PDA

View Full Version : To whom and how is one party to the cause known as suitor ?



motla68
03-11-11, 06:02 AM
Can someone help me in the deconstruction of how one can be a suitor?
I have questions:

- Suitor by legal definition means you are a party to something, but see this case:
Padelford, Fay & Co vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah
The judge in the Padleford case stated; "But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."
( see page 46 - 47 of the following link for the above)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14566693/Padelford-Fay-Co-vs-The-Mayor-and-Alderman-of-the-City-of-Savannah

The definition and this case seem to but heads with one another an cancel each other out, no?

- Just one example of how the government registers events (surveys in the words of Michael Joseph) and not people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTckFl0jPN8

Now if one is not inherently a suitor by a birth registered event, how would one accomplish this or do we even want to interfere in the constructive trust of other men the Cesti Que Vie?
Some evidence uncovered leads me to believe that to so would be a belligerent act, almost war like.

I have been experimenting the last couple years with some success of just walking away an not interfering in the business of their estate which I will show in another category of this forum sometime. What has brought me to this forum as this is my first post is that my conscience is telling me that we can just walk away from their trust and form our own in which we live through instead of the Birth Name. I come here to learn more about trusts.

Thank you David for helping create this forum.

motla68

David Merrill
03-11-11, 01:22 PM
Interestingly I just posted about that.


On behalf of suitors - we agree. Our cumulative experience and modern electronic communications build something much greater than our constructions prior to StSC, even as recently as SJC. All reading here might understand that as the boundaries in cyberspace adjust to accomodate what we are willing to virtually explore and create, we will be entertained and edified as much as we might expect. The delay in putting the replacement up was by and large due to wanting something done right at first opening, also that particular week seemed to be an exceptionally slow week for snail mail. I even suspect the USPS was upgrading security systems and made no public mention of it.



Your post begs a definition for suitor. From the template (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImYTVhMTE1ZmUtNGIwOS00MGJiLWI1N jQtMjQzZGI1ZDg3YWYx&hl=en), as seen on the banner here:




This is where the term comes from in this usage around here. Competent courts, judges instruct clerks and you read the meat of the LoR is the example Clerk Instruction. The competency of the court, a court of competent jurisdiction is determined by the soundness of the Record and the clerk is the custodian of the Record. So reading quite literally the suitor has acquired the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government that was created to protect our property rights, nothing else. The constitutions were drafted and ratified so that parties to it (signors of oaths of office) would be regulated while the Preamble Union of People would acquire a higher form of self-governance; for the priesthood (the Levites inherited the Cities) that is City of XXXX/METRO - home rule cities and towns (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZGEwNDU0OTAtOTc3My00ZDA2LTljO DktY2Y1YWU3ZGI1ZmZh&hl=en). For suitors though, it is convening court over the kitchen table (and enjoying that right) six evenings a week while adjudicating the legal process from that mini-district court out front called the mailbox. Your Orders, Decrees, Opinions and Judgments are the highest rulings - true judgments - so long as facts will not come along and deteriorate them, and for the more important ones, you will utilize your clerk of court in the nearby USDC to keep a competent record. Competent common law where the common law is competent.

For the brain trust, it was a question that came up early. We even still have the ruling that if you want to teach you should have a judgment (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImOGFiNzI4YTMtZmY2NC00NTM0LTlmN TQtZTRmZDBjMTNhNDYz&hl=en) in place. We can presume a fellow suitor is competent but to teach, we preferred early on that a suitor be able to prove by having a true judgment standing res judicata on the public record. Ergo, that became the private definition of suitor.



Regards,

David Merrill.




I address the Padelford issue in the post. The parties to the constitutions are the signors, you might agree. So who signs the constitutions? Quite literally:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg

David Merrill
03-11-11, 01:36 PM
Thank you for bringing it up. I just now noticed that John William SUTHERS has an empty oath of office! Not just that it is 60 days late as prescribed by the constitution, but John swore solemnly without citing any authority to enforce consequences - typically to God. Most people understand that act of swearing an oath has consequences from the original precept - the Lucifer Rebellion:

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6016/oathonhermon.jpg

SUTHERS has evaded the proper form for taking an oath or affirmation. Form of Oath* (http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6332/formofoath.jpg). Form of Affirmation (http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1953/formofaffirmation.jpg). Additionally John William has a history (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMmIzMDdiNmUtMzY2Yy00MzgzLTkxY TEtNzZmZjU1MmJkYTdl&hl=en) of running vacant offices. The morning after that Return of Bill (of indictment) John cleaned out his (vacant) office of 8 years.

The easy conclusion is that John William SUTHERS is not a party to the constitutions. He runs a de facto office by fraud, since it is obvious that he is trying to uphold the illusion he runs a de jure office with a proper Oath of Office signing him on as a proper party - the state Attorney General.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* The presumption being that scruples against swearing arise from the admonishment by Jesus (the) CHRIST at Matthew 5:34 and James 6:12. The basic premise, why swearing would be repulsive to God is that one should not depend on God past faith that He lives and will be judging our actions anyway (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImOWFiMDMzODgtM2QxMS00MWZjLWFjY zUtNzM1MjhhOTBhODNj&hl=en).

motla68
03-11-11, 02:49 PM
2 things,

1. The link you gave in post 2 of the this thread which links to an older post it tells me I do not have permission t view it.

2. I assume by your post on another thread of the state representatives being the signers of the U.S. Constitution that they are the Suitors?

Some people would make the argument that since We The People in the Constitution is NOT us and because of this suitors clause that We are the people mentioned in the State Constitutions, but if one is read up on history much like the U.S. Constitution with it's reps the State Constitutions comprise of Representatives from the counties, people do not
realize it is just corporations acting as public trusts layered up upon one another and the only way you can have any effect within that structure is if you put on a mask and act in persona even if it be a citizen. The masquerade party!
More to come as opportunity presents itself in more conversation.

David Merrill
03-13-11, 03:44 PM
Thanks for mentioning item 1). Sorry it took two days for me to catch up with this oversight. Please read Post #1 again above and see I have imported the post.

Item #2:

The 'saving to suitors' clause is found in the Judiciary Act of 1789, not the Constitution, so without access to the definition of Suitor as we use it for the brain trust, you easily struck that conclusion. What we are speaking of about diversity is judicial officers - where the common law is competent.

I believe it is best to leave this there for now. - For you and other readers to understand my correction by bringing in the quote I mistakenly thought everybody had access to. As you correct your thinking about what a suitor is please consider what diversity has become in the minds of government judiciaries.

The diversity is embassy, not necessarily citizenship. Originally it meant the embassy internationally and between states so if a Wyoming man and a Colorado man had a contract and they were disputing which laws of which state were to adjudicate the issue, that is perfectly understood diversity (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001333----000-.html) today.

The original Libel of Review based in Are You Lost at C? (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImN2EyZTM2MmMtMDBjOC00ZTRiLWI4NDE tODU3MGE3MjUyYjNm&hl=en) was based in diversity between the Fed/IMFIRS as federal/admiralty (yes, it actually is an instrumentality of the US Government) and a man on a state. The requirement is that any party (the US is not a party in interest) coming against a man in a state, must file the cause in the federal district court. I have attached the original memorandum of law below.

The LoR (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImYTVhMTE1ZmUtNGIwOS00MGJiLWI1N jQtMjQzZGI1ZDg3YWYx&hl=en) that creates our loose definition of 'suitor' still adjudicates on that premise. However, the mailbox as everybody is supposed to understand - ignorance of the law is no excuse - is federal property. If you destroy a mailbox, even your own, that is a seldomly prosecuted federal offense. It is an enclave of the District through the districts of the same 1789 Judiciary Act where we find the remedy - the 'saving to suitors' clause. But all that means is the cause if flawed; the judge takes silent judicial notice that you used a government-issued ID card to get to the US clerk of court and that you have a residential address (mailbox/federal enclave) and he dismisses the case. What you have out of it is a competent clerk; notice the example Clerk Instruction in the LoR. Judges instruct clerks and that is what you learn out of the LoR.

Your diversity, which is better viewed as not being in contract with the Fed, provides you with the original estate access, including easement and abutment. This is where you are probably coming from with the rest of your post. If you have access to the courthouse that does not mean you do not have the "exclusive original cognizance" of the same facility of your US Government. So you use that. Also you acquire highest title on your LoR case jacket file - the physical file - by paying for it in lawful money (http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4149/nonendorsementredemptio.jpg).


Thank you again, Motla68

motla68
03-13-11, 05:26 PM
Another nugget to invoke thought; Do you need a Person to be able to use their courts, whom is the Person, the paper or you, who has real title to person and what evidence/artifact do you have to your answer ? Can you see now why a judge in his administrative duties for a hearing would be able to put in a plea for the person?

In reference to the Libel in Review, who is the reviewer/surveyor of this legal determination and what legal relationships does this one have?

For even Lawful Money who owns the allodial title to that piece of paper?
Here is a hint based upon the seals:
88

David Merrill
03-15-11, 05:03 PM
For five years now we have been paying for the case file with redeemed lawful money. You don't need their courts. They are not their courts - they are required by law to file foreign judgments in the USDC courts. So that makes "their" courts your courts.

You don't need to use them but I recommend that you would. If you want a competent clerk of court, go with a recognized one. The alternative might be a true notary. There are usually statutes that proved for a notary public to keep a filing system similar to the county clerk and recorder. That is still the State Seal though. If you want to develop your own notary system then people can ignore you if they want. There is no attachment to the chattel mortgage recordation system.



Regards,

David Merrill.

motla68
03-15-11, 07:12 PM
Or 2 or more witnesses willing to verify the document contents. From bible carnage.

Amaz
04-07-11, 03:15 AM
In regards to the Admiralty case that was filed agents the Agents of the International monetary fund...is it true that the District Attorneys bond is held with the IMF?

David Merrill
04-07-11, 03:42 AM
In regards to the Admiralty case that was filed agents the Agents of the International monetary fund...is it true that the District Attorneys bond is held with the IMF?


It has been many years since I read Are You Lost at C?

The district attorney's bond is held by the people. The people offer the security agreement at the end of the Colorado Constitution.


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

The bond is also called the Oath of Office, properly subscribed and published through either the Secretary of State (district) or the County Clerk and Recorder (county).


Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.

Section 9. Oaths - where filed. Officers of the executive department and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been elected.

Section 10. Refusal to qualify - vacancy. If any person elected or appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant.

I am describing the state level. There is what officials will tell you is the bond, but that is an insurance policy to protect the taxpayer from extraordinary billing:


http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3271/billingnotice.jpg

If you win your dispute over malicious prosecution, typically Traveler's Insurance will pay you about $12K.

On the federal level, it may be that the AG is covered by the IMF somehow. What page is that on?

Amaz
04-07-11, 04:18 PM
Sorry I mean.... the AG's bond.

A transcript that I found online...

[Jean] Sure it does. You know what they do on these criminal cases? They rubber stamp them. I’ve got a case, right now, in federal district court and I’ve shut them down. What they do they have an account, all these courts have an account with the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. Go try to get a district court judge’s oath of office. They have an oath of office but it’s filed with the International Monetary Fund. They’re an employee of the International Monetary Fund under Interpol. All these US attorneys work for Interpol. That’s not my opinion, I can prove it. I’ve got a copy of the head of the United States attorney’s office. He’s got an oath filed with Interpol. That makes him an unregistered foreign agent. What they’ve done is expatriated from the United States so you’re dealing with unregistered foreign agents under Title 22, Section 686. 686 is one and I think it’s 286 of Title 22 and it says that all foreign agents have to be registered. That’s why they don’t have an oath of office. That’s why they can’t produce one. You ask them for their oath of office, they don’t have one. They have one but they don’t produce it because it’s with the International Monetary Fund. That’s who they’re working for, the International Monetary Fund

David Merrill
04-07-11, 04:25 PM
That probably stems from the Secretary of the Treasury doubling for the US Governor of the IMF. That's from Are You Lost at C?

Treefarmer
04-07-11, 10:50 PM
Sorry I mean.... the AG's bond.

A transcript that I found online...

[Jean] Sure it does. You know what they do on these criminal cases? They rubber stamp them. I’ve got a case, right now, in federal district court and I’ve shut them down. What they do they have an account, all these courts have an account with the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. Go try to get a district court judge’s oath of office. They have an oath of office but it’s filed with the International Monetary Fund. They’re an employee of the International Monetary Fund under Interpol. All these US attorneys work for Interpol. That’s not my opinion, I can prove it. I’ve got a copy of the head of the United States attorney’s office. He’s got an oath filed with Interpol. That makes him an unregistered foreign agent. What they’ve done is expatriated from the United States so you’re dealing with unregistered foreign agents under Title 22, Section 686. 686 is one and I think it’s 286 of Title 22 and it says that all foreign agents have to be registered. That’s why they don’t have an oath of office. That’s why they can’t produce one. You ask them for their oath of office, they don’t have one. They have one but they don’t produce it because it’s with the International Monetary Fund. That’s who they’re working for, the International Monetary Fund

What does that mean exactly?
A copy of the head?
Have you seen this copy Amaz?

Amaz
04-08-11, 02:46 PM
No..... I think he may mean letter head though??