith, do you have anything?

13 MS. SMITH: Yes. I just would like to -- I don't

14 know if it's too late to give you a copy of the

15 depository agreement that he did sign when he signed

16 the signature card, he did agree and accept a copy of

17 this when he first opened the accounts.

18 And in here there is -- it talks specifically

19 about levies, garnishments and other legal process,

20 and how we are governed by the federal law and what

21 we have to accept and are not allowed to negotiate

22 with.

23 THE COURT: Is there a reason you didn't give

24 that to me during your case in chief?

25 MS. SMITH: I'm sorry. If it's too late, that's






32


1 fine, but...

2 THE COURT: I'm not going to receive it. We are

3 done with the case. He just argued his case. It's

4 your turn to argue yours, if you have any argument.

5 MS. SMITH: No. I just would like to state some

6 facts, if I could. That he came in and opened the

7 accounts in 2000. In the year 2000, one account was

8 opened up in Washington, the other account was opened

9 at the SAGE branch. That he did come into the

10 branch on 8/12 and did obtain a copy of the

11 depository agreement, did come back on 8/13 and gave

12 me the copy that he crossed off and initialed where

13 he wanted to make changes to the depository

14 agreement.

15 I did tell him at that time that I had no

16 authority to accept changes to our depository account

17 agreement --

18 MR. DANIEL: Objection.

19 MS. SMITH: -- and that I would --

20 THE COURT: No, she's just arguing what the

21 evidence is.

22 Go ahead.

23 MS. SMITH: And I stated that I would forward the

24 copy up to my district offices, but that I didn't

25 think that they would accept changes to this






33


1 depository agreement.

2 We -- It's given to all of our customers, and

3 all of our customers are treated alike. And it's --

4 At that time he did withdraw most of the money out of

5 both of the accounts. And he did tell me that he

6 wasn't going to put money back into the accounts

7 until --

8 THE COURT: Now you're starting to offer me new

9 evidence. If you want to give me a summation of the

10 evidence you have to date, I'll hear that, but it has

11 to be based upon the evidence I've received or

12 reasonable inference therefrom.

13 MS. SMITH: October 14th, the garnishment, the

14 department downtown did receive the -- What's it

15 referred to?

16 MS. TURNBY: Notice.

17 MS. SMITH: -- the notice of tax levy. They

18 received it, they're the ones that took the money out

19 of the accounts, they're the ones that sent the

20 notices out to him, and they're the ones that turned

21 the money over to the IRS. And I have no legal

22 authority to stop those funds from being turned

23 over.

24 And I think that's probably about it.

25 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Daniel, there's a document






34


1 that you referred to earlier, my memory is that

2 there's a packet of them, I believe it was the very

3 first exhibit you talked about, and I had -- There

4 was no objection over it, and I received it into

5 evidence but it never made its way to the bench. May

6 I have that now?

7 MR. DANIEL: Didn't I hand it to you?

8 THE COURT: This is all I've gotten, unless this

9 is it, but I thought I saw a packet about this thick

10 come out [indicating]. Maybe you took the stuff out

11 of it. Is this all the stuff you meant for me to

12 have?

13 MR. DANIEL: Oh. You were talking about this as

14 far as the evidence filed, no contract.

15 THE COURT: You offered something that had

16 something to do with Don Cinnamond in the Federal

17 Court, and it's received in evidence and I never got

18 it in my hands. So if you want my --

19 MR. DANIEL: I apologize.

20 THE COURT: It's not a problem. It's just that

21 you offered, it's been received, and so I need to

22 have it. Okay.

23 I'm taking this case under advisement. I hope

24 to notify you in -- I can't guarantee you, if I'm

25 going to review much of this, I can't guarantee that






35


1 I'll have it to you in the next couple of weeks, I

2 have some trials coming up that I have to tend to,

3 but I'll get to it as quickly as I can.

4 MS. SMITH: Your Honor?

5 MS. TURNBY: Can I ask one more question?

6 MS. SMITH: He did give you a copy of this in

7 that.

8 THE COURT: That's fine.

9 MS. TURNBY: The only thing we wanted to point

10 out, Your Honor, is in that agreement --

11 THE COURT: I think you're mistaken. You see,

12 when she was arguing her case and she told me she was

13 done, to me that meant she was done. So we're done.

14 MS. TURNBY: Okay. Thank you.

15 THE COURT: I've taken the case under

16 advisement.

17 MR. DANIEL: Thank you.

18 THE COURT: Thank you. Good night, sir.

19 [Adjourned at 7:34]

20

21

22

23

24

25






36


1 C E R T I F I C A T E

2 I, Lisa J. Rutherford, a Certified Shorthand

3 Reporter for the State of Oregon, do hereby certify

4 that the aforementioned parties personally appeared

5 before me at the time and place mentioned in the

6 caption herein; that the witnesses were first duly

7 sworn on oath and examined, that said examination,

8 together with the testimony of said witnesses was

9 taken down by me in stenotype and thereafter reduced

10 to typewriting; and that the foregoing transcript,

11 Pages 1 to 35, both inclusive, constitutes a full,

12 true and accurate record of said examination of and

13 testimony given by said witnesses, and of all other

14 oral proceedings had during the taking of said

15 proceedings, and of the whole thereof.

16 Witness my hand at Oregon City, Oregon,

17 this ____ day of March, 2005.

18

19

20 Lisa J. Rutherford

21 Certified Shorthand Reporter

22 Certificate No. 90-0407

23

24

25



Edited by - David Merrill on 04 Mar 2005 09:27:30
Go to Top of Page

devekut
Regular Member

uSA
25 Posts

Posted - 20 Dec 2005 :  21:55:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and Peace to you all from our Heavenly Father and His Only Son in whom we have received salvation and who reigns as our King throughout all time.

As regards the use of Non-Statutory Abatements, I understand the need to be out of all statutory entanglements, which would seem to also include all commercial activity, the UCC being used in today's law as it is.

After reading the post by DanielJacob with the article by Randy Lee (thank you DanielJacob), I am wondering if there is an exhaustive list posted somewhere of obligations that need to be completed and contractual associations that need to be severed before using the Non-Statutory Abatement.

I dropped by http://galileo.spaceports.com/~matters/ for the Book of Hundreds, but the site is no longer functional.

Understood about the need to be free of SSN, Driver License, Vehicle Registration, Insurance (Admiralty) contracts, Bank Account, Voter Registration, Mortgage, no residential address (rather use general post office).

Would the above be sufficient or would more be required to make the Non-Statutory Abatement lie (be of effect):

What about a Passport originally obtained with an SSN?

Can the Driver License be merely expired (dead) or does it need to be returned under specific process of cancellation?

Do Library Cards void a Non-Statutory Abatement? Membership in a State University alumni organization? Use of diploma obtained from State University for obtaining non-SSN work? Membership in something like National Eagle Scout Association or various greek lettered Honor Societies?

And then there needs to be two or at least one other that is of similar status to serve the abatement...Anyone sojourning on the landmass known as Texas?

The abatement is served (does that mean "handed to" or delivered to via Registered mail?), say for a traffic case, on the citing police officer. Would that not also need to include the judge, prosecuting attorney, and DA?

By His grace, always for the One True King,

devekut
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 20 Dec 2005 :  22:37:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hello devekut,

I would like to see anyone who has made a Non-Statutory Abatement work in the last 7 years. It ain't happening folks. Why go there?

Regards,

Lewis-Vincent
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 20 Dec 2005 :  23:06:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings to all, In The Christ, The Almighty,
Handing, under His Hand, a Non Statutory Abatement does work, only the flesh and blood man has to be off the "broadways."

I am,
Manuel
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 21 Dec 2005 :  04:20:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The functional phrase in the non-statutory abatement reads something like this:

quote:
Therefore your papers are returned to you timely Refused for Cause and without recourse to me.


The remainder of the verbiage is dross. It is a treatise on religion and history. Which is quite useful to educate the man or woman; but I have completely given up edifying trained attorneys. They paid handsomely for the education that serves them.

quote:
...I understand the need to be out of all statutory entanglements...


Refusal to participate (have a SSN for instance) abates the nuisance. However one must be a little independent of the System, I agree.

However you Lewis Vincent have altered your name;

quote:
Regards,

Lewis-Vincent


When you can explain that comprehensively, then I might begin to understand your perspective. For instance; does Randy Lee go by Randy-Lee?


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S.

quote:
Why go there?


Thank you for going there. I have abatements that stand. There are suitors, courts of competent jurisdiction, that sit properly at bench. However the proof is not necessary. That lies within the image of God within each of us.

I suppose the invitation for a criminal impersonation charge is the final enforcement. But if you have altered your name with a hyphen, where would that go?

Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Dec 2005 04:37:07
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 21 Dec 2005 :  15:31:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hello David,

No, I have not altered my name. It is my name and I can write it any way I choose to write it. On my ID tags on my car it is written "lewis vincent". That is proper for the application. Here I write it as you noted, because the rest of the signage is assumed to be known by all here.

As to abatements, well you may have some that stand but what about those that don't. Are you acknowledging them? What about your suitor who lost his house by forceful take-over just 2 weeks ago, even though he has a default judgment under a Libel in Review in the United States District Court? You definitely didn't know what to tell him to do to stop the Sheriff and his thugs from coming in and taking over. He and his family are out in the cold. And he is one of the brothers on this forum. What say ye about this?

Peace be with you,

Lewis Vincent (since you like this form of my name better)
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 21 Dec 2005 :  15:56:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish

Hello David,

No, I have not altered my name. It is my name and I can write it any way I choose to write it. On my ID tags on my car it is written "lewis vincent". That is proper for the application. Here I write it as you noted, because the rest of the signage is assumed to be known by all here.

As to abatements, well you may have some that stand but what about those that don't. Are you acknowledging them? What about your suitor who lost his house by forceful take-over just 2 weeks ago, even though he has a default judgment under a Libel in Review in the United States District Court? You definitely didn't know what to tell him to do to stop the Sheriff and his thugs from coming in and taking over. He and his family are out in the cold. And he is one of the brothers on this forum. What say ye about this?

Peace be with you,

Lewis Vincent (since you like this form of my name better)




That form "Lewis Vincent" is correct. Making the assumption that is your name. I have not gotten the story about the hyphen between the first and middle names.

I do not have control over matters like you mention. I cannot control the sheriff in whatever State. I do not pretend to. The referrals keep coming however. And these are from intelligent and educated people. Remedy cures and these people understand how to be courts of competent jurisdiction.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Dec 2005 16:36:35
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 21 Dec 2005 :  19:15:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:

I have not gotten the story about the hyphen between the first and middle names.



Have you ever looked at how Thomas Jefferson signed his name to the Declaration of Independence? It might be a clue.

quote:

I do not have control over matters like you mention. I cannot control the sheriff in whatever State. I do not pretend to. The referrals keep coming however. And these are from intelligent and educated people. Remedy cures and these people understand how to be courts of competent jurisdiction.



Uhhhh, huh. I didn't expect you to admit to any of the failures. Interesting how you infer that only un-intelligent or un-educated people have failure in the process you propose. But that is OK, we still love you here anyway.

Peace,

Lewis-Vincent

Edited by - Lewish on 21 Dec 2005 19:17:38
Go to Top of Page

RevokeTheTrust
Senior Member

USA
57 Posts

Posted - 21 Dec 2005 :  21:47:12  Show Profile  Visit RevokeTheTrust's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish

quote:

I have not gotten the story about the hyphen between the first and middle names.



Have you ever looked at how Thomas Jefferson signed his name to the Declaration of Independence? It might be a clue.

quote:

I do not have control over matters like you mention. I cannot control the sheriff in whatever State. I do not pretend to. The referrals keep coming however. And these are from intelligent and educated people. Remedy cures and these people understand how to be courts of competent jurisdiction.



Uhhhh, huh. I didn't expect you to admit to any of the failures. Interesting how you infer that only un-intelligent or un-educated people have failure in the process you propose. But that is OK, we still love you here anyway.

Peace,

Lewis-Vincent




I can attest to a letter lightly touched/patent by "Th: Jefferson"
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/s/lot-1104008.html and to quote

...BEGINE THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE:
quote:
rd President, SIGNER DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. RARE WAR DATED ALS "Th: Jefferson", 7.75x5.5, Aug 14 1780, in part: "Your regiment having now received their pay & equipments for marching are put under General Muhlenberg's direction...they will be considered as in continental service from this time. From him therefore you will be pleased to receive your future orders...", attractively priced Jefferson lists in Sanders at $15,000 in ALS form

In very good condition, signature & entire writing dark & bold, toned with staining & edge wear, mounted to backing sheet.

:END THIRD-PARTY INERFERENCE...

It is so sad-istic that the will of his mate wasn't with him for the moment, unable to delegate more manetary movement to Jefferson with arms to divert the vollies of the pseudo-Christian King.

Matthew (King James Version, 1611, Authorized Version) [5:29]
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

or nigh worthy the Cistine Chapel's center-stone on the ceiling, of the two figures painted as to touch their fingers together.
"http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Global/1/1DBEF125-077D-40A0-957D-53AA23F4DD5F/0/chp_sistine_michaelangelo_1.jpg"
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 22 Dec 2005 :  10:28:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
I didn't expect you to admit to any of the failures. Interesting how you infer that only un-intelligent or un-educated people have failure in the process you propose.


That is logical inference from your perspective. What I was saying is that people are being changed by going through the process. They are bright people. You infer they must be stupid to recommend giving me a call.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S.

quote:
As to abatements, well you may have some that stand but what about those that don't. Are you acknowledging them?


No. I am not. Mainly because those failed abatements are undermined by conditioning. Mostly around the name/misnomer. For instance you say;

quote:
No, I have not altered my name. It is my name and I can write it any way I choose to write it.


When the common law is custom and usage. So you have altered "Lewis Vincent" when you put a hyphen in between.

quote:
Like I said above:

I suppose the invitation for a criminal impersonation charge is the final enforcement.


quote:
On my ID tags on my car it is written "lewis vincent". That is proper for the application.


Maybe so. I gather you do not want people thinking you named your car after yourself. So you avoid the convention of proper noun (in specific).

Edited by - David Merrill on 22 Dec 2005 10:46:02
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 23 Dec 2005 :  07:51:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
As to abatements, well you may have some that stand but what about those that don't. Are you acknowledging them? What about your suitor who lost his house by forceful take-over just 2 weeks ago, even though he has a default judgment under a Libel in Review in the United States District Court? You definitely didn't know what to tell him to do to stop the Sheriff and his thugs from coming in and taking over. He and his family are out in the cold. And he is one of the brothers on this forum. What say ye about this?


Dear Lewis;

You can try mixing apples and oranges but my hope is the average Reader can see what you are doing. You joinder these two relatively unrelated topics in order to cast aspersions upon non-statutory abatements. [Additionally, having never filed one, you cannot claim to understand the Libel of Review process and/or Article III venue.]

I am carefully studying becoming trustee (the man) for the SSN trust by novation of a new indenture that fires the six trustees and instates the man, David Merrill to be the new trustee. Interesting.

http://www.conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.html?info_hash=40357ffce3cb6bd46031dd811f05c7bf58f91e12

http://www.conspiracycentral.net:6969/index.html?search=kevin+hines

But I believe the man already is trustee*; that may easily be waived however, simply by expressing trust in the appointed fiduciaries under the six government appointed SS trustees. Just the same there might be some use for having given admistrative notice.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* Lewis-Vincent: Hughes = Lewis Vincent Hughes (legal name) to the district court clerk. Steve Ehrlich the chief deputy in Denver said, "We don't do colons."

Edited by - David Merrill on 23 Dec 2005 09:43:56
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 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 0.91 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000