PDA

View Full Version : Why saving to suitors is an asine methodology



MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 12:50 PM
NO OFFENSE DAVID, AS YOUR A LONG STANDING BUDDY OF MINE.

BUT I DOUBT YOU CAN REFUTE THIS CASE LAW, AND THUS
THIS MAKES YOUR SAVING TO SUITORS CLAUSE A MOOT
POINT IN MORTMAIN LEGISLATION AND EQUITY.


Are you the "grantor" or beneficiary of the Trust? No. Under Grantor-Grantee Law....take a wild guess as to who is in control. And, since it is "their Posterity" that are the trustees....if you screw with "their best interest"; then you are a bad trustee/grantee and considered by the Grantor and Beneficiaries to be an absconding debtor...and the Grantor will un-Grant your Granted Civil Rights and toss you in for being a bad Trustee/Cow/Slave.


Citizens are subjects...period. No rights...only privileges granted by the President. Patrick Henry stated that once the Constitution was ratified that the Prez would have the powers of a King. What is it that you don't get about the word: King? He's an Emperor and if the Roman Emperor request or decrees that you die....then you're a dead man. This is not rocket science. ONE KEY...ONE DOOR. Did you see the MATRIX? THEY told you the truth.
You are a slave and the sooner you wake up to that fact the easier this is going to be for you.
The answer is in wiki

The Eleventh Amendment, the first amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gave diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state."

This means that the U.S. and all the "states" have sovereign immunity over citizens.

The amendment's text does not mention suits brought against a state by its own citizens. However, in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999):

[S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself....Nor can we conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.[1]

They were telling you here that the "Federal Government" controlled the decision as to whether or not the States could be sued by citizens. It was a given that the U.S. (federal) Government could not be sued by citizens or the States...because the States agreed to become Suzerains under the Powers of the President and US Congress, while sitting at the Seat of Government. "While sitting" means "as long as the President allows them to sit".

motla68
04-22-11, 01:17 PM
The eleventh amendment, inasmuch as that amendment only prohibits suits against a state which are brought by the citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign state.

" a state may be sued in the federal courts by its own citizens "

HANS V. LOUISIANA 134 U.S. 1 (1890)

Court opinions can be overturned, it's all relative.

MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 01:44 PM
Thats not what it Says " You paraphrased wrong Motla, Read the Final Conclusion "
Hans v. Louisiana
From Professor William B. Fisch’s web page, Constitutional Law Assignment #6: Theories of Interpretation at the University of Missouri School of Law.
Web site: http://www.law.missouri.edu/fisch/hans.htm
(View printer-friendly version)

2. Intent of the Framers and Adoption History

HANS V. LOUISIANA

134 U.S. 1 (1890)

[A citizen of Louisiana sued that State in federal circuit court in Louisiana, to recover interest due on state bonds. The State answered with the defense of sovereign immunity.]

Bradley, J.

....

That a state cannot be sued by a citizen of another state, or of a foreign state, on the mere ground that the case is one arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, is clearly established by the decisions of this court in several recent cases.... Those were cases arising under the constitution of the United States, upon laws complained of as impairing the obligation of contracts, one of which was the constitutional amendment of Louisiana, complained of in the present case. Relief was sought against state officers who professed to act in obedience to those laws. This court held that the suits were virtually against the states themselves, and were consequently violative of the eleventh amendment of the constitution, and could not be maintained. It was not denied that they presented cases arising under the constitution; but, notwithstanding that, they were held to be prohibited by the amendment referred to.

In the present case the plaintiff in error contends that he, being a citizen of Louisiana, is not embarrassed by the obstacle of the eleventh amendment, inasmuch as that amendment only prohibits suits against a state which are brought by the citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign state. It is true the amendment does so read, and, if there were no other reason or ground for abating his suit, it might be maintainable; and then we should have this anomalous result, that, in cases arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, a state may be sued in the federal courts by its own citizens, though it cannot be sued for a like cause of action by the citizens of other states, or of a foreign state; and may be thus sued in the federal courts, although not allowing itself to be sued in its own courts. If this is the necessary consequence of the language of the constitution and the law, the result is no less startling and unexpected than was the original decision of this court, that, under the language of the constitution and of the judiciary act of 1789, a state was liable to be sued by a citizen of another state or of a foreign country. That decision was made in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, and created such a shock of surprise throughout the country that, at the first meeting of congress thereafter, the eleventh amendment to the constitution was almost unanimously proposed, and was in due course adopted by the legislatures of the states. This amendment, expressing the will of the ultimate sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures and all courts, actually reversed the decision of the supreme court. It did not in terms prohibit suits by individuals against the states, but declared that the constitution should not be construed to import any power to authorize the bringing of such suits. The language of the amendment is that 'the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit, in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.' The supreme court had construed the judicial power as extending to such a suit, and its decision was thus overruled. The court itself so understood the effect of the amendment, for after its adoption Attorney General Lee, in the case of Hollingsworth v. Virginia, (3 Dall. 378,) submitted this question to the court, 'whether the amendment did or did not supersede all suits depending, as well as prevent the institution of new suits, against any one of the United States, by citizens of another state.' Tilghman and Rawle argued in the negative, contending that the jurisdiction of the court was unimpaired in relation to all suits instituted previously to the adoption of the amendment. But on the succeeding day, the court delivered an unanimous opinion 'that, the amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction, in any case, past or future, in which a state was sued by the citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.'

This view of the force and meaning of the amendment is important. It shows that, on this question of the suability of the states by individuals, the highest authority of this country was in accord rather with the minority than with the majority of the court in the decision of the case of Chisholm v. Georgia; and this fact lends additional interest to the able opinion of Mr. Justice IREDELL on that occasion. The other justices were more swayed by a close observance of the letter of the constitution, without regard to former experience and usage; and because the letter said that the judicial power shall extend to controversies 'between a state and citizens of another state;' and 'between a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects,' they felt constrained to see in this language a power to enable the individual citizens of one state, or of a foreign state, to sue another state of the Union in the federal courts Justice IREDELL, on the contrary, contended that it was not the intention to create new and unheard of remedies, by subjecting sovereign states to actions at the suit of individuals, (which he conclusively showed was never done before,) but only, by proper legislation, to invest the federal courts with jurisdiction to hear and determine controversies and cases, between the parties designated, that were properly susceptible of litigation in courts. Looking back from our present stand-point at the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, we do not greatly wonder at the effect which it had upon the country. Any such power as that of authorizing the federal judiciary to entertain suits by individuals against the states had been expressly disclaimed, and even resented, by the great defenders of the constitution while it was on its trial before the American people. [Quoting from FEDERALIST 81 (Hamilton).]

The obnoxious clause to which Hamilton's argument was directed, and which was the ground of the objections which he so forcibly met, was that which declared that 'the judicial power shall extend to all * * * controversies between a state and citizens of another state, * * * and between a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.' It was argued by the opponents of the constitution that this clause would authorize jurisdiction to be given to the federal courts to entertain suits against a state brought by the citizens of another state or of a foreign state. Adhering to the mere letter, it might be so, and so, in fact, the supreme court held in Chisholm v. Georgia; but looking at the subject as Hamilton did, and as Mr. Justice IREDELL did, in the light of history and experience and the established order of things, the views of the latter were clearly right, as the people of the United States in their sovereign capacity subsequently decided.

[Further quotes from the ratification debates.]

It seems to us that these views of those great advocates and defenders of the constitution were most sensible and just, and they apply equally to the present case as to that then under discussion. The letter is appealed to now, as it was then, as a ground for sustaining a suit brought by an individual against a state. The reason against it is as strong in this case as it was in that. It is an attempt to strain the constitution and the law to a construction never imagined or dreamed of. Can we suppose that, when the eleventh amendment was adopted, it was understood to be left open for citizens of a state to sue their own state in the federal courts, while the idea of suits by citizens of other states, or of foreign states, was indignantly repelled? Suppose that congress, when proposing the eleventh amendment, had appended to it a proviso that nothing therein contained should prevent a state from being sued by its own citizens in cases arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, can we imagine that it would have been adopted by the states? The supposition that it would is almost an absurdity on its face.

....

The suability of a state, without its consent, was a thing unknown to the law. This has been so often laid down and acknowledged by courts and jurists that it is hardly necessary to be formally asserted. It was fully shown by an exhaustive examination of the old law by Mr. Justice IREDELL in his opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia; and it has been conceded in every case since, where the question has, in any way, been presented, even in the cases which have gone furthest in sustaining suits against the officers or agents of states.

....

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Harlan, J.

I concur with the court in holding that a suit directly against a state by one of its own citizens is not one to which the judicial power of the United States extends, unless the state itself consents to be sued. Upon this ground alone I assent to the judgment. But I cannot give my assent to many things said in the opinion. The comments made upon the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia do not meet my approval. They are not necessary to the determination of the present case. Besides, I am of opinion that the decision in that case was based upon a sound interpretation of the constitution as that instrument then was.

Mark Christopher
04-22-11, 02:19 PM
I am assuming you meant asinine? Other wise you are talking about a city in Greece. I can't really opine much on this as it seems written for David but as far as I am concerned my sovereignty comes from God and goes from there. I have a question are all individuals citizens of the eState?

MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 02:27 PM
Read the Lieber Code. Read Case Law... The Lieber Code implicity States you are not to question the Debts of the United States.
You are a Trustee/ grantee.. YOu are not signatory or Posterity to the Original Compact/Constiution, thus you have no access to Article 3.
Read the Law of Nations and the right of Self Determination. You are a Citizen and you can not question the Debt, nor Sue the State
you are a Citizen of.

motla68
04-22-11, 03:24 PM
Read the Lieber Code. Read Case Law... The Lieber Code implicity States you are not to question the Debts of the United States.
You are a Trustee/ grantee.. YOu are not signatory or Posterity to the Original Compact/Constiution, thus you have no access to Article 3.
Read the Law of Nations and the right of Self Determination. You are a Citizen and you can not question the Debt, nor Sue the State
you are a Citizen of.

Who is the Citizen though technically, the man or the paper?

The word "person" in legal terminology normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than man. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. ; Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.

Disparata non debent jungi ~ unequal things ought not to be joined.

David Merrill
04-22-11, 03:31 PM
Maybe Arsine? Hydrogen atom replaced by a radical renders certain compounds gaseous and highly poisonous...

I have been through this in a variation about this - that is that this entire book, written by the Senate in 1976 if effectively ending the force and effect of the Lieber Code in America.


http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=385&d=1303485831


The effects of the Emergency being in place from 1861 to 1976 are many but the Stipulation that the Secretary and/or President can jump in and save the Fed with another Bankers' Holiday is the prominent code still in full force and effect.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412_stipulation.jpg

This whole domain though, is avoidable by not contracting (endorsement) with the Fed. David Merrill's broken record around here.

Mostly though, when somebody is not going to even bother correcting a key word in the Title of a Thread, I do not deem it much worth my time. Also this reminds me of an official from the Fed calling Ron PAUL a pinhead. Ron's response was that using names was a sure sign that the namecaller had lost all intellectual arguement. I view calling the 'saving to suitors' clause asinine (presuming that is what the member meant) a very silly thing to do. I am not bothering to study up on the Eleventh Amendment over it.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. The Poll at the top is quite misleading. It offers a choice like that is the scope of the topic. By considering the question in the first place one is subjecting themselves to being narrow-minded; accepting the misdirection suggested in the narrow scope of the question and choices of the answer.

shikamaru
04-22-11, 04:07 PM
Read the Lieber Code. Read Case Law... The Lieber Code implicity States you are not to question the Debts of the United States.
You are a Trustee/ grantee.. YOu are not signatory or Posterity to the Original Compact/Constiution, thus you have no access to Article 3.
Read the Law of Nations and the right of Self Determination. You are a Citizen and you can not question the Debt, nor Sue the State
you are a Citizen of.

So, citizens are plebiscites?
Doesn't citizenship predicate on volunteerism?
"Savings to Suitors" refers to admiralty/maritime courts which are district courts. District courts are Article I courts created by legislature.

One can decline to be surety/constitutor for the debt of another. :)

MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 04:18 PM
That Would be all fine and Dandy about the Compelled force of Lieber Code Ending.
but Senate Resolution 62 says all property is vested in the State.
Furthemore , The Case Laws pertaining to Amendment 11 answer all these questions.
And... In conclusion, Just because you are a human being not person, that doesnt make one Sovereign.
If you want to Understand what makes someone Sovereign Read the Law of Nations. ONly a state
can be Sovereign, not a human being.

MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 04:56 PM
It is Also, Noteworthy, if you do take the time to Read Case Law pertaining to the 11th Amendment,
A citizen can not BE a SUITOR AND SUE THE STATE HE IS A MEMBER OF.
ONLY A STATE HAS STANDING TO BE SOVEREIGN OR HAVE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.-- NOT HUMAN BEINGS.
a HUMAN BEING CAN NOT BE A "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN- THAT ARGUMENT IS TIRED.
READ THE LAW OF NATIONS AND THE UN CHARTER-- THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION WHO IS ALLOWED TO MAKE COMPACTS.

Treefarmer
04-22-11, 05:21 PM
It is Also, Noteworthy, if you do take the time to Read Case Law pertaining to the 11th Amendment,
A citizen can not BE a SUITOR AND SUE THE STATE HE IS A MEMBER OF.
ONLY A STATE HAS STANDING TO BE SOVEREIGN OR HAVE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.-- NOT HUMAN BEINGS.
a HUMAN BEING CAN NOT BE A "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN- THAT ARGUMENT IS TIRED.
READ THE LAW OF NATIONS AND THE UN CHARTER-- THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION WHO IS ALLOWED TO MAKE COMPACTS.

I thought the whole point of Saving to Suitors was for people on the land to bring a cause of action against a foreign power coming from the sea in admiralty, not citizens suing their state or government?

Why would a citizen sue a state using Saving To Suitors clause?

shikamaru
04-22-11, 06:45 PM
It is Also, Noteworthy, if you do take the time to Read Case Law pertaining to the 11th Amendment,
A citizen can not BE a SUITOR AND SUE THE STATE HE IS A MEMBER OF.
ONLY A STATE HAS STANDING TO BE SOVEREIGN OR HAVE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.-- NOT HUMAN BEINGS.
a HUMAN BEING CAN NOT BE A "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN- THAT ARGUMENT IS TIRED.
READ THE LAW OF NATIONS AND THE UN CHARTER-- THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION WHO IS ALLOWED TO MAKE COMPACTS.

You do know "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron?

MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 06:51 PM
Now if the Senate is "adjourned until the President thinks proper" (to re-convene congress on such ExtraOrdinary Occassions...such as being in a perpetual state of War)....then pray tell....if Congress was "adjourned and removed by Lincoln"...then how did they "re-convene themselves when they are not actually sitting in Office"????????

This is the Military Industrial Complex and you are a slave and you are under the Lieber Code and you were declaration, by Executive Order to be an Enemy of the State called United States. Is this getting through to you, DAVID? Is Congress is removed...they have no power and no seat. If they have no power and no seat...then they cannot "undo the Code"...any Code, or any Executive Order.

Patrick Henry said...."your Prez will have the powers of a King". You are United States' State Benefits. You walk around with their Idents. How is it that you think that you have some "freedom"? Just because you walk around?

You seem to keep looking for a way to disqualify what I say....or am I mistaken here?


Article II - The Executive Branch Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, ... shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, ....The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 07:00 PM
ARE YOU A US CITIZEN OR A FOREIGN POWER, ARE YOU A CHATTEL? ARE YOU A MAN ON THE LAND?
A resident, maybe an alien?

A HUMAN BEING PERHAPS? HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND MAKE COMPACTS?
DAVID MERRIL CAN MAKE COMPACTS--- david merrill cant not.
DAVID MERRIL CAN SUE CORPORATIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT,
david merril, the human being can not contract.
ONLY CORPORATE PERSONS CAN CONTRACT. THAT IS CONTRACT LAW.
IF YOU ARE A CITIZEN, YOU CAN NOT TURN AROUND AND SUE DADDY " THE STATE
FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT". YOU IDENTIFIED YOURSELF AS THE TRUST-
NOW YOUR CONTRADICTING YOURSELF AND SAYING " OH NO DADDY GOVT, I AM NOT THE TRUST
I AM THE HUMAN BEING, thus im SUING YOU AS A ARTICLE 3, EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT SIGNATORY
TO THE CONSTITUTION, yOU WERE NOT ONE OF THE 39 SIGNERS- YOU ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM
USING ARTICLE 3. HUMANS CAN NOT SUE THE STATE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT- AND THATS WHAT THE LOR IS ATTEMPTING TO DUE,
ONLY ENTITIES CAN SUE EACH OTHER.

are you claiming to be "sovereign" because you are human being, thus you think
you have pretened "immunities" ?

motla68
04-22-11, 07:08 PM
I can find no provision which associates the use of Lieber Code just for national emergencies, just because the national emergency ended at that time does not mean it no longer has effect today. Additionally the Lieber Code was adopted into the Geneva Convention and is recognized as a foundation of military conduct in the field.

Article dated April 14, 2011 discusses one application of today:
https://www.redcrossstlstore.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/tabid/58/ctl/ViewItem/mid/794/ItemId/2981/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=/Portals/_default/Skins/newskins/Internal&ContainerSrc=/Portals/_default/Containers/newcontainers/Basic
It was actually directed toward a military occupation and unless you can convince me somehow that Lincoln's Army has pulled up stakes and left, it will continue to be referenced as in this modern day article.

MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 07:21 PM
your right, and as soon as the human being signs his name on
anything as the authorized representative, he is now metamorphizing
himself from the human to the "office of the person"
authorized representative is a legal term, thus that denotes the end user
of the " Person"--- AND THUS THROUGH THE USER AGREEMENT,
YOU HAVE AGREED TO BECOME SURETY. you can not then
turn around and then SUE THE STATE FOR COMPELLED CONTRACT
UNDER ARTICLE 3, WHEN YOU WERE NOT SIGNATORY TO THE
CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE 3. SO THE HUMAN BEING
HAS NO RIGHT TO CONTRACT UNDER ARTICLE 3 THAT HE WAS
NOT A PARTY TOO.. the citizen has no land benefits, or common law
benefits, when his user agreement is implicity Admirality Article 1 ...

am i correct?

MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 07:30 PM
Who is Anthony Joseph? He cannot "refuse" a True Bill....that is a debt of the United States; and the "debts of the United States shall not be questioned"; period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

A US prosecutor, State prosecutor that swore to the US, or Grand Jury that is sworn in as a public official (see 18 USC section 201) that returns an indictment with a TRUE BILL....has just produced a debt....a military infraction....and IT WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED.



The answer is in wiki

The Eleventh Amendment, the first amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gave diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state."

This means that the U.S. and all the "states" have sovereign immunity over citizens.

The amendment's text does not mention suits brought against a state by its own citizens. However, in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999):

[S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself....Nor can we conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.[1]

They were telling you here that the "Federal Government" controlled the decision as to whether or not the States could be sued by citizens. It was a given that the U.S. (federal) Government could not be sued by citizens or the States...because the States agreed to become Suzerains under the Powers of the President and US Congress, while sitting at the Seat of Government. "While sitting" means "as long as the President allows them to sit".

motla68
04-22-11, 07:34 PM
Yep, representing it is the act of memorializing a document, living man becomes dead man.

MEMORIAL. A petition or representation made by one or more individuals to a legislative or other body. When such instrument is addressed to a court, it is called a petition.
- 1856 Bouviers Dictionary

Now check out Signatory as in Authorized Signatory and see what you come up with?

Anthony Joseph
04-22-11, 07:46 PM
Who is MYSTICONE?

MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 08:11 PM
Are you the "grantor" or beneficiary of the Trust? No. Under Grantor-Grantee Law....take a wild guess as to who is in control. And, since it is "their Posterity" that are the trustees....if you screw with "their best interest"; then you are a bad trustee/grantee and considered by the Grantor and Beneficiaries to be an absconding debtor...and the Grantor will un-Grant your Granted Civil Rights and toss you in for being a bad Trustee/Cow/Slave.

David Merrill
04-22-11, 09:22 PM
Who is MYSTICONE?


I think it safe to presume Mysticone is an associate of sorts with Motla68. For a moment I thought Motla was clowning around with double-registration. The posts, albeit I am only skimming seem rather informative albeit like I posted herein, irrelevant for affecting remedy. This part is revealing:


I AM THE HUMAN BEING, thus im SUING YOU AS A ARTICLE 3, EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT SIGNATORY TO THE CONSTITUTION, yOU WERE NOT ONE OF THE 39 SIGNERS-

To stay on topic first and foremost I just have to say, all seriousness aside, that I do not think the 'saving to suitors' clause is asinine. Which is to say silly like a donkey. I don't think is arsine or even essene.

The whole premise in this thread is the stuff headaches are made out of because there is nothing so asinine as this notion that only the original 39 signors are party to the Constitution in a couple court cases where the courts speak of being party to the Constitution. I should just blurt the obvious - these guys are dead!


http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/2707/consutionrepresentative.jpg

How anybody can interpret this to mean those dead guys is beyond me! Read carefully:


http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5364/constitutionprivateciti.jpg

How is the Constitution going to hurt me? A nasty papercut?

Here are some parties to the Constitution who can hurt me with it!

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2062/oathsamelson103.jpg
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9089/oathsamelson209.jpg
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8332/hansenoath.jpg

Well, actually they are not parties to the constitutions because they are poor examples. [Am I to be faulted for only collecting faulty oaths?] The first one is obviously to a vacant office because he waited sixty days too late to subscribe and publish. The second one is valid but the last two are swearing without proper form - that is to say you cannot swear unless you state by what punishing authority - like God, a stack of bibles or My Mother's Grave. But I think any thinking person realizes that to consider the original representatives of the twelve states to be parties to the Constitution absurd... no, wait, the key typo here is asinine.

Whereas the 'saving to suitors' clause is still found in the Statutes at Large and is codified at Title 28 U.S.C. §1333 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001333----000-.html). You might have a little trouble recognizing it because Congress doesn't seem to want to admit (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001333----000-notes.html) that the Constitution itself is originally an international document between twelve independent nation-states.


The “saving to suitors” clause in sections 41 (3) and 371 (3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words “any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled” for the words “the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” The substituted language is simpler and more expressive of the original intent of Congress and is in conformity with Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing the distinction between law and equity.

So to entertain myself I conjure up a seminar lecture where Mysticone is teaching this to a few people and somebody raises their hand and stops his lecture; But... aren't those 39 men all dead by now?

There is a lot of stuff being posted and I watch mainly because it is fascinating that people get drawn into it - and the thread takes off and gets a lot of attention. It is almost like people would rather be confused and then arise out of the abracadabra a pontiff able to recite and belch it just to fascinate others.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Michael Joseph
04-22-11, 09:41 PM
Are you the "grantor" or beneficiary of the Trust? No. Under Grantor-Grantee Law....take a wild guess as to who is in control. And, since it is "their Posterity" that are the trustees....if you screw with "their best interest"; then you are a bad trustee/grantee and considered by the Grantor and Beneficiaries to be an absconding debtor...and the Grantor will un-Grant your Granted Civil Rights and toss you in for being a bad Trustee/Cow/Slave.

Comes now Michael Joseph a regenerate man speaking for his estate in the office of Trustee - upon the dominions of Michael Joseph, as Trustee per Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the original trust agreement; and, recognizing the foreign State, United States as a concurrent jurisdiction and separate overlay upon the land - created and belonging to Yehovah - "go forth and take dominion" and placed into Trust - Yehovah Saves - in Yehoshuah the head of the Commonwealth of Yisra'el - Election of Yehovah - the body Elect - Trustees speaking for the Original Estate - in accord with Laws of Nations, but absent binding; and,

Whereas, I michael joseph, am absent status of Trustee for the United States and/or its persons (artificial or otherwise); and,

Whereas, I michael joseph, am absent status of beneficiary of the United States and/or its persons (artificial or otherwise); and,

the States being held as Dependents of the United States - a sort of International Sovereign to the States; wherein the States being Domestic Sovereigns according to their surveys and boundaries - wherein; said States agreed to the Compact in silence as clearly recognized at Padelford AND the 1st Judiciary Act as the United States tells said States what they can and will do; and said Persons under the shadow of the United States being subject to the :1) Laws of the United States 2) International Treaties and 3)Constitution made by the United States for the United States of America; and,

Whereas, I michael joseph wishing to exercise my right of self determination as codified in the Holy Scriptures AND Laws of Nations form a union with my family; whereupon I exercise rights of Trustee as High Priest and Husbandman in Yisra'el; a member of the Body acting in the Name of Yehoshuah my Sovereign; speaking with the Power [Dynamite] of the Word of Yehovah - Who shall lay any charge upon Yehovah's Elect?; it is Yehovah the justifieth; and, recognizing the trust relationships that exist today in Cestui Que Vie Trust; held in Trust by Military as Trustee AND Civil Government as Trustee in one man - President and Commander in Chief; not wishing to Trespass and sin upon those offices I remain without by CHOICE; a man seeking peace - foraging in the field performing husbandry for my family - speaking in the Name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I remain the loyal servant of my Sovereign.

-------------------------------

According to the United States - that trust is a Testamentary Trust as the Grantors are all dead. The original Settlors [the true Sovereigns] are all dead but the Posterity [and Ourselves] are for whom that trust was made; and, as such, I will not Trespass their Survey.

1. Survey
2. Claim of Use - based on Survey
3. Put Claim of Use into Trust as Trust Corpus = Trust Property; wherein Property = Right of Use
4. Split the Use - Legal manages the Use; Equitable has the Right of Use

But I am Not Trustee or Beneficiary. Now let us go to Charge. Whoever issues a charge must discharge the charge upon His own estate. Laws of Contracts. Who holds the Estate in Trust? - Trustee! Can a Trustee be beneficiary at same time? Absolutely, if there are other beneficiaries at the same time. Therefore Officer is Trustee and Officer issued the Charge based on his Dominions - HIS SURVEY.

Now, therefore the Earth belongs to Yehovah and all that is in it. Man surveys the Earth and places certain Uses into Trust, based on Said Survey, to Control. The TRUST PROPERTY is the USE. Who has the Right of Use? Well that depends on what Survey you are upon?

--------------------------------------------

Now the question remains - how will we keep the peace? By Agreement! Laws of Nations seems like a good agreement. Moral Person only takes two - Husband and Wife. The Two become ONE.

One says, but you use our Intangible Money; you use the gas provided by our Corporations - Blah, blah, blah....what you now make a claim on God?

Comes now Michael Joseph, as Priest speaking in the Name of Yehoshauh my Savior in whom I trust; absent intent to trespass but to live in peace, if possible, with my neighbor; respecting other venues and jurisdictions but living according to the law of necessity - absent claim upon any Legal Name or Cestui Que Trust within another venue, jurisdiction, overlay or district; and, with full faith and full liability assumed before Yehovah my Elohiym.

What you gonna put you Intangible Money on Me? You gonna now trespass my Estate? Let Yehovah judge this day between me and thee. For Dan-i-el - Yehovah is my Judge.

What shall we do about this? Shall I go and register my Trust at the UN and beg for their justification and recognition? Shall I create my own Intangible Property based on my own Survey [dominion] and await a Soul to "sign up" for benefits handed down by King Michael Joseph?

Believe me I have in me the power in words and knowledge to Settle such a Trust [new State] and I could noticed the OAS and the UN and international banking and then according to established Law [who settled that Law], I could follow the protocols and await the six months so that other States might have a chance to review and comment on my Survey and Claim; perhaps they remain silent and I get agreement or perhaps not.

The CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST [w/ssn] has been made available for one to come aboard and dock to the STATE. TRUST and TRUST. The framers knowing not to commit Adultery; yet man[kind] today is dumb as a box of rocks doing it every day -" that ain't me". Open thou mouth o' fool - and argue against the Trustee - Trustee de son Tort is a sin most times not forgiven.

Yehovah = Settlor of the express Trust - Word of Yehovah
Yehoshuah = Trustee = manifestation of the Word of Yehovah in Flesh
Elect/Priest = Trustee
Yisra'el = Trustee
Commonweath of Yisra'el = Body [State if you like] - in accord with Laws of Nations - a Moral Person
Survey and Claim : Gen 1 and Gen 2
Trust Bylaws = Books of Moses and Prophets

Will you be as Eve and argue and give up your dominion? Or will you be as Yehoshuah and quote your Standing back to the Adversary? - Mat 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.

Comes now Michael Joseph of the Nomen family speaking for his family and estate, a regenerate man in the faith of Yehoshua H’Mashiach and making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right making a special appearance in the Name of my Sovereign Yehoshauh:

Now, we can match like up to like: Trustee to Trustee - State to State;

Just as Yehovah expressed all into Yehoshuah; and Yehoshuah became all in all; Pharaoh expressed all into Joseph, as Trustee to run his kingdom; giving Joseph the king's Seal and announcing Joseph before the people - 'this is my Son in whom I am well pleased'.

What you think the kingdom of Yehovah is Spiritual ONLY? It is a way of life. It is the essence of life. And I for one am pleased to pick up the Trust - I believe I never dropped it - expressed in a former age - before the foundation of this Age - Who will go for us, was the call - Here am I, send me - was the response.

MYSTICONE
04-22-11, 10:30 PM
IT has a basis in International Law via having the Right via Treaty
YOU are not International..YOU are citizens.
You are a citizen....THEIR CITIZEN....and until you "come out" of that condition; then you are their subject....as Agreed to in International Law
it is not their fault that your mom and/or dad didn't teach you the "laws of the land" or the "rules of the game" or whatever.
the 72 hours is under "THEIR" regulation Z
it is their law....they hold it by copyright
and they will either let you use it or revoke your priviledge to use it....based on whatever they decide is best when someone violates THEIR Copyright without Standing and without Agreement....and/or without "THEIR" license to practice with their copyrights

I have Immunity by agreement...you are still a slave by agreement
I came out
I went to "the source"
I got the peace agreement
I know the International Law, the National Law and the Common Law
I am saying that INTERNATIONAL LAW IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and that

the Law of Nations is NATURAL LAW


You don't even own your contract rights
the United States owns you and therefore your right to contract is at the "good will and pleasure of your Master"
You are a subject citizen debtor slave

READ PADDLEFORD VERY CAREFULLY, THE LAST PARAGRAPH,
NO PRIVATE PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN,
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS OF CONTRACT UNDER THE US, ONLY
THE STATES HAVE OPPORTUNITY OF REDRESS.

if you want sovereign/diplomatic immunity, form your own NATION STATE,
AS PER THE UN CHARTER THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION.

Michael Joseph
04-22-11, 10:40 PM
So to entertain myself I conjure up a seminar lecture where Mysticone is teaching this to a few people and somebody raises their hand and stops his lecture; But... aren't those 39 men all dead by now?

There is a lot of stuff being posted and I watch mainly because it is fascinating that people get drawn into it - and the thread takes off and gets a lot of attention. It is almost like people would rather be confused and then arise out of the abracadabra a pontiff able to recite and belch it just to fascinate others.



Regards,

David Merrill.


A testamentary trust is by its name one which the Grantors are now dead. But the Grantors and Settlors established their Survey and made their Claim and the Trust escapes Laws of Perpetuity because Trustee is unnamed and beneficiary is unnamed - Ourselves and our Posterity. As long as there is an Heir alive of the original Settlors/Grantors then the Trust shall survive.

A survey and claim can be made upon a NAME as well. And perhaps that Name shall be placed on a Trust Asset Registry and the Asset might be given a Number and one may come along one day and Use said numbered name and become a Constitutor. Or perhaps not.

What is the converse? If not subjects of the United States, then subjects of the King of England? Fact is Yisra'el wanted a man-king. And today Yisra'el is dealing with that mistake. Chisolm v. Georgia recognizes that fact - the Sovereign's are the Settlors of the Trust - New State - HELLO - these are SOVEREIGN ONLY TO THE EXTENT as defined by boundary and survey WITHIN their TRUST. It is their gig!

What you think you have to use that NAME? There is always a choice.

Michael Joseph
04-22-11, 11:20 PM
IT has a basis in International Law via having the Right via Treaty
YOU are not International..YOU are citizens.
You are a citizen....THEIR CITIZEN....and until you "come out" of that condition; then you are their subject....as Agreed to in International Law
it is not their fault that your mom and/or dad didn't teach you the "laws of the land" or the "rules of the game" or whatever.
the 72 hours is under "THEIR" regulation Z
it is their law....they hold it by copyright
and they will either let you use it or revoke your priviledge to use it....based on whatever they decide is best when someone violates THEIR Copyright without Standing and without Agreement....and/or without "THEIR" license to practice with their copyrights

I have Immunity by agreement...you are still a slave by agreement
I came out
I went to "the source"
I got the peace agreement
I know the International Law, the National Law and the Common Law
I am saying that INTERNATIONAL LAW IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and that

the Law of Nations is NATURAL LAW


You don't even own your contract rights
the United States owns you and therefore your right to contract is at the "good will and pleasure of your Master"
You are a subject citizen debtor slave

READ PADDLEFORD VERY CAREFULLY, THE LAST PARAGRAPH,
NO PRIVATE PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN,
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS OF CONTRACT UNDER THE US, ONLY
THE STATES HAVE OPPORTUNITY OF REDRESS.

if you want sovereign/diplomatic immunity, form your own NATION STATE,
AS PER THE UN CHARTER THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION.

MYSTICONE your presentments express similar ideas expressed by the man David Parker (http://oneradionetwork.com/?s=right+of+self+determination&x=0&y=0)

your presentment is "framed" within a context of one enjoining or engaging a particular Trust/State. I have found in my life that there are only two trusts - trust in God or trust in man. Therefore when man raises up to oppress other men - I raise up with Power and Faith quoting the Word of Yehovah - and I can tell you that without exception - I have been met with smiles and looks on faces - please don't come in here with that.

What you want me to ACT for their creation? The Trustee ONLY has that Power. So I am neither trustee or beneficiary and I am without said trust - noticing the Military to call off the dogs - and you would place me within a particular venue and jurisdiction or district? I think NOT. Will you trespass me now? I promise I shall convene a court and my Sovereign will not let it slide.

Yet, I can see your point. The problem inherently is CHOICE. Because some men choose to not beleive in God - as Pharaoh said "I know not your God." So how to keep the peace? One says by International Agreement. But that presupposes Classes of Peoples. Controllers and the Controlled.

Then I heard another man say but Knowledge will always Rule Ignorance - that is True too. Thus the Scripture "study to show THYSELF approved."

I have the faith to tell that nation [mountain] to cast itself into the Admiralty [sea]. I notice that when Satan tempted Yehoshuah, he could only offer the kingdoms of the Earth - Heaven is not his domain - and Yehoshuah overtook dominion and established again the rightful Kingdom of God on Earth as in Heaven.

I have read the charters, I know all about them. I have also read fully the Laws of Nations. And I know it only takes TWO to form a moral person.

I can guarantee you that I would NEVER complain to any State regarding my Rights. For my Rights are NOT held in Trust within some State! The only thing the State can see is its Persons - therefore no man has standing because HE IS NOT TRUSTEE.

Lets look at that Saving to Suitors clause carefully - Suitors Court a Maiden - She will not make herself available to one of lower estate - She wants one of equal Standing. Trustee or Settlor. And look at those footnotes - that ole boy claimed he was Ambassador to the King of Saxony - and he claimed UNDER the laws of the United States. So while he cannot waive immunity in the FRAMING of STATE, he claimed UNDER a foreign Flag/State - and therefore the United States had Jurisdiction.

My immunity is also by agreement - and I am also a slave by agreement - both given by my Sovereign.

For the Reader that is having trouble - MYSTICONE is indeed correct in regard to established International Protocols concerning Trust Formations and International Law. MYSTICONE frames his presentments within these constructs and indeed if you will read and study Trust Law you will be head and shoulders above your peers - see Scripture for that required reading.


-----------------
continuing...

Michael Joseph
04-22-11, 11:22 PM
The RIGHT of Self Determination - granted within what frame? Any one familiar with NLP is familiar with framing a reference. Therefore, that Right is equivalent to Property. And Property is a Right of Use. Therefore Right implies a Trust. Therefore, one must ask who settled this word of art termed "The Right of Self Determination". This term is magick.

And if one were to Claim said Right [Property] is that one Benefiting from the Use of a Law? or Bylaw? Whose Trust was that Law settled? In other words who is the higher power? If we are talking about man's law then there must be a singularity a beginning. And the question begging to be answered is Who was the Creator? Or said another way, who first performed the first Trust Deed? Was it the Pope in 1302 - Unam Sanctum?

If the Pope in 1302 forms the basis of Trust law with the Trust Deed of Unam Sanctum, if I claim the "Right of Self Determination" do I come under the Popes Shadow?

Yet, my Scripture and my heart tells me there seems to be two trusts here. One in the Creator God - the Self Existing One - YHVH and man's creation. My heart tells me that to trust in man is to be cursed. To trust in God is to be blessed. Yet, societies form for the good of man and man enters into business relationships. How to do so is based on agreements. And effectively Trust. Therefore, will one be competent and Stand in and for his estate - Trustee; on behalf of his Posterity? In peace absent trespass beside or abutting or adjacent to other concurrent jurisdictions and venues?

Yet prior to Self Determination one must be able to effectively identify the Self, yes? Please with specificity identify the self? In reality it cannot be done. Therefore Trusts are created and sub-trusts are created and it is the sub-trust that is identified because it is absolutely Impossible to identify a living soul. The Self - the true me - with my Intellect [spirit] intact - is impossible to identify.

You say, absurdity, yes? Then please tell me how you will identify the Flesh? Everything about the Flesh can be manipulated. And if you consider the Thought process even that too can be erased. So now, I await the one who will step forward and solve the argument that has been the "CONTEMPT OF GENERATIONS" - how to identify the Self. Because before the Right of "Self" Determination can be Claimed one must be able to determine the identity of the Self.

Remember Right is equivalent to Property and Property goes to Trust and Trust goes to Uses and the Uses are Split into two titles in the Trust. And Property has nothing to do with the Form of Matter or Form of Thought. Property goes to Right of Use of the Form of Matter and Form of Thought.


If a living soul should DECIDE to lower himself [masculine = femine for the purposes of this writing] into a lower estate by claiming UNDER a deficient status or estate, then that is the self realization or aware choice that has been made. But to be fully with the cognizance of choice one with the awareness would be sure to know the obligations of his choice, yes?

Is it the duty of an other man to make another aware? I say emphatically No. If one chooses to be ignorant, then let him be ignorant. Let him complain and writhe in the mire. When he stops complaining and pointing outward, then perhaps he can be helped to look inward to resolve his issues. Until then, let him eat the food with the hogs. Yet, if he will return to the Father's house he will be received with great joy.

If one with the aware condition decides to enjoin or engage a lower condition, then, yes, that one should be with the cognizance of the higher powers of that condition. This conversation of course goes to man wants a leader that he can see. A leader that will go before him and fight his battles for him and do all of the dirty repugnant work for him. That way man will be with a clean conscious and the dirty work is left to mans representative.

Man wants his delicious chicken sandwich, yet he does not want to engage his mind to realize the manner in which that sandwich is made ready for his consumption - to see the chicken farms where they are bred by the hundreds of thousands in horrific conditions - is not expedient to enjoying the delicious sandwich. Therefore, we shall leave that task to our representative, yes? So that we with the choice can enjoy the byproduct of our intention - the delicious sandwich - and our conscious remains clear. Is that being aware?

Yet, this model is impossible in a society because the so called representative comes "out of" the Society to lead a repugnant ignorant public. Therefore the representative lies to the Public feeding back to the Public the impossibility of solving all of their problems. An irrational game, yet the public has been controlled for a little over a Century with Irrational Thought patterns. Feed the Self whatever it wants is the irrational thought of this day - it promotes peace. What then when the candy store runs out of candy?

Aware of what? My being? Do my thoughts ripple thru your mind like the waves on a pond caused by a singular pebble dropped within it? No, then don't respond. Yes, then engage and prove my point. We are ALL aware and we all are like little pebbles being dropped into a pond and our actions are as the waves and those waves "interact" with each other to change the pre-existing condition.

So what then of choice? Choice framed when and where? Of course you and I are both aware beings. With the Choice to decide - how will we shape our destinies. We shape our destinies by our singular choice. Our Choice to do or not to do a thing impacts others.

I choose, therefore I am aware. I choose, therefore I am with the responsibility and obligation.

I reject the notion that the frame is conditional to ones awareness. Is a 16 year old aware of the ramifications of endorsing the Federal Reserve System? Yet he chooses to work and get a paycheck and have a banking account and endorse the Federal Reserve System and thusly he is with the Responsibility and the Obligation of that Choice - even though said choice was made in ignorance. The boy Acted and implied his trust. The boy is aware that he is getting some increase; yet, he is unaware of the nature of the trust he has enjoined.

We are informed that the Kingdom of Heaven is within and without. I change myself by my choice and I impact others by my change. Self awareness of the realization that I indeed need to change. Where said change is realized within the construct of my conscious thought.

I now await all of the gainsayers to report back to me according to Plato, I am asleep. I await your proof. Yet please undergird my position and respond to this open door. I'm waiting....


I do not think we can discuss the Self without going to Philosophy. And inevitably we are going to end up at Origins. What is the Self and who Created it? Those questions beg for something greater than Us and someone that is without us; yet, perhaps that one, is also within us. Or said another way dwells with us in our Intellect - Spirit. The Self being the True me - Nephesh as the Hebrews say [crossing over].

Yet the Self also goes to Identity. And Identity goes to construct. Identity where and per whose terms. Shall I use a name to identify my Self? That name is an operation of mathematics / law = model - that lowers my True Self - Soul. If I use a name to "help" me with relationships, then my name is amongst other names. Is not a name a claim? Of course it is. Yet, we live in Society so we need a way of dealing with each other and names seem to be a practical solution. Yet see that a name is a persona and as such a means to belittle man - a mask. I heard a clerk say more than once - "Can I have your name, Sir?" Will I grant an agency over my Self to another?

Then I heard another speak of a Legal Name. Is that the Self? Or is this just a choice to further degrade the Self? Legal to what construct? Legal goes to Trust. So then who holds the titles in and for that Legal Name?

Now man has lowered his Self with a name and now there is a further Choice to use a Legal Name. The Self is without the naming convention - the name is just a label to belittle - the Self is Supreme and Divine. All Souls are Mine sayeth YHVH. Yet if the choice is made to belittle one's self, then the idea of diversity comes into play. All souls belong to YHVH as Creator - then vested in Yehoshua, as Trustee - we as Owners - owners of what - Owner goes to who has the Right of Use - we do with Choice. Yet, if the Creator decides to Act against his creation - He hardened Pharoah's heart - The Creator is with that Ability as Creator.


Diversity goes to Construct. Diversity from what?

Exploring the so called Right of Self Determination.....Who granted that Right? Was it a man or are man's conventions just reflecting the greater light. Sort of like the moon reflects the light of the sun - said another way - are man's writings just reflecting the idea that the Right of Self Determination is a grant from the Creator we are with Choice to choose ye this day. Life or Death - Jeremiah 17:5 or 17:7.

Therefore man is without the ability to grant Divine Rights, yet man can recognize that those Rights = Property = Ability to Use exist. As such, do I require a Society to recognize my path? Yes and No.

The question remains, what are your express intentions and how will you live at peace with your neighbor absent trespass? Mistakes happen; yet, will you express your willingness to come to the table with Standing to show your Responsibility and Accountability?

I heard one say - nonsense. Why must I be compelled to do such a thing? Do you live alone on an island? Or do you interact with others daily? I'll wager the latter. Now the question only remains how will you express this Self Determination? And tell me how do you plan on identifying your Self?

motla68
04-23-11, 12:00 AM
Comes now Michael Joseph a regenerate man speaking for his estate in the office of Trustee - upon the dominions of Michael Joseph, as Trustee per Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the original trust agreement; and, recognizing the foreign State, United States as a concurrent jurisdiction and separate overlay upon the land - created and belonging to Yehovah - "go forth and take dominion" and placed into Trust - Yehovah Saves - in Yehoshuah the head of the Commonwealth of Yisra'el - Election of Yehovah - the body Elect - Trustees speaking for the Original Estate - in accord with Laws of Nations, but absent binding; and,

Whereas, I michael joseph, am absent status of Trustee for the United States and/or its persons (artificial or otherwise); and,

Whereas, I michael joseph, am absent status of beneficiary of the United States and/or its persons (artificial or otherwise); and,

the States being held as Dependents of the United States - a sort of International Sovereign to the States; wherein the States being Domestic Sovereigns according to their surveys and boundaries - wherein; said States agreed to the Compact in silence as clearly recognized at Padelford AND the 1st Judiciary Act as the United States tells said States what they can and will do; and said Persons under the shadow of the United States being subject to the :1) Laws of the United States 2) International Treaties and 3)Constitution made by the United States for the United States of America; and,

Whereas, I michael joseph wishing to exercise my right of self determination as codified in the Holy Scriptures AND Laws of Nations form a union with my family; whereupon I exercise rights of Trustee as High Priest and Husbandman in Yisra'el; a member of the Body acting in the Name of Yehoshuah my Sovereign; speaking with the Power [Dynamite] of the Word of Yehovah - Who shall lay any charge upon Yehovah's Elect?; it is Yehovah the justifieth; and, recognizing the trust relationships that exist today in Cestui Que Vie Trust; held in Trust by Military as Trustee AND Civil Government as Trustee in one man - President and Commander in Chief; not wishing to Trespass and sin upon those offices I remain without by CHOICE; a man seeking peace - foraging in the field performing husbandry for my family - speaking in the Name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I remain the loyal servant of my Sovereign.

-------------------------------

According to the United States - that trust is a Testamentary Trust as the Grantors are all dead. The original Settlors [the true Sovereigns] are all dead but the Posterity [and Ourselves] are for whom that trust was made; and, as such, I will not Trespass their Survey.

1. Survey
2. Claim of Use - based on Survey
3. Put Claim of Use into Trust as Trust Corpus = Trust Property; wherein Property = Right of Use
4. Split the Use - Legal manages the Use; Equitable has the Right of Use

But I am Not Trustee or Beneficiary. Now let us go to Charge. Whoever issues a charge must discharge the charge upon His own estate. Laws of Contracts. Who holds the Estate in Trust? - Trustee! Can a Trustee be beneficiary at same time? Absolutely, if there are other beneficiaries at the same time. Therefore Officer is Trustee and Officer issued the Charge based on his Dominions - HIS SURVEY.

Now, therefore the Earth belongs to Yehovah and all that is in it. Man surveys the Earth and places certain Uses into Trust, based on Said Survey, to Control. The TRUST PROPERTY is the USE. Who has the Right of Use? Well that depends on what Survey you are upon?

--------------------------------------------

Now the question remains - how will we keep the peace? By Agreement! Laws of Nations seems like a good agreement. Moral Person only takes two - Husband and Wife. The Two become ONE.

One says, but you use our Intangible Money; you use the gas provided by our Corporations - Blah, blah, blah....what you now make a claim on God?

Comes now Michael Joseph, as Priest speaking in the Name of Yehoshauh my Savior in whom I trust; absent intent to trespass but to live in peace, if possible, with my neighbor; respecting other venues and jurisdictions but living according to the law of necessity - absent claim upon any Legal Name or Cestui Que Trust within another venue, jurisdiction, overlay or district; and, with full faith and full liability assumed before Yehovah my Elohiym.

What you gonna put you Intangible Money on Me? You gonna now trespass my Estate? Let Yehovah judge this day between me and thee. For Dan-i-el - Yehovah is my Judge.

What shall we do about this? Shall I go and register my Trust at the UN and beg for their justification and recognition? Shall I create my own Intangible Property based on my own Survey [dominion] and await a Soul to "sign up" for benefits handed down by King Michael Joseph?

Believe me I have in me the power in words and knowledge to Settle such a Trust [new State] and I could noticed the OAS and the UN and international banking and then according to established Law [who settled that Law], I could follow the protocols and await the six months so that other States might have a chance to review and comment on my Survey and Claim; perhaps they remain silent and I get agreement or perhaps not.

The CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST [w/ssn] has been made available for one to come aboard and dock to the STATE. TRUST and TRUST. The framers knowing not to commit Adultery; yet man[kind] today is dumb as a box of rocks doing it every day -" that ain't me". Open thou mouth o' fool - and argue against the Trustee - Trustee de son Tort is a sin most times not forgiven.

Yehovah = Settlor of the express Trust - Word of Yehovah
Yehoshuah = Trustee = manifestation of the Word of Yehovah in Flesh
Elect/Priest = Trustee
Yisra'el = Trustee
Commonweath of Yisra'el = Body [State if you like] - in accord with Laws of Nations - a Moral Person
Survey and Claim : Gen 1 and Gen 2
Trust Bylaws = Books of Moses and Prophets

Will you be as Eve and argue and give up your dominion? Or will you be as Yehoshuah and quote your Standing back to the Adversary? - Mat 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.

Comes now Michael Joseph of the Nomen family speaking for his family and estate, a regenerate man in the faith of Yehoshua H’Mashiach and making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right making a special appearance in the Name of my Sovereign Yehoshauh:

Now, we can match like up to like: Trustee to Trustee - State to State;

Just as Yehovah expressed all into Yehoshuah; and Yehoshuah became all in all; Pharaoh expressed all into Joseph, as Trustee to run his kingdom; giving Joseph the king's Seal and announcing Joseph before the people - 'this is my Son in whom I am well pleased'.

What you think the kingdom of Yehovah is Spiritual ONLY? It is a way of life. It is the essence of life. And I for one am pleased to pick up the Trust - I believe I never dropped it - expressed in a former age - before the foundation of this Age - Who will go for us, was the call - Here am I, send me - was the response.

Good post, I like it.

Hosea 4:6 " because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. "

Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

But what about Providence, how does that play into your post or not?

Interestingly though I only find Providence once and that is in Acts 24:2, also concordance for speech says: feminine noun. This seems similar to mother earth / statute of liberty, call it her in their pledges e.t.c.

Michael Joseph
04-23-11, 12:15 AM
Good post, I like it.

Hosea 4:6 " because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. "

Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

But what about Providence, how does that play into your post or not?

Interestingly though I only find Providence once and that is in Acts 24:2, also concordance for speech says: feminine noun. This seems similar to mother earth / statute of liberty, call it her in their pledges e.t.c.

Providence is where Yehovah established the Throne of David and said it is an Eternal Kingdom. Regarding your mother earth and statues - I can go to Mystery Babylon but I choose not to.

MYSTICONE makes a good point. And in fact his points are shown time and again in the movies - remember the one who was shot in the head for denying the Codex - Pirates of the Carribean.

Cain has been building the city for a long time now. Look at the roots of his name they are interesting. Trafficker. A constitution is for only one goal - Traffick.

Yehovah gave his people a national identity in Him. See Acts 17:28. When you talk TRUST LAW there is always a "higher power".

Man's survey, then Claim, then Use, then Split Title - manage/Use and Right of Use - lead one back to Man - who Created Man?

But Man will say - but since Yisra'el is in BREACH OF TRUST - remember what they said at 1st Sam 8: "we want a man king" - that Yehovah's GRANTED the Deed - in Saul. The Divine Right of Kings. I can tell you Reader there are some who will NEVER drop the Trust of Yehovah - Election. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?182-Election-of-Yehovah&p=1545&viewfull=1#post1545) Not in this Age, the Former Age or the Age to Come.

motla68
04-23-11, 12:29 AM
So far as Mysticone goes, no I really have not idea who it is, could be anyone. Our study groups have spread so far and wide with same theme but they have different names as encouraged to make their new founded knowledge their own. There is study groups even stretching out to Australia, New Zealand, UK and of course Canada.

David Merrill
04-23-11, 12:43 AM
A testamentary trust is by its name one which the Grantors are now dead. But the Grantors and Settlors established their Survey and made their Claim and the Trust escapes Laws of Perpetuity because Trustee is unnamed and beneficiary is unnamed - Ourselves and our Posterity. As long as there is an Heir alive of the original Settlors/Grantors then the Trust shall survive.

That in context means that the bloodline of the Representatives of the Twelve States are the only Parties to the Constitution in Padelford. - Absurd; Asenine.

The parties to the Constitution are the Signatories. The Signatories are Offices validated by the Officials seated. The original 39 Signers were not men, they were States. The men signing were signing for the States.


Neh 10:28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;

Neh 10:29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;

That is where it began to be so. As the Babylonian Jews captured the Israelites of Jerusalem. Conquest. They were signing the first Constitution.


Neh 10:1 Now those that sealed were, Nehemiah, the Tirshatha, the son of Hachaliah, and Zidkijah, Neh 10:2 Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah...

Nehemiah was an Official. That oath made him party to the Laws of Moses.


They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law...

Tirshatha was a Babylonian Marshal;


Of foreign derivation; the title of a Persian deputy or governor: - Tirshatha.

Even looking at the Original 13th Amendment exposes this revelation.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_973.jpg

You read that and you have to wonder, Why would they deport you for accepting a gift from a foreign king or government? Of course they wouldn't! If you were a citizen of the US you were a government employee or official. You would lose your position as an official (citizen) because now you had accepted a gift from a foreign king or government.

The Israelites were the citizens (officials) because they had been captured. They were under the seige of a foreign occupation - the (Babylonian) Jews. So they had to stand there all morning and get their Notice of the Law - the Laws of Moses. Some people think it was the Torah (Pentateuch) but that would take way too long for an oral reading.

At a gist, that is the entire thread topic - about the Lieber Code and such. The Trading with the Enemy Act (1917) was utilized for the War of 1933 (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_FDRs_inaugural_declaration.jpg) (against the Great Depression) and it stood heavily on the Emergency of 1861 for its foundation. But that was lifted in 1976. You can try to explain it in trust structures all you like, the Emergency is still alive simply by virtue that lawful money in America is fiat - the US Note - 1863. The remedy available is to redeem FRNs in lawful money. If you try asserting the Lieber Code it will make no sense outside the scope of the fiat. Read some outdated doctrine:


http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=388&d=1303519007

Then look at its modern counterpart:


http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=387&d=1303519005

You can tell that in the current state of peace, there is required to be some form of riot or insurrection that exceeds judicial power to suppress.


http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/8799/safetyclause.jpg

It manifests today in lack of an Enabling Clause. - In the term Necessity.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Michael Joseph
04-23-11, 01:32 AM
David Merrill this is very timely. I am studying Ezra and Nehemiah currently. I will look now with new eyes. In fact, i will be tracing every word in the manuscripts to see.

Nehemiah looked to rebuild the Wall; yet, Under Persia as International Sovereign - I believe actually Esther was the Queen spoken of in :


Neh 2:6 And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.

That would mean that Jerusalem would be a province of Persia. And that Nehemiah while being elected to be in charge was also bound to keep the king's law and extract tribute for the king as well. We find also that some are extracting Usury from their brothers and Nehemiah makes them agree to stop.


Neh 5:1 And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews.

Neh 5:3 Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth.

Neh 5:4 There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards.

Neh 5:5 Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards.

Yisra'el was not allowed to take another in Yisra'el as slave unless there was consent. And then the bondman was to be released in the 7th year.


Neh 5:7 Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them.

Neh 5:8 And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, which were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace, and found nothing to answer.

Neh 5:9 Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies?

Comment: These knew Torah. Nehemiah did not have need to remind them. They were just not keeping it.


Neh 5:10 I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.

Neh 5:12 Then said they, We will restore them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do as thou sayest. Then I called the priests, [B]and took an oath of them, that they should do according to this promise.



Comment: These knew of Torah and they of free will made a promise and took an oath before men and before Yehovah.


Neh 5:13 Also I shook my lap, and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labour, that performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out, and emptied. And all the congregation said, Amen, and praised the LORD. And the people did according to this promise.

Comment: Nehemiah appeals to a higher Court - Let Yehovah deal with the unrighteous.


Neh 5:18 Now that which was prepared for me daily was one ox and six choice sheep; also fowls were prepared for me, and once in ten days store of all sorts of wine: yet for all this required not I the bread of the governor, because the bondage was heavy upon this people.

H6346
פּחה
pechâh
peh-khaw'
Of foreign origin; a prefect (of a city or small district): - captain, deputy, governor.


Again, I say thanks I hope to study with this new perspective.

David Merrill
04-23-11, 01:43 AM
Comment: These knew of Torah and they of free will made a promise and took an oath before men and before Yehovah.

Albeit it might have been agreeable to abide in the Torah, the Israelites never had a choice of free will. It was and still is in the theology of Judaism - abide in Torah or perish. (The Golden Calf Imagery.)

That aside though, the Israelites had just been conquered by the Babylonian Jew. That was the civil war that evolved around a Persian king coming into Jerusalem to rebuild the walls. So even then, the constitution of Nehemiah 10 made the Laws of Moses mandatory.


Shabbat Shalom,

David Merrill.

Michael Joseph
04-23-11, 01:52 AM
That in context means that the bloodline of the Representatives of the Twelve States are the only Parties to the Constitution in Padelford. - Absurd; Asenine.

The parties to the Constitution are the Signatories. The Signatories are Offices validated by the Officials seated. The original 39 Signers were not men, they were States. The men signing were signing for the States.

Regards,

David Merrill.




There is an inconsistency here in my mind in regard to the Declaration. For it says "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The people pledge to a flag today.

Furthermore, when it becomes necessary for "one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station".......

This begs the question - who were these one People? Were they the King's subjects? What of the King's subjects in the Commonwealth of Great Britain? What makes these "one People" so special?

---------------------

So then we go to Capacity. Men seated as representatives of the States. But then we got a big problem with the PREAMBLE for the things was done for another.

The Articles of Confederation styled "The United States of America" - bound the States in Union. But here we find a new thing United States doing a thing for another. And it says there is even another corporation "We the People".

Now if the Union of the States under the Art. of Confed. was falling apart then, how could something arise "out of that estate" to cure itself? That does not make any sense at all.

The principle is the debtor is slave to the lender - how then can a slave have the capacity to redeem itself? I mean if the capacity existed prior, then why would another need to come along? Because clearly Ensminger tells us the claim is the UNITED STATES not UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

motla68
04-23-11, 02:07 AM
I would say for many circumstance quit the contrary about Liber Code and it's other attachments associated with usufructuary which govern commercial warfare:

International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents

Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). 24 April 1863.
In t r o d u c t i o n

The "Lieber Instructions" represent the first attempt to codify the laws of war. They were prepared during the American Civil War by Francis Lieber, then a professor of Columbia College in New York, revised by a board of officers and promulgated by President Lincoln. Although they were binding only on the forces of the United States, they correspond to a great extend to the laws and customs of war existing at that time. The "Lieber Instructions" strongly influenced the further codification of the laws of war and the adoption of similar regulations by other states. They formed the origin of the project of an international convention on the laws of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and stimulated the adoption of the Hague Conventions on land warfare of 1899 and 1907.

Date of adoption 24.04.1863
Number of articles 157
Authentic text English
Source D.Schindler and J.Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nihjoff Publisher, 1988, pp.3-23.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d18dc4372741256739003e6372/a25aa5871a04919bc12563cd002d65c5?OpenDocument

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Part IV : Civilian population #Section I -- General protection against effects of hostilities #Chapter VI -- Civil defence
[p.791] Article 67 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1. All treaties \1.2. Articles' - Members of the armed forces and military units assigned to civil defence organizations

2761 On the other hand, immovable property of the enemy is not war booty. Nevertheless, the Occupying State may make use of buildings, though only as administrator and usufructuary, and still subject to the second sentence.

Source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750085?OpenDocument

on that same page it shows this:

" 2757 The reference to the "laws of war" was contested, and one delegate stated that the term "war" had "been generally replaced by the term "armed conflict". (55) However, others raised the point that this expression "was a standard formula which was to be found in all legal handbooks on the subject and appeared also in paragraph 33 of the first Geneva Convention of 1949", and that it had already been discussed in connection with Article 23 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1. All treaties \1.2. Articles' ' (Other medical ships and craft), ' paragraph 2, of the Protocol. (56) "

The point here above is that the old intents STILL exists, it is not beneath them to change names and re-codify them. Another example hypothetically is instead of a perpetual National Emergency, they may have re-codified it to Emergency Preparedness and integrate themselves into local authorities of all the states.

What I have done for most things is just pull open the proverbial curtain and calling it for what it is, taking a simple approach to a broader illusion. Who was put on this earth first, man in the flesh or the Kings and their surveys? .. Then who has first claim of equitable interest in all the natural resources? I am not making claims in a legal sense for myself, but rather then the paper and ink itself came from the natural resources of the original gift given to man. Any use of even lawful money is for the basic necessity of life liberty and happiness and again not by legal construct but rather then the same as a fish who swims in a stream, a plant that grows, the bird that flies e.t.c. Not dead pieces of paper that certain entities claim that is me.
389

I could be wrong, but it seems that Suitors Clause attempts to put away equitable claims and it's courts for love of mammons law, the want for operating in admiralty?

MYSTICONE
04-23-11, 03:07 AM
So are you Saying you Are SOVEREIGN UNDER GODS DOMINION BY YOUR REFUSAL TO BE RECOGNIZED AS AN ESTATE AND EQUAL STATION AMONG THE AFFAIRS OF MEN.
DO YOU HAVE SOVERIEGN AND DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY TO TRAVEL THE GLOBE WITH PURE IMMUNITIES AS HAVING EQUAL STATION / STANDING?
OR ARE YOU PROCLAIMING YOUR FREEDOM TO NOT CONTRACT WITH THE KINGS OF THE EARTH AND RESIDE ONLY IN YOUR HUMAN BODY, AND CLAIM NO OWNERSHIP
OF NO PROPERTY- AND THUS NOT STANDING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW? YOUR BASICALLY A NOMAD WITHIN THE SURVEY OF THE US, UNLESS THE KING GIVES YOU PERMISSION
TO TRAVEL THE 7 SEAS?

Michael Joseph
04-23-11, 03:23 AM
Read the Lieber Code. Read Case Law... The Lieber Code implicity States you are not to question the Debts of the United States.
You are a Trustee/ grantee.. YOu are not signatory or Posterity to the Original Compact/Constiution, thus you have no access to Article 3.
Read the Law of Nations and the right of Self Determination. You are a Citizen and you can not question the Debt, nor Sue the State
you are a Citizen of.

For the sake of exploration, if you accept, might you explain the nature of Trustee/grantee?

It appears to me that the Equitable Title is in Cestui Que Vie Trust in Legal Name. Now, CQVT has right of use and can even grant the right of use to another but it appears to me that Never is the MANAGEMENT of the Right of Use ever conveyed without the State.

But let us be blunt - the State cannot manage use rights without its borders and boundaries. So there may be and in fact are concurrent jurisdictions over the same land. And while the United States is an independent State there appears to be other independent states that share the land in regard to concurrent jurisdiction.

I like to model it like this:

The US is at x,y,1 and other state is at x,y,2. Both have the Use of the Land according to their individual survey and boundary. But just because someone might say I am on the county Wake or the county Johnston does not mean that I am.

The CQVT may be on WAKE or JOHNSTON but that is INTERNAL affairs of the Trustee.

If a person is created in order to match up like to like, in the end, if I will not usurp the trustee and I will not be fiduciary, that construction fails.

So in reality, what you really mean is that IF you engage the Trust/State, THEN all of the formations you express, and I might say correctly, are in fact a reality.

That is just trust law 101. Else, remain without the State - forage and be upon husbandry. For what is a trust if there is no one trusting in it?

Anthony Joseph
04-23-11, 04:00 AM
I don't know who MYSTICONE is or where he came from, but he sounds like a typical agent provocateur or another "guru" who thinks he knows what's what and will use NLP-type programming and leading poll-questions in an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the simple remedy in law that is at the source of all bondage...

"...they shall be redeemed in lawful money by demand..."

It is obvious this "MYSTICONE" is cluless as to the actual reason behind filing the LoR; it is solely to establish an evidence repository whereby we form the true and correct record of events of our own affairs. We exercise that lawful court and competence in our own right as free, immune and peaceful inhabitants on the land who will not consent, agree or acquiesce to be chattel against the debt of other men and their repugnant creations. Winning the "suit" is not the goal; in fact, we expect that it will be thrown out and dismissed. What we are left with is all we wanted in the first place, our own case jacket, paid for in lawful money, in order to form the lawful, true and correct record of our affairs as courts of competent jurisdiction.

Nowhere is there any "questioning of the debt of the United States". Their debt is their debt, who is questioning that? We don't challenge it, we simply instruct them to settle it themselves since it is their own responsibilty and liability absent a willing volunteer to alleviate their burden.

To be a "citizen" or "resident" requires our knowing and willing consent, agreement or acquiescence. If we grant none of these, we are absent that character. The refusal to be the bond, surety or fiduciary is in our own right. That is evidenced by the remedies from that fealty and servitude written into all of their laws. If that were not so, then the crime of true tyranny and forced bondage could be levied against those who attempt to ensnare the people at large into debt slaves. Instead, the "legality" of contracts provides the cover and protection of would-be tyrants. Cowardly and dishonorable at their core, they utilize their legal jargon, code and intentionally misleading "agreements/contracts" to deceive the masses into voluntary servitude.

They have no rightful or lawful standing or character to claim any rights or title to any land or property while they continue their unrighteous and dishonorable maintenance of a repugnant and abominable trust formation/mechanism which has become nothing more than a harnesser and harvestor of the energy and sweat equity of every innocent living soul born on this land.

There is NO rightful and lawful claim that can be made from that standing and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. The chattelizing of human flesh and bone is one of the most repugnant and dispicable acts before the Almighty Creator since it is, in reality, a theft and kidnap of His sons and daughters for purposes completely contrary to His Divine Will and Plan.

Michael Joseph
04-23-11, 04:08 AM
So are you Saying you Are SOVEREIGN UNDER GODS DOMINION BY YOUR REFUSAL TO BE RECOGNIZED AS AN ESTATE AND EQUAL STATION AMONG THE AFFAIRS OF MEN.
DO YOU HAVE SOVERIEGN AND DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY TO TRAVEL THE GLOBE WITH PURE IMMUNITIES AS HAVING EQUAL STATION / STANDING?
OR ARE YOU PROCLAIMING YOUR FREEDOM TO NOT CONTRACT WITH THE KINGS OF THE EARTH AND RESIDE ONLY IN YOUR HUMAN BODY, AND CLAIM NO OWNERSHIP
OF NO PROPERTY- AND THUS NOT STANDING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW? YOUR BASICALLY A NOMAD WITHIN THE SURVEY OF THE US, UNLESS THE KING GIVES YOU PERMISSION
TO TRAVEL THE 7 SEAS?

I do see your point, and I do travel freely and when stopped and questioned why no papers at the end of the day, I have been met with smiles all around. But one may ask, why go thru the headache at all? Why not just establish a new Trust and Declare its standing.

According to OAS the Sovereignty of a Trust exists the moment it is created. Now clearly my wife and I form a moral person. Should we ascribe the bylaws of our union? What if we adopt Scripture? Has there been a claim on Scripture too? I jest, I know the answer is yes. But just follow along.

I am not Sovereign at all - I am just a man. But lets just say that I effect a new State [moral person under Laws of Nations]. Lets call it THE PLACE TO BE; and I, michael joseph and my wife are Settlor/Trustor and First Trustees and co-beneficiaries. Lets say we make a survey over all of North America and we claim from 12 miles out into Pacific and Atlantic and we hold the Southern and Norther boundaries of Mexico and Canada as boundaries. And within those boundaries we express other boundaries until we come to finally to the metes and bounds of some Property.

Now let us be clear - Property is NOT land. Property is Right of Use. So the Survey is made and then the Claim is made BASED on the Survey and then the Claim is placed into Trust and the Use is Split in regard to Titles. Lets say I create a Constitution for THE PLACE TO BE and michael joseph holds many offices but one in particular is Secretary of State.

Now, I might "sign up" THE PLACE TO BE upon international travel agreements such that now I can move about upon the roads such that other States using the same roads can now see me and know we are now on the same level geometric plane. And I might do the same thing for Banking, and other Treaties that I might be able to negotiate on behalf of THE PLACE TO BE.

Based on the foregoing, have the asphalt or the travel paths changed in any way? I just made my claim based on my survey of the travel path so that I now move along IN my survey; yet on the very same travel path that maybe you use on a different survey.

Now imagine that every man and woman did the same thing. Everyone has their own survey and everyone is moving about according to their own constitution and everyone is using the same stuff. What then of State? 3Billion States - assuming each State is made of two [man and wife].

What then of a King?

While i can completely see your position - most men will NEVER take full liability for themselves and as such, are destined to be governed. And if governed by what laws? And if destined to be governed, then that one has by his actions or lack thereof has agreed to be governed. I get it it is implied trust.

Yet, Trust has NOTHING to do with actual matter or thought. And has everything to do with Uses. So you are correct those laws are Copyrighted. That means they [those laws] are Private.

A trust is a private thing. Now, Michael Joseph being a name might even be a member of a family; yet if Michael Joseph refuses to USE Trust Property, then Michael Joseph can remain without the State.

Does it come to this? Joseph was alone and therefore thought to be a slave such that the Ishmaelites took him as Slave? Joseph could have said I am of Yisra'el. Even the Ishmaelites knew something was up; but questioned it not as Joseph kept his mouth shut. Ever read the Testament of Joseph?

I think there is a higher principal. Say what you are gonna do and then do it. I do not seek to trespass my brother by calling myself Sovereign. I am not. And in fact, even if I held that Title as Settlor, if I hurt another, I am bound by Higher Law to make restitution. So in no way is Yehovah's Law subordinate to Man's Trusts.

Are you sure I am within the Survey of the United States? Why would you say that?


What is Ownership within a Trust Structure? (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?84-Trust-Law-in-repoducible-terms-Mathematics&p=380&viewfull=1#post380)

The Registered Owner is the CESTUI QUE TRUST; wherein resides Equitable Title. The Legal Title remains with the Trustee. Therefore to Claim Ownership is to be upon Trust Structure. And that begs the question - wherein does the Claim reside? Border and Boundary?

The principal is really quite simple - who has the Rightful Claim? The so called Kings of the Earth can either trace lineage to David in case of Yisra'el and Yehudah. Or have other lineages or are Settlors of a new eState.

But here is the kicker - that new eState comes into existence as per a higher law - settled before the fact - and is therefore subject to and will be governed by said law and trustees of a higher eState and therefore, the new eState is also cestui que trust by its very nature.

Yet I can see your point and it is a good point.

-------------------------

David Merrill
04-23-11, 07:19 AM
There is an inconsistency here in my mind in regard to the Declaration. For it says "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The people pledge to a flag today.

Furthermore, when it becomes necessary for "one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station".......

This begs the question - who were these one People? Were they the King's subjects? What of the King's subjects in the Commonwealth of Great Britain? What makes these "one People" so special?

---------------------

So then we go to Capacity. Men seated as representatives of the States. But then we got a big problem with the PREAMBLE for the things was done for another.

The Articles of Confederation styled "The United States of America" - bound the States in Union. But here we find a new thing United States doing a thing for another. And it says there is even another corporation "We the People".

Now if the Union of the States under the Art. of Confed. was falling apart then, how could something arise "out of that estate" to cure itself? That does not make any sense at all.

The principle is the debtor is slave to the lender - how then can a slave have the capacity to redeem itself? I mean if the capacity existed prior, then why would another need to come along? Because clearly Ensminger tells us the claim is the UNITED STATES not UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

I have to watch what I am doing so not to lose the readers MJ;


You should stop and consider what would a man drive over 100 miles to get Ensminger published at the center and source of Fiat Currency in America about? Additionally, when I got to the ornate Denver Courthouse (http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2773/uscourthouse.jpg) they treated me like a criminal just because I have no Government-Issued ID (http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/906/rulesuscourthouse.jpg)! So I pulled my cell phone and called the clerk there through the window. She was particularly happy it seemed, to take my $10 and do business in front of the 5 guards, who were particularly sourpuss-faced that not one of them could form the proper objection - that if I could not get in; that if I was not one of the (official) citizens of the US, then it was just 'not right' that I could do business in the face of their 911 suppression, right over the metal detector/x-ray conveyor belt like that! Pussys! The clerk and I were particularly pleasant with one another, just for their benefit.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ensminger_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ensminger_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ensminger_3.jpg



The discrepancy is solved, like I said (or at least tried to) in that the Israelites were vanquished but the real signatories to the Constitution were 56 in number and that 1776 Declaration is the real testamentary trust in place today. We are the victorious. We won the Revolutionary War. Page 1 (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_approbation1.jpg), Page 2 (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_approbation2.jpg), Page 3 (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_approbation3.jpg). That is the REAL Invention of America (Re: Garry WILLES - Inventing America (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDQwMjIwN2UtZDgzZS00YTYwLTk2Z DUtYTI5ZmJlYjg3M2Jm&hl=en).)

You will probably need to rest up for an entire day - one in seven - just to absorb this next part fully. You, Motla68 and now Mysticone are giving 98% of the readers here a headache with all this trust tier composition. The other two are getting excited over the fact that they will have to read an ancient book or two first, before they can begin to follow and be 'head and shoulders' above the rest...

If you try it in court the judge will say, I have read enough in modern textbooks when I was in law school to know what you are trying to say about trust law has no context within the rules of this courtroom (http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/447/jurisdictioncourtmartia.jpg). I am doing my best to entertain the prosecution's request for a trial here. Should the appeals court agree with your objections, then fine - I have to live with proceeding without jurisdiction... LLOY (Last Laugh on You (http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/1779/jurisdictioncourtsmarti.jpg) - prerequisites of court-martial jurisdiction).

You are considered a signatory to the Constitution in the courtrooms. You are a citizen until you fail to take up that position as trustee for FIRST MIDDLE LAST and volunteer for Arraignment (http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/439/arraignmentexvisitation.jpg)by Answering for IT. Or NOT (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7294/misnomer.jpg).

Or just settle the account by discharging the instrument (charges on the Ticket) like I did (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1722/orderendorsementtopayka.jpg). [As district judge GILBERT read me Miranda in the courtroom - a true prosecutor/judge, he must have detected my smile as he was forming my jury. I mean the men and women too - not the box of corporations. Imagine that! Just look at that link! Talk about Competence; I was approving the payment ahead of settling my $20M lien, to for my estate to pay Kaye BARON to do my competency evaluation!) They have no choice these days but to wonder if you are one of those crazy ecclesia-folks; touched by God (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWI4OWZmNzEtMjY1My00MzJlLWE5Z mYtMjZjMmU2Y2UxNDFh&hl=en)! Ex visitation Dei - visiting from God.

Meanwhile we get Motla68 and Mysticone chuckling because they think, Look at all the Registration of Appearance here! They must all agree - the 'saving to suitors' clause is completely asine.

That's not even a word. They really saw us coming! It is amazing to me that people seem particularly attracted to a thread started with such recklessness. Is the flexible version of the truth that attractive? I guess!



Regards,

David Merrill.

by implication
04-23-11, 10:53 AM
National Emergancy over ...? [scratches head] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHCPDG01hRc

David Merrill
04-23-11, 01:17 PM
I admit that there are many aspects of the Emergency still in place - but am focusing on Remedy from it. We still have to hold and exchange fiat currency that under the Emergency legally defined (Constitution) by Congress to be lawful money. I suggest you listen to the snippet recorded in a district courtroom by myself:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNGQ0Nzg2YmYtMTJlOS00NmEzLWI2Y zYtM2I3YmE1N2MyNDlm&hl=en

Do you hear that? The numbers in the district courthouse were adopted from the Manual for Courts Martial. I was getting all that onto the Record and the case was dismissed. The truth is because I was keeping a record in Denver, in the federal courthouse, Security in the courthouse was ordered to keep a record of my record - they had a security guard dog me around the courthouse constantly whenever I was there - among much more proven violent people than me who were allowed to be unsupervised.

The suitors reading here already understand, except for one anyway, that Mysticone and Motla68 are not suitors for one thing. But more importantly most guest readers and non-suitor members are likely to miss this struggle going on between Motla68/Mysticone as a tag team and myself - promoting the 'saving to suitors' clause on this Website. The attack is obvious - calling the 1789 clause asinine - but the Poll brings in some very insideous misdirection by introducing the Eleventh Amendment as important but moreso, by saying that the 'Saving to Suitors' Clause itself is mine. That is a clever little mind bomb right there. The saving to suitors clause (http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6862/savingtosuitors.jpg) is a 1789 act of Congress that preserves our rights outside the admiralty and martial rule:

Saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it...

In a theater of war, that common law becomes incompetent. So I implore that you understand that the county courts were slated to be abolished in early 1933. Page 1 (http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/5736/coloradobar1.jpg), Page 2 (http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1084/coloradobar2k.jpg). That became unnecessary as the Emergency began a few weeks later in early March (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_FR_Bulletin_March_1933.jpg). That, if you take a look (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImODVkMmJiYzktMDdlYS00ZWFkLWI4Z WMtNmJiMWI0ZmU1MzEx&hl=en) - is the emergency that was ended in 1976. But millions of Americans still endorse private credit from the Fed to any one who demands lawful money - outside the trust (http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg). That is signature participation in the elastic currency of the Fed, which arises out of the fiat - part of the Bigger 1861 Emergency.

The aspect I want you to understand about the controversy Mysticone brought with this thread is that Motla68 tends to believe that there is some kind of a funding program inherent with directing the coupon be delivered to the Treasury for Redemption. That is written into the law -


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7039/12usc411.jpg

They shall be redeemed... at the Treasury.

MJ, Motla68 and Mysticone all stress that we need to understand trust law to get it. That may be so but Motla68 intentionally excluded the remedy there in an explanation that I had to demand for over a week - misdirection!

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand... at banks, or the Treasury.

This is still the same argument over which part of the verbiage works on minor Tickets on the Banishment Lifted thread (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?216-Banishment-on-Motla68-Lifted.). In particular, to understand you should read this Post (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?216-Banishment-on-Motla68-Lifted.&p=2094&viewfull=1#post2094).

From my perspective, we are quibbling over a minor detail - the at the Treasury aspect is written into the law. Lawful money may be redeemed at the Treasury or any Fed bank - which is effectively any private bank practicing fractional lending - any bank at all including endorsing people; who have effectively become Fed banks and paying a Return on that Income called Income Tax Returns. The active verb in the remedy is making a demand for lawful money and that is what Motla68 excluded from his explanations when I decided he was being harmful to people learning about the remedy around here.

This thread was began as a slur against remedy, probably in an effort organized by Motla68 through a friend, Mysticone to get a new member banished. Well, that's not going to happen. It teaches too much about Remedy and how to apply it. Likewise with lifting Motla68's banishment. In my mind at least, my posts in this thread have won the argument by pointing out the misdirection. If you still believe that 1789 law, the 'saving to suitors' clause is David's then maybe you should really sit down and wonder where Mysticone is coming from.

I feel as though if you understand this post the 'saving to suitors' clause is completely vindicated from being asinine, and that includes myself from the false accusation that it is somehow my intellectual property. I am only encouraging people to own it too, by understanding it is the reason the 1913 Fed Act had to include a remedy from the elastic currency it introduced in America.


Regards,

David Merrill.

MYSTICONE
04-23-11, 01:18 PM
and what maks you think thatyou have a claim, without STANDING. to THEIR savings to the suitor's clause
UNTIL YOU EXECISE THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATON,,,,you are a slave
stop trying to use THEIR law to defeat THEM
IT ain't gonna happen
you are not a soveregn
INTERNATIONAL LAW is the supreme law of the land
and as a citizen.....you right to international law/protecition is owned by the United Statats
YOU ARE NOT SOVEREIGN
YOU ARE THEIR SLAVE
you have no IMMUNITY and NEver will because you are THICK
EXTEMELY THICK AND OVERLY THINK
YOU ARE TRYING TO RAIL AGAINST THE SYSTEM/ THE MATRIX BY USING
THERE LAWS TO TRY TO DEFEAT THEM.. go watch the MATRIX AGAIN.
shows you all about the IRS MAINFRAME- LIEONTIFF MATRIX
SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS.
YOUR RESEARCH IS ALREADY KNOWN AND DISCHARGED.

David Merrill
04-23-11, 01:33 PM
and what maks you think thatyou have a claim, without STANDING. to THEIR savings to the suitor's clause...

Gotcha!

Did you not write this into the Poll?


No. Davids Saving to Suitors Trumps the 11th amendment and grantee/trustee equity law



You have made a very subjective claim here Mysticone. You are calling the remedy from the districts asinine - if I understand your typo correctly. I disagree. We should apply remedy as it keeps us from being suppressed or having to become violent against government.


I feel as though if you understand this post the 'saving to suitors' clause is completely vindicated from being asinine, and that includes myself from the false accusation that it is somehow my intellectual property. I am only encouraging people to own it too, by understanding it is the reason the 1913 Fed Act had to include a remedy from the elastic currency it introduced in America.

Since you came here insulting remedy and calling it mine, my private intellectual property, then do not expect me to be parsing out your subsequent drivel as though it deserves addressing. I have quashed everything you might bring to the table in the opening post and Poll. Thank you for attacking the remedy Congress has provided. I found winning this debate quite rewarding.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I will leave you with something that drove the Quatlosers absolutely bonkers!!


http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5241/staterefundnydepositrec.jpg

David Merrill
04-23-11, 01:45 PM
and what maks you think thatyou have a claim, without STANDING. to THEIR savings to the suitor's clause
UNTIL YOU EXECISE THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATON,,,,you are a slave
stop trying to use THEIR law to defeat THEM
IT ain't gonna happen
you are not a soveregn
INTERNATIONAL LAW is the supreme law of the land
and as a citizen.....you right to international law/protecition is owned by the United Statats
YOU ARE NOT SOVEREIGN
YOU ARE THEIR SLAVE
you have no IMMUNITY and NEver will because you are THICK
EXTEMELY THICK AND OVERLY THINK
YOU ARE TRYING TO RAIL AGAINST THE SYSTEM/ THE MATRIX BY USING
THERE LAWS TO TRY TO DEFEAT THEM.. go watch the MATRIX AGAIN.
shows you all about the IRS MAINFRAME- LIEONTIFF MATRIX
SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS.
YOUR RESEARCH IS ALREADY KNOWN AND DISCHARGED.


I have no immunity because I am thick? - And you expect me to get the answers from watching 10 hours of a Hollywood Trilogy? I just do not believe for a moment that without at least taking the time to be consistent and care enough to watch your spelling a little, that you will have much impact around here. Actually you are lucky I even bothered to read it carefully enough to catch your insult.

David Merrill
04-23-11, 02:00 PM
I want to throw a little salt on that by pointing out how long ago I was drafting remedy utilizing the Rules of admiralty in conjunction with the 'saving to suitors' clause. Ron got his life savings back. But first they had to play their little games. He had some small change in one of the accounts after the seizure and was told at the drivethrough he had to come inside; Oh God - not again! But when he got inside, he got the good news and all he had to do was sign a waiver of indemnity. He phoned me and we got a good laugh. Then US Bank wrote letters of apology to anybody who had gotten a rubber check over the illegal seizure:

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement1.gif www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement2.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement3.gif www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement4.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavitofservice.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant1.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant2.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/1-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/2-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/3-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/4-HR3812.jpg


So I doubt you will make much headway citing Hollywood movies albeit I like to grab snippets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_3VIBd7sT8) myself! This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_3VIBd7sT8) in particular.

Richard Earl
04-23-11, 02:01 PM
The only issue with the system is that it is now modeled around the money -- and protection of it.

It seems to me that when they constructed the Judiciary Act, they provided a clause for the common man. It seems to me that when the government had to turn to third-party money as a solution to their then problem, they included an opt-out clause - although they don't tell anyone. I want to believe it was done for the benefit of the common man/woman to exist in the system. Perhaps MYSTICONE is troubled by fear of the system. I know I certainly have that concern on my mind. In following the research here and doing as much double checking as I can, I come to the same conclusion as David regarding the intent and interpretation of the code sections.

If the Saving to Suitors clause is not there to provide remedy for the common man/woman -- incidently, to which I believe is the entire intent of the declaration, what is it there for?

Anthony Joseph
04-23-11, 02:03 PM
and what maks you think thatyou have a claim, without STANDING. to THEIR savings to the suitor's clause
UNTIL YOU EXECISE THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATON,,,,you are a slave
stop trying to use THEIR law to defeat THEM
IT ain't gonna happen
you are not a soveregn
INTERNATIONAL LAW is the supreme law of the land
and as a citizen.....you right to international law/protecition is owned by the United Statats
YOU ARE NOT SOVEREIGN
YOU ARE THEIR SLAVE
you have no IMMUNITY and NEver will because you are THICK
EXTEMELY THICK AND OVERLY THINK
YOU ARE TRYING TO RAIL AGAINST THE SYSTEM/ THE MATRIX BY USING
THERE LAWS TO TRY TO DEFEAT THEM.. go watch the MATRIX AGAIN.
shows you all about the IRS MAINFRAME- LIEONTIFF MATRIX
SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS.
YOUR RESEARCH IS ALREADY KNOWN AND DISCHARGED.

Anyone with any sense or discernment can see from the above that "MYSTICONE"'s presence here is nothing more than distraction, obfuscation and an attempt to de-rail and besmirch true remedy and the available mechanism and law which is extant and recognizes the inherent immunity from fealty of people who choose to exercise it.

The writing style, misspelling and overall combative and accusatory tone (whether intentional or not) reveals the true intent behind this offering. As I said in my original opening welcome post...

"...we welcome ALL people to our gathering as long as the intent is to be constructive rather than destructive; truthseekers rather than truth deniers or concealers. That is what makes this forum special; we do not and will not silence opposition for two important reasons:

1) If the opposition reveals truth, we will welcome it with open arms as we are for truth above all else.

2) If the opposition reveals lies, we will welcome it with open arms as it will strengthen the truth we seek to spread and share with all who seek it."

For now, I believe that this "MYSTICONE"'s offerings falls in the number "2" category.

Anthony Joseph
04-23-11, 02:30 PM
I do see your point, and I do travel freely and when stopped and questioned why no papers at the end of the day, I have been met with smiles all around. But one may ask, why go thru the headache at all? Why not just establish a new Trust and Declare its standing.

It would be great if you could record some audio of one of these "no papers" questioning encounters so as to gain a sense of howand why you get met with smiles and others get met with strife.

Do the smiles extend past your area on the county you inhabit? Do you believe smiles are what you would be met with if questioned anywhere on this land when you travel freely at the wheel of a car?

Perhaps you could provide the people here with a general run-down of events and responses during your roadside encounters which create smiles and unimpeded travel.

David Merrill
04-23-11, 02:58 PM
The only issue with the system is that it is now modeled around the money -- and protection of it.

It seems to me that when they constructed the Judiciary Act, they provided a clause for the common man. It seems to me that when the government had to turn to third-party money as a solution to their then problem, they included an opt-out clause - although they don't tell anyone. I want to believe it was done for the benefit of the common man/woman to exist in the system. Perhaps MYSTICONE is troubled by fear of the system. I know I certainly have that concern on my mind. In following the research here and doing as much double checking as I can, I come to the same conclusion as David regarding the intent and interpretation of the code sections.

If the Saving to Suitors clause is not there to provide remedy for the common man/woman -- incidently, to which I believe is the entire intent of the declaration, what is it there for?




Anyone with any sense or discernment can see from the above that "MYSTICONE"'s presence here is nothing more than distraction, obfuscation and an attempt to de-rail and besmirch true remedy and the available mechanism and law which is extant and recognizes the inherent immunity from fealty of people who choose to exercise it.

The writing style, misspelling and overall combative and accusatory tone (whether intentional or not) reveals the true intent behind this offering. As I said in my original opening welcome post...

"...we welcome ALL people to our gathering as long as the intent is to be constructive rather than destructive; truthseekers rather than truth deniers or concealers. That is what makes this forum special; we do not and will not silence opposition for two important reasons:

1) If the opposition reveals truth, we will welcome it with open arms as we are for truth above all else.

2) If the opposition reveals lies, we will welcome it with open arms as it will strengthen the truth we seek to spread and share with all who seek it."

For now, I believe that this "MYSTICONE"'s offerings falls in the number "2" category.

As a strategist and (in my opinion) master of timing, I believe that after being back a bit from banishment, Motla68 and Mysticone had a plan for me to banish Mysticone, leaving Motla68 indemnified of that mess, leaving him here to make me out to be a tyrant. I agree that Mysticone is in Category 2, but that my "thick skinned" approach and confidence in the remedy itself is quite sound and he will stay. I imagine if he or she will not pick up on a more productive and readable writing style, then in return, people will only give as much effort to reading Mysticone's posts as he is willing to put into them before posting. Basically a self-imposed Ignore Listing.

I want to add something deserving of its own thread. This letter attached has been hiding in a directory I called Provost Marshal. The attached letter is best understood with these two articles (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMzUwZmIzYzQtMzUzZC00MGY3LTkzM jMtZDg0ZjQ5MTExN2U0&hl=en) in mind.


I believe that Richard Earl's post justifies why I feel rewarded by this asinine attack on remedy. It has brought some insight - mostly for me, that people can understand the objective of this Website so plainly as to say something outright:


The only issue with the system is that it is now modeled around the money -- and protection of it.

I am saying that the remedy has been modeled around elastic currency since 1933.

This pastor for example (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImYmU2N2YyMDEtM2QxYS00OTYwLWEwM TgtOGU0M2Q0Y2ZhNGQ5&hl=en) is a trained economist and teaches grade school children too. He was sent on his way within two weeks after saying it from the pulpit.

motla68
04-23-11, 03:50 PM
I see hollywood as partly public notice from man's power structure/direction of society into current state of the union or near future of it. Back when the Matrix trilogy came out a lot of "redemptionist" type movies had followed. Peaceful Warrior was one of those movies that did not get as much notoriety as the Matrix series so many people missed it all together as well as a couple other small budget films that were pointed out to me, like Ghost Dog, Revolver was another one. Another one I put up there right with Peaceful Warrior is the movie The Ultimate Gift, both geared towards the realizations of the gifts we have inside of us. In a way it seems Hollywood is not seeing some of the changes on the internet chat, putting out the movie Inception, Back in December to the group I predicted another movie will have great inspiration and of the results of internet chat that we been spreading, coming out soon this year called Love, Peace and Misunderstandings, we will be watching and waiting to see.

Remember the clip of the garage seen In Peaceful Warrior, the talk about leverage? Well movies are not the only thing, there is other things in my toolbox of knowledge and from, it is eye movement reading and emotions, judges and attorneys pay big $ to learn this kind of stuff, it is one tool that is a big part of their bread and butter, check this clip out:
http://youtu.be/bu3ayOWHX0w

Also as said in the peaceful warrior movie is that your brain is a powerful receiver, but unspoken language along with other movies and this clip above what is also said is that your brain is a powerful transmitter as well.

* Note: These technics work well with many situations, drives rookie cops crazy. After learning this kind of stuff ironically Jan. 2009 getting pulled over right after that I got a rookie cop so I called his supervisor to the scene and he basically got schooled, I walked with no tickets or jail time. One argument he had was that I was " just too calm and collected " even after he had screamed at me for a little while, nearly dragged me out of the car and made many accusations of being on drugs, DUI, e.t.c. " there is something about you I cannot put a finger on " ...., today I can now laugh about the situation.

David Merrill
04-23-11, 04:11 PM
Did anybody read Stranger in a Strange Land? I recall the author wrote a great jurisdiction argument into that.

motla68
04-23-11, 04:20 PM
The only issue with the system is that it is now modeled around the money -- and protection of it.

It seems to me that when they constructed the Judiciary Act, they provided a clause for the common man. It seems to me that when the government had to turn to third-party money as a solution to their then problem, they included an opt-out clause - although they don't tell anyone. I want to believe it was done for the benefit of the common man/woman to exist in the system. Perhaps MYSTICONE is troubled by fear of the system. I know I certainly have that concern on my mind. In following the research here and doing as much double checking as I can, I come to the same conclusion as David regarding the intent and interpretation of the code sections.

If the Saving to Suitors clause is not there to provide remedy for the common man/woman -- incidently, to which I believe is the entire intent of the declaration, what is it there for?

You are correct Richard, they are in self preservation mode right now because there is some double minded intents out there and that scares them to think what is to become of their future careers and wealth, remember the 80s movie The Antz , there is one scene in there where the Commander and Chief of the warrior grasshopper speaks of his greatest fear " If they every figure out there is more of them then there is of us we are doomed!" . In the end of that movie though both societies come to a meeting of the minds on their own without government intervention when lives are at stake.

I do not want the money, I just want life, liberty and happiness as it was written.

motla68
04-23-11, 04:41 PM
As a strategist and (in my opinion) master of timing, I believe that after being back a bit from banishment, Motla68 and Mysticone had a plan for me to banish Mysticone, leaving Motla68 indemnified of that mess, leaving him here to make me out to be a tyrant. I agree that Mysticone is in Category 2, but that my "thick skinned" approach and confidence in the remedy itself is quite sound and he will stay. I imagine if he or she will not pick up on a more productive and readable writing style, then in return, people will only give as much effort to reading Mysticone's posts as he is willing to put into them before posting. Basically a self-imposed Ignore Listing.


LOL :D, I can see why you might think this, no not all the world is out to get you David, You just have some things going on around you that you may not be able quite yet to explain scientifically and your thinking this is putting the foundation of a Suitors remedy in theory at risk. The same behaviour comes from a mother protecting her child that she has spent so much time to raise, but even a mother eventually learns you got to let go and let it fly on it's own. It will always be a part of you no matter what and when you learn to let go of that Ego it will set your mind free, life will be a little less stressful, the quatlosers badge of honor will roll of your back like a mountain stream.
I had put that Document out there about indemnification in the early Republic, how even suitors can do it and also a while back the skit of showing the parallels of how our group would say similar things in court, but with different words as a suitor would to help get you a little closer to understanding that you do not have to be a suitor to do what we do.


https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1IGG2wTEBQ5L1PHeMlbLYjitV9AkoCfGN_05AkNPxayE xRETzGrrxMAcVX4DU&hl=en&authkey=CP2A2v8D (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1IGG2wTEBQ5L1PHeMlbLYjitV9AkoCfGN_05AkNPxayE xRETzGrrxMAcVX4DU&hl=en&authkey=CP2A2v8D)

Peace and love to you my neighbor.

motla68
04-23-11, 04:46 PM
Did anybody read Stranger in a Strange Land? I recall the author wrote a great jurisdiction argument into that.

I have not read this in it's entirety, but yeah it is partly a jurisdictional thing, the inspiration is there. Jurisdiction versus dominion that I speak of and what MJ has mentioned.

Michael Joseph
04-23-11, 05:55 PM
It would be great if you could record some audio of one of these "no papers" questioning encounters so as to gain a sense of howand why you get met with smiles and others get met with strife.

Do the smiles extend past your area on the county you inhabit? Do you believe smiles are what you would be met with if questioned anywhere on this land when you travel freely at the wheel of a car?

Perhaps you could provide the people here with a general run-down of events and responses during your roadside encounters which create smiles and unimpeded travel.

The LEO's on the Metro area where i travel now know me quite well as some clown tried to burn down the house I possess, and there has been some gang related activity; however, in regard to the LEO's if I was to be pulled over, I just do not argue with them. They are gonna do what they are gonna do. If they create a new person, then so be it. I comprehend the trust construction and I will be sure to tell the LEO - I have no trust in you. As such when discussion occurs with the Trustee bound by Constitution - matters are resolved with smiles.

I think that both Mysticone and David are right. The State owns the Person - and if one is acting for said person and is in breach of Trust, then thats gonna be a problem; David is right too because there Always has to be Choice - else like Mysticone said - slavery.

The Pot cannot turn to the Potter and complain. So the Person is subject to the Rules of the State. A man may be subject to the rules depending on his office or not.

The State is a HUGE Express Trust. And to Mysticone - one acting for Cestui Que Trust can use 12USC411 - absent trespass because that Person holding the Beneficial interest [CQT] created by the State is Subject to all of the State laws [see the express trust now]. And therefore the man acting in and for said Person has a Choice - to demand lawful money or not.

So in fact the Slave is the CQT. The man in the example is always with Choice to act in and for said CQT or not. And even if he chooses to act in and for said CQT, there is still choice - to demand lawful money and stay without the Federal Reserve Trust [districts] or not.

shalom,
mj

David Merrill
04-23-11, 06:14 PM
Motla68;


People depend on me not to let my mind fly on its own. I enjoy enough of that anyway, but regarding remedy in law, I will stick to what works in accord to what is written.


I think that both Mysticone and David are right. The State owns the Person - and if one is acting for said person and is in breach of Trust, then thats gonna be a problem...

The chief judge finally understood, after being named on a $20M lien for denying the truth.



http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/3307/namecorrected.jpg

Frederick Burrell
04-24-11, 06:20 AM
I don't know who MYSTICONE is or where he came from, but he sounds like a typical agent provocateur or another "guru" who thinks he knows what's what and will use NLP-type programming and leading poll-questions in an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the simple remedy in law that is at the source of all bondage...

"...they shall be redeemed in lawful money by demand..."

It is obvious this "MYSTICONE" is cluless as to the actual reason behind filing the LoR; it is solely to establish an evidence repository whereby we form the true and correct record of events of our own affairs. We exercise that lawful court and competence in our own right as free, immune and peaceful inhabitants on the land who will not consent, agree or acquiesce to be chattel against the debt of other men and their repugnant creations. Winning the "suit" is not the goal; in fact, we expect that it will be thrown out and dismissed. What we are left with is all we wanted in the first place, our own case jacket, paid for in lawful money, in order to form the lawful, true and correct record of our affairs as courts of competent jurisdiction.

Nowhere is there any "questioning of the debt of the United States". Their debt is their debt, who is questioning that? We don't challenge it, we simply instruct them to settle it themselves since it is their own responsibilty and liability absent a willing volunteer to alleviate their burden.

To be a "citizen" or "resident" requires our knowing and willing consent, agreement or acquiescence. If we grant none of these, we are absent that character. The refusal to be the bond, surety or fiduciary is in our own right. That is evidenced by the remedies from that fealty and servitude written into all of their laws. If that were not so, then the crime of true tyranny and forced bondage could be levied against those who attempt to ensnare the people at large into debt slaves. Instead, the "legality" of contracts provides the cover and protection of would-be tyrants. Cowardly and dishonorable at their core, they utilize their legal jargon, code and intentionally misleading "agreements/contracts" to deceive the masses into voluntary servitude.

They have no rightful or lawful standing or character to claim any rights or title to any land or property while they continue their unrighteous and dishonorable maintenance of a repugnant and abominable trust formation/mechanism which has become nothing more than a harnesser and harvestor of the energy and sweat equity of every innocent living soul born on this land.

There is NO rightful and lawful claim that can be made from that standing and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. The chattelizing of human flesh and bone is one of the most repugnant and dispicable acts before the Almighty Creator since it is, in reality, a theft and kidnap of His sons and daughters for purposes completely contrary to His Divine Will and Plan.

Straight to the heart of the matter. Thank you MJ. Clear and concise nicely presented and neatly packaged. fB

David Merrill
04-24-11, 11:33 AM
I appreciate your post too Anthony Joseph. I have started a thread. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?245-Explanation-Letter-and-Admiralty-Article)

MYSTICONE
04-24-11, 04:45 PM
BECAUSE the common law man has not standing or capacity to Suitor against the State he is a citizen/trust of.
If you are trying to claim a common law remedy, you are doing so as an admitted " STATELESS PERSON",
STATELESS PEOPLE HAVE NO STANDING/CAPACITY TO SUE, ONLY TRUST OWNERS HAVE THE CAPACITY
TO SUE PARTIES, BUT BEING THAT YOU DO NOT OWN THE TRUST, THE STATE DOES, YOU HAVE NO CAPACITY
TO SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT-= THUS TORT FEASOR.. YOU CANT EXIST OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM, AND THEN
COMPLAIN THAT THE STATE INJURED YOU BECAUSE= STATELESS INHBABINATS HAVE NO RIGHT OF PROTECTION AS FAR AS
CONTRACTS ARE CONCERNED, NOW IF YOU WANT TO LIVE TOTALLY OFF THE GRID ON YOUR OWN ISLAND AND NEVER
CONTRACT WITH YOUR FELLOW BRETHREN, THEN YOUR REFUSAL TO CONTRACT WITH SOCIETY MIGHT HAVE MORE
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES- THUS WHERE THE REMEDY OF THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, WRITTEN INTO
THE UN CHARTER- GIVES ONE THE ABILITY TO FORM ONES OWN COMPACT/STATE, SO THAT WAY THE CAN
EFFECTUATE REMEDY IN ABILITY TO FREELY CONTRACT/COMPACT/TREATY WITH DIPLOMATIC AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES.
tHE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, AND THE RIGHT OF EXHILE, THATS WHAT THE KEYMAKER WAS ABOUT IN THE MATRIX SERIES.
TO OWN PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO FORM YOUR OWN ESTATE- WHICH THE UN CHARTER BASED ON NATURAL LAW AND THE LAW
OF NATIONS ALLOWS YOU TO DO. OTHERWISE BY TRYING TO EXIST OUTSIDE THE TRUST SYSTEM AND NEVER CONTRACT-
WHO CAN REALISTICALLY LIVE A VAGABOUND LIFE LIKE THAT- THATS WHERE THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT/ RIGHT TO PROPERTY USE ARGUMENT BECOMES WEAK.
SURE YOU CAN REDEEM LAWFULLY MONEY, BUT YOU DONT HAVE STANDING FOR LAWFUL MONEY, BECAUSE YOU ARE ACTING IN THE CAPACITY AS A STATELESS
PERSON, BUT THEN CONTRADICTING YOURSELF ASKING THE STATE TO OFFER YOU PROTECTION IN THE REFUSAL TO CONTRACT, WHICH YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TOO.
ITS THE OLD ADAGE "TRYING TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO"

David Merrill
04-24-11, 04:56 PM
Mysticone;


Your posts are difficult to read. I have an estate - we all do. The law does not distinguish:


They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...


It does not say that some people can and some people cannot. By the formatting and capitalization it is obvious that you do not really care enough to put much effort into your posts; therefore do not expect much in return.

shikamaru
04-24-11, 05:45 PM
BECAUSE the common law man has not standing or capacity to Suitor against the State he is a citizen/trust of.



SUITOR. One who is a party to a suit or action in court. One who is a party

to an action. In its ancient sense, suitor meant one Who was bound to attend

the county court, also, one who formed part of the secta. (q.v.)


A citizen can't be a party to a suit?



If you are trying to claim a common law remedy, you are doing so as an admitted " STATELESS PERSON",
STATELESS PEOPLE HAVE NO STANDING/CAPACITY TO SUE, ONLY TRUST OWNERS HAVE THE CAPACITY
TO SUE PARTIES, BUT BEING THAT YOU DO NOT OWN THE TRUST, THE STATE DOES, YOU HAVE NO CAPACITY
TO SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT-= THUS TORT FEASOR..

How can a citizen be a stateless person when a citizen is a member of the state?
I think you are drawing scope to a case beyond its bounds.
You are aware that citizen and subject are synonymous, yes?



YOU CANT EXIST OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM, AND THEN
COMPLAIN THAT THE STATE INJURED YOU BECAUSE= STATELESS INHBABINATS HAVE NO RIGHT OF PROTECTION AS FAR AS
CONTRACTS ARE CONCERNED, NOW IF YOU WANT TO LIVE TOTALLY OFF THE GRID ON YOUR OWN ISLAND AND NEVER
CONTRACT WITH YOUR FELLOW BRETHREN, THEN YOUR REFUSAL TO CONTRACT WITH SOCIETY MIGHT HAVE MORE
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES- THUS WHERE THE REMEDY OF THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, WRITTEN INTO
THE UN CHARTER- GIVES ONE THE ABILITY TO FORM ONES OWN COMPACT/STATE, SO THAT WAY THE CAN
EFFECTUATE REMEDY IN ABILITY TO FREELY CONTRACT/COMPACT/TREATY WITH DIPLOMATIC AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES.
tHE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, AND THE RIGHT OF EXHILE, THATS WHAT THE KEYMAKER WAS ABOUT IN THE MATRIX SERIES.
TO OWN PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO FORM YOUR OWN ESTATE- WHICH THE UN CHARTER BASED ON NATURAL LAW AND THE LAW
OF NATIONS ALLOWS YOU TO DO. OTHERWISE BY TRYING TO EXIST OUTSIDE THE TRUST SYSTEM AND NEVER CONTRACT-
WHO CAN REALISTICALLY LIVE A VAGABOUND LIFE LIKE THAT- THATS WHERE THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT/ RIGHT TO PROPERTY USE ARGUMENT BECOMES WEAK.
SURE YOU CAN REDEEM LAWFULLY MONEY, BUT YOU DONT HAVE STANDING FOR LAWFUL MONEY, BECAUSE YOU ARE ACTING IN THE CAPACITY AS A STATELESS
PERSON, BUT THEN CONTRADICTING YOURSELF ASKING THE STATE TO OFFER YOU PROTECTION IN THE REFUSAL TO CONTRACT, WHICH YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TOO.
ITS THE OLD ADAGE "TRYING TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO"

I think you can make your point without shouting by way of all caps.

David Merrill
04-24-11, 06:23 PM
The choppy nature of the lines tells me that his posts are a cut and paste job. He is grabbing the content from somewhere else so that the flow does not fit the format of the field provided by this Website.

The recurrant assertion is that I am a stateless person. So what? The purpose as Anthony Joseph pointed out is that one has a Record to form in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States Government according to the 'saving to suitors' clause.



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

It is frustrating that Mysticone will not put out the effort to be understood. I think the part that he is premising his correction on is incorrect though. I am a statesman:


http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/8947/amicuscuriae5.jpg

That usage of the Great Seal of Authority is a class 5 felony (forgery) for anybody to do so who is not affiliated with state business, and it is against the rules to file an amicus curiae (without consent of both parties and leave of the court) unless you are the territory, state or the District of Columbia. To call me a stateless person when I am doing these things routinely, when the State Seal is often part of my signature with a notary seal too, is simply incorrect.

Everybody I know and I presume Genesis 1:27 correct that means everybody I don't know too has the same inherent state that I do - what Michael Joseph wisely directs us to consider our (e)state - our individual estates. And once our own estate is actualized by our acceptance and awareness we become statesmen and stateswomen of that estate - our dominions that we are in stewardship of.

I think that Mysticone should just tell us what his name is and what school of thinking he is trying to promote? Who are you Mysticone? I can get a good guess using keywords but may be off thinking that you and Motla68 are associated just because you have listened to the same videos and gone to the same seminars. Tell us where you learned I am a stateless person and maybe I can start to work around your poor and insulting form here.

Something else that seems a common denominator is the idea that there are only a small class of signatories party to the Constitution. One person in every six homes or so, in America is signatory to the Constitutions - they are called Government Employees. The rest of us can hold them to good behavior while they work - from whatever position that grants them that employment.



Regards,

David Merrill.



http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4721/uccart9securityagreemen.jpg

MYSTICONE
04-24-11, 07:03 PM
theres nothing mysterious about it , David...... I am familiar with your style of posts from the past 5-6 years. From the Original Jason Whitney Suijuris forum,
to Charles Sujuris Club. Just add a 666 to the Mystic, 6 protons, 6 electrons, 6 neutrons.. Im not affililated with Motla or Coresources Solution in any capacity.
I came here on my own "Google Merits and Accords" :)...... You were curious what "school of thinking" that i study from. Im sure you have heard of David Parker Williams?
He has many treaties on the internet about the Right of Self Determination. The point I was "contrasting" is that the Judicary has endless patience for "bad trustees"
in terms of ownership of property, IT IS called defendent unable to pay, or defendent failed to identify himself, then a WARRANT is issued, so it severly limits your
trustee position in its ability to perform future contracts, unless you form your own estate per the UN CHARTER . YOUR main premise is that the 13th amendment, creates
diveristy to be a UNITED STATES citizen in the competent common law. SO your admitting to be a UNITED STATES citizen, but with common law territories/jurisdiction,
and delegation of authority easements, correct. HOWEVER, IF you carefully read the LIEBER CODE/ THE LAW OF WAR and the 11th AMENDMENT case law on the subject matter of your diversity arguments, you quickly find that your simply trying to "RAIL AGAINST THE MATRIX/COMPACT YOU are a citizen of. THE contrasting point, that it would be more worthwhile for people tired of being citizens, instead of wasting there time railing agains the "MAN" IN THERE refusuals to contract, it would be more worthwhile to create there own estate and have diplomatic and sovereign immunties, which the UN AFFORDS, not saying your saviing to suitors doesnt have merit in the JUDICARY, but the case law
pertaining to the 11th amendment, make your redemption attempts to the ORIGINAL COGNIZANCE futile .. YOU would be better served, by collecting a study group among us, and us forming our own compact with each other.... ITS CALLED looking at the bigger UNIVERSAL PICTURE.

David Merrill
04-24-11, 08:27 PM
theres nothing mysterious about it , David...... I am familiar with your style of posts from the past 5-6 years. From the Original Jason Whitney Suijuris forum,
to Charles Sujuris Club. Just add a 666 to the Mystic, 6 protons, 6 electrons, 6 neutrons.. Im not affililated with Motla or Coresources Solution in any capacity.
I came here on my own "Google Merits and Accords" :)...... You were curious what "school of thinking" that i study from. Im sure you have heard of David Parker Williams?
He has many treaties on the internet about the Right of Self Determination. The point I was "contrasting" is that the Judicary has endless patience for "bad trustees"
in terms of ownership of property, IT IS called defendent unable to pay, or defendent failed to identify himself, then a WARRANT is issued, so it severly limits your
trustee position in its ability to perform future contracts, unless you form your own estate per the UN CHARTER . YOUR main premise is that the 13th amendment, creates
diveristy to be a UNITED STATES citizen in the competent common law. SO your admitting to be a UNITED STATES citizen, but with common law territories/jurisdiction,
and delegation of authority easements, correct. HOWEVER, IF you carefully read the LIEBER CODE/ THE LAW OF WAR and the 11th AMENDMENT case law on the subject matter of your diversity arguments, you quickly find that your simply trying to "RAIL AGAINST THE MATRIX/COMPACT YOU are a citizen of. THE contrasting point, that it would be more worthwhile for people tired of being citizens, instead of wasting there time railing agains the "MAN" IN THERE refusuals to contract, it would be more worthwhile to create there own estate and have diplomatic and sovereign immunties, which the UN AFFORDS, not saying your saviing to suitors doesnt have merit in the JUDICARY, but the case law
pertaining to the 11th amendment, make your redemption attempts to the ORIGINAL COGNIZANCE futile .. YOU would be better served, by collecting a study group among us, and us forming our own compact with each other.... ITS CALLED looking at the bigger UNIVERSAL PICTURE.


Untrue. You are incorrect about the Libel of Review.

There are a few people who misunderstand the Instructions at the end and try it without formally becoming suitors, who have taken it to appeal. They are the ones you must be thinking of who rail against the machine or whatever you keep constructing around Hollywood's The Matix. I cannot say it any better than Anthony Joseph did and what has been in the instructions for years.

You are simply incorrect.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. For one thing you might have to convince me that not only is The Matrix a message from the Illuminati or whatever, that you must convince me you have the correct key to the esoteric and the interpretation.

Anthony Joseph
04-25-11, 02:30 AM
theres nothing mysterious about it , David...... I am familiar with your style of posts from the past 5-6 years. From the Original Jason Whitney Suijuris forum,
to Charles Sujuris Club. Just add a 666 to the Mystic, 6 protons, 6 electrons, 6 neutrons.. Im not affililated with Motla or Coresources Solution in any capacity.
I came here on my own "Google Merits and Accords" :)...... You were curious what "school of thinking" that i study from. Im sure you have heard of David Parker Williams?
He has many treaties on the internet about the Right of Self Determination. The point I was "contrasting" is that the Judicary has endless patience for "bad trustees"
in terms of ownership of property, IT IS called defendent unable to pay, or defendent failed to identify himself, then a WARRANT is issued, so it severly limits your
trustee position in its ability to perform future contracts, unless you form your own estate per the UN CHARTER . YOUR main premise is that the 13th amendment, creates
diveristy to be a UNITED STATES citizen in the competent common law. SO your admitting to be a UNITED STATES citizen, but with common law territories/jurisdiction,
and delegation of authority easements, correct. HOWEVER, IF you carefully read the LIEBER CODE/ THE LAW OF WAR and the 11th AMENDMENT case law on the subject matter of your diversity arguments, you quickly find that your simply trying to "RAIL AGAINST THE MATRIX/COMPACT YOU are a citizen of. THE contrasting point, that it would be more worthwhile for people tired of being citizens, instead of wasting there time railing agains the "MAN" IN THERE refusuals to contract, it would be more worthwhile to create there own estate and have diplomatic and sovereign immunties, which the UN AFFORDS, not saying your saviing to suitors doesnt have merit in the JUDICARY, but the case law
pertaining to the 11th amendment, make your redemption attempts to the ORIGINAL COGNIZANCE futile .. YOU would be better served, by collecting a study group among us, and us forming our own compact with each other.... ITS CALLED looking at the bigger UNIVERSAL PICTURE.


http://therightofselfdetermination.com/member-login?wlfrom=%2Fforum

For $27/month, you too can gain the privilege of conversing on those forums; and, if you act now, you can create a downline of subscribers who you refer to the site and make money for those referrals.

Can anyone say... pyramid scheme???

This guy is a bona fide provocateur and is attempting to distract us from our discussions and work here. Little does he know that this "brain trust" assembly is discerning and not susceptible to that kind of interruption or interference. What he does not know is that we use his brand of "agenda trolling" in order to further strengthen what we know to be true.

Nice try. Go play somewhere else; your approach and intent has shown NO clarity or good will of any kind.

David Merrill
04-25-11, 03:15 AM
http://therightofselfdetermination.com/member-login?wlfrom=%2Fforum

For $27/month, you too can gain the privilege of conversing on those forums; and, if you act now, you can create a downline of subscribers who you refer to the site and make money for those referrals.

Can anyone say... pyramid scheme???

This guy is a bona fide provocateur and is attempting to distract us from our discussions and work here. Little does he know that this "brain trust" assembly is discerning and not susceptible to that kind of interruption or interference. What he does not know is that we use his brand of "agenda trolling" in order to further strengthen what we know to be true.

Nice try. Go play somewhere else; your approach and intent has shown NO clarity or good will of any kind.


Thank you for the research Anthony Joseph. I am putting trust in it.

David Merrill
04-25-11, 04:29 AM
I have drifted through a couple first reactions to this news.

I have settled tonight on this response. I think that it is poor judgment to put such stake in The Matrix for a source of historical social modeling as seems to be present on that website link. The truth be told though, I really don't know what that is about because I feel a little too intelligent than to invest the $27/month to pursue it. It almost feels like a copyright infringement to build a ponzi scheme on the movie trilogy.

Here is what we are looking at:


http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=405&d=1303704610

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=406&d=1303704608

I think starting this thread - calling the 'saving to suitors' clause asinine was inflammatory and to try justifying it with such half-baked theories as Hollywood movies and soforth is indicative that Mysticone is hoping for some kickback funds from the pyramid scheme website. I also think that anybody with $27 and a healthy curiousity might find time to explore that if they find it interesting.

So unlike with Motla68 - when he excluded the remedy from an explanation that I had to prod out of him for many posts over a couple days, I will not banish Mysticone for promoting another website or calling the 'saving to suitors' clause asinine. Even for calling me "thick".

I believe that Anthony Joseph has a justified and accurate accusation framed here. I suppose that the question is what to do about it? I do not see other propositions about remedy and insights into mental models a threat to the remedy written into the law - especially after a couple days of seeing the examples Motla68 has brought to light, and would not have done so except that I lifted his banishment here.

At the moment I deem Mysticone's acute and even rude intrusion here productive, albeit unpleasant and in my judgment improperly balanced, leaning way too much on a presumption that The Matrix is more than great Hollywood entertainment that we all have subjective and different interpretations about. I feel like warning you all that I think that putting the weight that Mysticone has expressed in believing that there are important messages that apply to such important mental models as reproducible remedy about courts, law and money/taxes is foolish.

Like Frederick Burrell expressed though, if you do not like Mysticone or anybody else here, you can jockey your mouse accordingly. As Mysticone continues, or not to insult me and remedy here I will respond accordingly - or not. The quality of learning and entertainment here are my concern and I learned a lot about that from my experience with Motla68. I think as this and other developments - especially should the Quatlosers become bored enough to start registering here - we will find very few situations were with the 'saving to suitors' clause and §16 of the Fed Act written into the law from inception - we will not endure any type of intrusion without benefitting and learning a great deal.





Regards,

David Merrill.

Mark Christopher
04-25-11, 07:00 PM
BECAUSE the common law man has not standing or capacity to Suitor against the State he is a citizen/trust of.
If you are trying to claim a common law remedy, you are doing so as an admitted " STATELESS PERSON",
STATELESS PEOPLE HAVE NO STANDING/CAPACITY TO SUE, ONLY TRUST OWNERS HAVE THE CAPACITY
TO SUE PARTIES, BUT BEING THAT YOU DO NOT OWN THE TRUST, THE STATE DOES, YOU HAVE NO CAPACITY
TO SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT-= THUS TORT FEASOR.. YOU CANT EXIST OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM, AND THEN
COMPLAIN THAT THE STATE INJURED YOU BECAUSE= STATELESS INHBABINATS HAVE NO RIGHT OF PROTECTION AS FAR AS
CONTRACTS ARE CONCERNED, NOW IF YOU WANT TO LIVE TOTALLY OFF THE GRID ON YOUR OWN ISLAND AND NEVER
CONTRACT WITH YOUR FELLOW BRETHREN, THEN YOUR REFUSAL TO CONTRACT WITH SOCIETY MIGHT HAVE MORE
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES- THUS WHERE THE REMEDY OF THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, WRITTEN INTO
THE UN CHARTER- GIVES ONE THE ABILITY TO FORM ONES OWN COMPACT/STATE, SO THAT WAY THE CAN
EFFECTUATE REMEDY IN ABILITY TO FREELY CONTRACT/COMPACT/TREATY WITH DIPLOMATIC AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES.
tHE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, AND THE RIGHT OF EXHILE, THATS WHAT THE KEYMAKER WAS ABOUT IN THE MATRIX SERIES.
TO OWN PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO FORM YOUR OWN ESTATE- WHICH THE UN CHARTER BASED ON NATURAL LAW AND THE LAW
OF NATIONS ALLOWS YOU TO DO. OTHERWISE BY TRYING TO EXIST OUTSIDE THE TRUST SYSTEM AND NEVER CONTRACT-
WHO CAN REALISTICALLY LIVE A VAGABOUND LIFE LIKE THAT- THATS WHERE THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT/ RIGHT TO PROPERTY USE ARGUMENT BECOMES WEAK.
SURE YOU CAN REDEEM LAWFULLY MONEY, BUT YOU DONT HAVE STANDING FOR LAWFUL MONEY, BECAUSE YOU ARE ACTING IN THE CAPACITY AS A STATELESS
PERSON, BUT THEN CONTRADICTING YOURSELF ASKING THE STATE TO OFFER YOU PROTECTION IN THE REFUSAL TO CONTRACT, WHICH YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TOO.
ITS THE OLD ADAGE "TRYING TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO"

I am sure the Wachowski Brothers would be flattered about your thoughts regarding their keen insights into the "real world" thru the creation of the matrix. MYSTICONE, with all due respect please correspond respectfully. Your use of CAPS and vehement ramblings (although it does appear to have some truth) are giving me 'asine'.

Asine - the feeling you get when someone is trying to ram their beliefs up your arse.

Please note that you are starting to look a little frazzled by your style of writing. But it is a free country, right? If anything I have learned a lot from this thread from David and Michael J responding to your blurps, so my appreciation for that is offered. So, do you have any experience with Lawful Money or the LoR? You are here to learn these things are you not? If not, I respectfully ask not to gum up the works becuase some of us are trying to learn and really don't need the misdirection.

Be Well
Mark Christopher.

David Merrill
04-25-11, 08:46 PM
I took a look and Mysticone has posted about 15 posts, all here on this thread that he started. Being that he is here selling the Matrix Solutions plan, I interpret him being so tidy about it a sign of respect for the website.

Thank you Mysticone.

motla68
07-18-11, 11:44 PM
Quote from David Merrill:
" Motla68 tends to believe that there is some kind of a funding program inherent with directing the coupon be delivered to the Treasury for Redemption. That is written into the law - "

At is written:
TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 45 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 4421
(2) Over-the-counter derivative instrument
The term “over-the-counter derivative instrument” includes—
(A) any agreement, contract, or transaction, including the terms and conditions incorporated by reference in any such agreement, contract, or transaction, which is an interest rate swap, option, or forward agreement, including a rate floor, rate cap, rate collar, cross-currency rate swap, basis swap, and forward rate agreement; a same day-tomorrow, tomorrow-next, forward, or other foreign exchange or precious metals agreement; a currency swap, option, or forward agreement; an equity index or equity swap, option, or forward agreement; a debt index or debt swap, option, or forward agreement; a credit spread or credit swap, option, or forward agreement; a commodity index or commodity swap, option, or forward agreement; and a weather swap, weather derivative, or weather option;

There is 2 ways to do it, one through a trust to redeem a security (there is many kinds of securities to swap) through IRS,
The other way is through a broker who I spoke directly to had told me what this is called and that I would need a " Credit Swap Broker " to do it.
Please reference the U.S. code above as it is written.

motla68

Rock Anthony
07-19-11, 02:44 AM
Here is what we are looking at:


http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=405&d=1303704610
I also think that anybody with $27 and a healthy curiousity might find time to explore that if they find it interesting.



I watched enough of David Parker WILLIAMS' youtube videos to incite my curisosity. I ponied up $27 bucks just yesterday. I find the site to be entertaining and enlightening. After all, there's something to learn from everybody.

I will say that David Parker WILLIAMS does not in any way come off as brazen as MYSTICONE. If MYSTICONE was attempting to promote here at StSC WILLIAMS' site and ideas, he's not done a very good job.

David Merrill
07-19-11, 02:36 PM
Glad to hear it Rock;


I might find time to PayPal up for a month - some day...




Quote from David Merrill:
" Motla68 tends to believe that there is some kind of a funding program inherent with directing the coupon be delivered to the Treasury for Redemption. That is written into the law - "

At is written:

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 45 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 4421
(2) Over-the-counter derivative instrument
The term “over-the-counter derivative instrument” includes—
(A) any agreement, contract, or transaction, including the terms and conditions incorporated by reference in any such agreement, contract, or transaction, which is an interest rate swap, option, or forward agreement, including a rate floor, rate cap, rate collar, cross-currency rate swap, basis swap, and forward rate agreement; a same day-tomorrow, tomorrow-next, forward, or other foreign exchange or precious metals agreement; a currency swap, option, or forward agreement; an equity index or equity swap, option, or forward agreement; a debt index or debt swap, option, or forward agreement; a credit spread or credit swap, option, or forward agreement; a commodity index or commodity swap, option, or forward agreement; and a weather swap, weather derivative, or weather option;

There is 2 ways to do it, one through a trust to redeem a security (there is many kinds of securities to swap) through IRS,
The other way is through a broker who I spoke directly to had told me what this is called and that I would need a " Credit Swap Broker " to do it.

Please reference the U.S. code above as it is written.

motla68

You seem to be asking me to reference the US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00004421----000-.html) as it is written - in order to make your point for you? I linked it so that people can verify your quote of it -

Click Here. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00004421----000-.html)

I recall our conversations pretty accurately but readers here may not have much context of our ongoing contention.

My take is that the remedy written into the law is the solution (http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/9476/nonendorsementredemptiot.jpg), and why your processes - the ones you have shared here graphically - function. They function because Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is the codified remedy from the 1913 Fed Act. You keep striving for us and me to believe that it is the other part of your stamped verbiage that does it for you and yours.

So if you want to revive the dispute you should show us a full example of the coupon/remittance redemption verbiage. Otherwise I will use one of your older examples here. Post an image of what the "client" puts on the coupon/remittance/bill that causes this action to occur - this Setoff - from the Treasury based in the USC section you are citing and quoting here.

I think the readers will agree with me - this is a logical and acceptable method to go about this. You should also include evidence of the Setoff with figures and dates unsanitized enough to be convincing please.



Regards,

David Merrill.

motla68
07-20-11, 12:24 AM
Rock,

You got to ask yourself though If these people really believe in what they are preaching, the illusion of the system e.t.c. and we all are suppose to be equal under the law then why are they charging their neighbor for something that is kept hidden that they believe everybody should know?

Look up re-distribution and see what you come up with, these guys are just mimicing the system that most people fight against.

David,

Once again you are misinterpreting my intention. What I am conveying is that there is more then one way, it is not just one way to get things done. Anyone that would think otherwise has been brain whipped by the system. That system is not my God.
If that Federal Reserve Note is only backed by faith in credit then what about all the other paper securities? It is not different then when you sell a car, the buyer and seller in the exchange come to a meeting of the minds what the value of the car is. UCC states that anything which does not have " non-negiotiable upon it's face is a negotiable instrument. It is a bit asinine to try and hook everything into one element because the earth is made of many elements just as this government system is made of many elements. Just pick a law, ride that way and if all the dots connect you will have success. Some people one law works for them better then the other, I am no drone being held in a box.... johnny five is alive !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVtojNukkA0&NR=1

Rock Anthony
07-20-11, 12:34 AM
Rock,

You got to ask yourself though If these people really believe in what they are preaching, the illusion of the system e.t.c. and we all are suppose to be equal under the law then why are they charging their neighbor for something that is kept hidden that they believe everybody should know?



I never really pondered why David Parker WILLIAMS charges for access to his website - and I probably never will. The way I see it, anyone has the choice to pay, or not.

My curiosity prompted me to pony up $27 worth of lawful money. IMO, so far it's worth 30 days worth of entertainment.



Look up re-distribution and see what you come up with, these guys are just mimicing the system that most people fight against.


From what I gather, WILLIAMS is not suggesting for anyone to mimic the system, but rather to create your own system that is of a seperate but equal station with every other system. Within one's own system, there is nothing to fight. This is what piqued my interest.

David Merrill
07-20-11, 03:18 AM
Rock,

You got to ask yourself though If these people really believe in what they are preaching, the illusion of the system e.t.c. and we all are suppose to be equal under the law then why are they charging their neighbor for something that is kept hidden that they believe everybody should know?

Look up re-distribution and see what you come up with, these guys are just mimicing the system that most people fight against.

David,

Once again you are misinterpreting my intention. What I am conveying is that there is more then one way, it is not just one way to get things done. Anyone that would think otherwise has been brain whipped by the system. That system is not my God.
If that Federal Reserve Note is only backed by faith in credit then what about all the other paper securities? It is not different then when you sell a car, the buyer and seller in the exchange come to a meeting of the minds what the value of the car is. UCC states that anything which does not have " non-negiotiable upon it's face is a negotiable instrument. It is a bit asinine to try and hook everything into one element because the earth is made of many elements just as this government system is made of many elements. Just pick a law, ride that way and if all the dots connect you will have success. Some people one law works for them better then the other, I am no drone being held in a box.... johnny five is alive !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVtojNukkA0&NR=1

I believe that I interpreted your post correctly. Your post makes no sense otherwise - the way you quoted me and then gave a quote from the US Code like that.

Please give us an example like I proposed?

motla68
07-20-11, 05:40 AM
Rock ,

I was speaking in terms of fealty, who is he to charge anything if the earth was given to all as a gift? That is one good thing about this group I must say about Dave, he is not charging anyone currency to be involved here.

David,

Just because you do not understand it, who are you to say it does not exist? From our previous discussions I do think you will choose not to understand any explanation I give, it will have to come from someone else in the group, but even then you will call it some organized crime in the group or something. I cannot win by explaining any of this, nor can anyone else. If the spirit moves someone, maybe they will chime in. I am sure someone got it.

" Some people one law works for them better then the other "

David Merrill
07-20-11, 09:01 AM
Rock ,

I was speaking in terms of fealty, who is he to charge anything if the earth was given to all as a gift? That is one good thing about this group I must say about Dave, he is not charging anyone currency to be involved here.

David,

Just because you do not understand it, who are you to say it does not exist? From our previous discussions I do think you will choose not to understand any explanation I give, it will have to come from someone else in the group, but even then you will call it some organized crime in the group or something. I cannot win by explaining any of this, nor can anyone else. If the spirit moves someone, maybe they will chime in. I am sure someone got it.

" Some people one law works for them better then the other "


David,

Once again you are misinterpreting my intention. What I am conveying is that there is more then one way, it is not just one way to get things done. Anyone that would think otherwise has been brain whipped by the system...

From the bottom of Page 7:


Quote from David Merrill:
" Motla68 tends to believe that there is some kind of a funding program inherent with directing the coupon be delivered to the Treasury for Redemption. That is written into the law - "

At is written:
TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 45 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 4421
(2) Over-the-counter derivative instrument
The term “over-the-counter derivative instrument” includes—
(A) any agreement, contract, or transaction, including the terms and conditions incorporated by reference in any such agreement, contract, or transaction, which is an interest rate swap, option, or forward agreement, including a rate floor, rate cap, rate collar, cross-currency rate swap, basis swap, and forward rate agreement; a same day-tomorrow, tomorrow-next, forward, or other foreign exchange or precious metals agreement; a currency swap, option, or forward agreement; an equity index or equity swap, option, or forward agreement; a debt index or debt swap, option, or forward agreement; a credit spread or credit swap, option, or forward agreement; a commodity index or commodity swap, option, or forward agreement; and a weather swap, weather derivative, or weather option;

There is 2 ways to do it, one through a trust to redeem a security (there is many kinds of securities to swap) through IRS,
The other way is through a broker who I spoke directly to had told me what this is called and that I would need a " Credit Swap Broker " to do it.

Please reference the U.S. code above as it is written.

motla68

Please reference the U.S. code above as it is written.


My apologies. I thought that you were trying to tell me something. Specifically that there is some kind of monetary exchange happening around A4V, STRAWMAN, Coupon/Remittance redemption etc.

But Now...



Rock ,

I was speaking in terms of fealty, who is he to charge anything if the earth was given to all as a gift? That is one good thing about this group I must say about Dave, he is not charging anyone currency to be involved here.

David,

Just because you do not understand it, who are you to say it does not exist? From our previous discussions I do think you will choose not to understand any explanation I give, it will have to come from someone else in the group, but even then you will call it some organized crime in the group or something. I cannot win by explaining any of this, nor can anyone else. If the spirit moves someone, maybe they will chime in. I am sure someone got it.

" Some people one law works for them better then the other "

Now you say, Let's Pretend...

Oh, and let's pretend that David doesn't understand.

I think it plain that I presumed that others reading might understand your posting US Code and adminishing I interpret it correctly, the same way I understood it.

It is the same thing that got Robert Arthur MENARD of the World Freeman Society so upset with me for asking him to explain why he thinks that birth certificates are stock certificates in the Canada Corporation. Slide to the 5:00 Minute Mark and the 1:00 Hour Mark of this video - Security of the Person (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yl2zjqiPKE). Rob put a blurb over the Railroad Stock Certificate he was trying to pass for the birth certificate - upon my badgering him to explain the source. Well, it turned out that he asked somebody and she gave him a "revealing look". That is the only source he has against the cold hard reality we live in:


http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7078/birthcertnobond.jpg

So I apologize to you, Motla68;

I did not realize this was just a game of Let's Pretend. I came out of the starting gate looking for examples of coupons, remittances or bills that people have marked up with whatever "other" law you propose functions like an account good for setoff. I would like to see the Setoff too and do not feel I am unique.

Forgive me for misunderstanding your intent.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
07-20-11, 09:23 AM
P.S. I think of this thread as the 'garbage dump' around here. Mysticone came and went - mispelling and misapplying asinine, with a loaded question for a poll, that everybody pretty much just ignored or misunderstood to begin with; and it would seem that nobody, including me ever got his point about the Eleventh Amendment anyway.

Rock Anthony
07-20-11, 02:42 PM
P.S. I think of this thread as the 'garbage dump' around here. Mysticone came and went - mispelling and misapplying asinine, with a loaded question for a poll, that everybody pretty much just ignored or misunderstood to begin with; and it would seem that nobody, including me ever got his point about the Eleventh Amendment anyway.

I agree - and I laugh because I think that I'm the one that bumped this thread back to life. :D

shikamaru
07-20-11, 02:50 PM
P.S. I think of this thread as the 'garbage dump' around here. Mysticone came and went - mispelling and misapplying asinine, with a loaded question for a poll, that everybody pretty much just ignored or misunderstood to begin with; and it would seem that nobody, including me ever got his point about the Eleventh Amendment anyway.

The 11th Amendment, according to my reading and interpretation thereof, states that the judiciary powers have been stripped from federal courts in cases of both law and equity which is then followed by a comma with additional clauses.

The only jurisdiction left would be admiralty law.

Anyone want to rip the above stated to shreds, please feel free. I love dialectics. Other eyes will see or provide what I cannot.

motla68
07-20-11, 03:47 PM
The old english standard used the letter f for the pronunciation of S sound, there is how many different languages in the world? all spelling the same word differently so why should anyone care if someone misspells a word, who are they to have any authority of what languages people speak? I think the majority of people in here are smart enough to guess what was the intent of the spelling.

Additionally anything anyone posts in here is lets pretend, a pack of lies, even if a photograph is provided it does not ring truth until someone agrees that it is truth, it takes 2 people to have a truth. Some people are just not disciplined to go look up this stuff on their own and find truth for themselves, you would think a group of grown men and women would have more integrity then that.

On what law is in place the belief in doctrine is the same, one man has a belief it is admiralty and another says it is trust law, there is no truth unless two agree on the same. But in this same breath that truth agreement is a trust and you cannot force one trust upon another, 18 USC 242.

David Merrill
07-20-11, 10:16 PM
The 11th Amendment, according to my reading and interpretation thereof, states that the judiciary powers have been stripped from federal courts in cases of both law and equity which is then followed by a comma with additional clauses.

The only jurisdiction left would be admiralty law.

Anyone want to rip the above stated to shreds, please feel free. I love dialectics. Other eyes will see or provide what I cannot.



Sometimes it is edifying. One suitor rediscovered Title 22 U.S.C. §611 through a friend's experiences during a federal prosecution. Some people in the brain trust chimed in about what an interesting discovery it was; unregistered agents of a foreign principal have no standing in an American judiciary...



The old english standard used the letter f for the pronunciation of S sound, there is how many different languages in the world? all spelling the same word differently so why should anyone care if someone misspells a word, who are they to have any authority of what languages people speak? I think the majority of people in here are smart enough to guess what was the intent of the spelling.

Additionally anything anyone posts in here is lets pretend, a pack of lies, even if a photograph is provided it does not ring truth until someone agrees that it is truth, it takes 2 people to have a truth. Some people are just not disciplined to go look up this stuff on their own and find truth for themselves, you would think a group of grown men and women would have more integrity then that.

On what law is in place the belief in doctrine is the same, one man has a belief it is admiralty and another says it is trust law, there is no truth unless two agree on the same. But in this same breath that truth agreement is a trust and you cannot force one trust upon another, 18 USC 242.

I probably come off a killjoy by reminding everybody that this has formed jurisdiction in the Libel of Review since I first rendered it out of the original Are You Lost at C? (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImN2EyZTM2MmMtMDBjOC00ZTRiLWI4NDE tODU3MGE3MjUyYjNm&hl=en_US)

To follow click here (http://www.fara.gov/) and find the link; Legal Authority (http://www.fara.gov/fara-law.html). You can find that law pretty quickly in the Libel of Review (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWY1MzE0YWYtNWIzYy00NzYzLWI1MTQ tNDdjNDczNWE4MzJh&hl=en_US).


Respondent, acting as "City METRO officer - TITLE HERE" city of Washington, District of Columbia is agent of a foreign principal, a "foreign state" defined at Title 28 of the United States Codes §1603, and Title 22 U.S.C. §611 the Division of enforcement for the Department of revenue (for example C.R.S. §24-1-117 [Colorado]) under principal State Governor in convention with METRO organization a.k.a. Public Administrative Services Headquarters (PASHQ - signed for example by Edwin C. Johnson by John T. Bartlett; The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, The Year of Crisis 1933 Random House p. 21.) The Department of Revenue of course being the execution of bankruptcy proceedings against the citizens of the United States since 1933 currently formed "International Monetary Fund" and "World Bank" etc. - the State, City METRO municipal and police powers under United Nations charter law - protected by the same alleged positive law jural society (international treaty) exemptions home rule (of for example, Article VI and Article XX of the State of Colorado Constitution, "Transfer of government.")


Motla68;


What I hope for are reproducible mental models - mathematics. Applicable and practicable renderings of common understanding and law.

Have fun finding somebody else to agree with you and your many "truths". I like I John 5 though, about amniotic fluid (water) and the hymen both bearing witness to the Virgin Birth in Faith of Jesus CHRIST. That at least seems to bear out my point a little - as though God supervises what will be the one Truth among us.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Frederick Burrell
10-06-11, 08:58 AM
The US a fiction cannot create itself. Only a flesh and blood man can create a fiction.

The creation cannot be greater than its creator.

You are also the the liable party. In that we are responsible for all government debt.

Hence we are the grantors/beneficiaries and the government servants are the trustees and are bound by the rules of the trust.

As grantors/beneficiaries and administrators we are not bound by the laws of the trust and also dictate policy which the trustees must carry out.

We have been mislead into believing we are the trustees......

He who put in the equity makes the rules. with full libility. fB

David Merrill
10-06-11, 01:13 PM
I am in a ten-week course using The Science of Mind by Ernest HOLMES for the textbook. I think that it may confirm that in that reality, in the simplest terms, you are correct fB.

Suitors, the inner brain trust I believe are pretty well dispelled of the notion we are the trustees. We Refuse for Cause in an admiralty non-response, that cannot be ignored.




http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/non-response.gif

shikamaru
10-06-11, 01:15 PM
Sometimes it is edifying. One suitor rediscovered Title 22 U.S.C. §611 through a friend's experiences during a federal prosecution. Some people in the brain trust chimed in about what an interesting discovery it was; unregistered agents of a foreign principal have no standing in an American judiciary...

This echos very strongly Rod Class.

Frederick Burrell
10-06-11, 02:00 PM
I am in a ten-week course using The Science of Mind by Ernest HOLMES for the textbook. I think that it may confirm that in that reality, in the simplest terms, you are correct fB.

Suitors, the inner brain trust I believe are pretty well dispelled of the notion we are the trustees. We Refuse for Cause in an admiralty non-response, that cannot be ignored.




I'm not to sure about that, I suggested that we are in fact the beneficiary/grantor and as such we can also act in the capacity of the
the administrator and was accused of having less than pure motives.lol Also a load of justifications for using other trust creations other than just taking control of the existing one for purposes of interacting with the present system. O'well they shoot horses don't they. fb

Frederick Burrell
10-06-11, 02:15 PM
People seem to be having success with this approach. Of course it pisses off the judges and there are usually threats of being arrested but it makes so much sense, when you put it all together. They have put us in the trustee role, and we are buying it.

THE MATRIX AND
THE U. S. CONSTITUTION

First: “the Sovereign must inquire if we are on the (public)record, and if not, insist upon it!
Say nothing, sign nothing and answer no questions until you are convinced that the
proceedings are being recorded!” ( perhaps a good recording is worth purchasing)

Secondly: all a Sovereign has to say for the record is: “I am a beneficiary (Might be better to put yourself in the role of the adminstrator of the trust, put in that position by the grantor/beneficiary) of the Trust,
and I am appointing you as my Trustee!”

Thirdly: the Sovereign then directs his Trustee to do his bidding! “As my Trustee, I want
you to discharge this matter I am accused of and eliminate the record!”

Fourthly: if the Sovereign suffered any damages as a result of his arrest, he can direct that
the Trust compensate him from the proceeds of the Court by saying; “I wish to be
compensated for [X] dollars, in redemption.”

parenthesis added by me.

It would also be a good Idea to have a claim of right affidavit in place, like the one in you LOR before getting to court.

I like your approach best, never go to court in the first place.lol fB

Frederick Burrell
10-06-11, 04:03 PM
post deleted by fB

Christopher Theodore
01-29-14, 09:32 AM
Whenever I see people talking about how any portion of the Constitution can deny or disparage people's rights, it brings this to mind:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 'saving to suitors' clause recognizes a right people have.

Further, the 9th doesn't say "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights people have, ..." It doesn't limit the scope of enumerated rights to only the people's rights, but is much broader and includes any rights the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or the Officers and Employees may have.

To me, this is very elementary seeing as how the very purpose of creating these governments in the first place was to protect people's rights... even from the government.

Further, regarding the position that the individual people are not sovereigns, I'll stick with what John JAY, the very first CHIEF JUSTICE of the supreme Court published in the first major case it tried (seeing as he knew the Framers and his concept of "original intent" came from first hand interactions with them):


It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the Courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects [...] and have none to govern but themselves[.] --Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 - Supreme Court 1793

The only dissenting opinion in that case didn't dissent on this fact.

Further still, interpretations of the 11th amendment (or any portion of the Constitution, or any creation of the Officers and Employees of the STATE[S]) which are construed to deny or disparage the sovereign rights of the people are invalid - tho, in practice, due to the ignorance of the majority of the people of their rights, powers, and duties, they are trampled every day by some of the Officers and Employees of the STATES and the UNITED STATES.

I can not think anyone who would waste our time with such positions as MYSTICONE has presented is anyone's "BUDDY." This kind of self defeatism is like a virus... and just because a group of people is trying to enslave another group doesn't make them slaves... someone only becomes a slave when they accept they are a slave.

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore of the family of RHODES

P.S.

The poll in this thread is lame. It's like asking someone: "Are you still beating your children?"

Albeit, a bit more sophisticated then that...

xparte
03-20-15, 10:24 AM
For anyone who wears their heart on their sleeve or for the ones who have nothing up their sleeve.The generation of us who taken it all on chin breaking even is the only win.try getting even and your first to be outdone.The folks that founded this site are that balance on that road called breaking even. The folks that fund this sight in its fiscal obligations are that same wealth that funds it also with spiritual yet intellectual balance with that oversimplification that redundancy provides remedy for the crisis or that emergency survey life .no one knows where you were before your birth and no one knows where you were when you died not EVEN you BREAK EVEN. Kristofferson, The PILGRIM from the rocking of the cradle too the rollin of the hearse. Every draw defeats a battle you draw your own battles if indulgence was wisdom nobody be any wiser . I return to this thread for self indulgence understated wisdom from the wisest