David, could you satiate my curiosity what happened to the bond company in your case?

Where they tried for you to take a mental examination and the judge dissolved the bond company? I don't quite recall the particulars, yet I am still curious how you were able to put them in check mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gavilan

Where they tried for you to take a mental examination and the judge dissolved the bond company? I don't quite recall the particulars, yet I am still curious how you were able to put them in check mate.

---

Dissolving the bond; I call bond-dodging. This is done by altering the oath of office.

This is better understood by comprehending the Masonic symbols on Colorado. And then knowing that Colorado never formed properly a territory in 1861 and so the State is still a war chest, even after the war has ended. The Trading with the Enemy Act has been omitted from the Bankers' CODE, as of Jubilee - 2016. But more to your point here we have Rectification of Judiciary. Here is some more detail.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...4&d=1467987761

The oaths became more and more deviant from the above form of oath. But they started with the third judge on the "psychological evaluation as an arraignment tool" case. The first, the Chief Judge cancelled my $20M performance but since I showed up the bill is outstanding. The second judge recused immediately and the third, David A. GILBERT swore out a phony oath and was the one you refer too, who tried to destroy my mind. But I would not consent and kept audio recordings. I showed up at the psychologist/neurologist at the ordered time but he wanted me to sign consent forms. I told him I was there by court order, my consent was a null issue.

I told him he was ordered by the court to conduct a psychological evaluation which he refused to do, ordering me to leave his office. He was in contempt, not me. But he lied and I could prove it because I had the audio recording.

I call it the Olympus Ordeal, which is what I consider "my case" rather than the rant of a fake judge. I fashioned notice through PACER served on Colorado USDC evidence repositories that fashioned pressure to reform the Form of Oath.

Attachment 6167

Resulting in the Secretary of State publication:

Attachment 6168

I am reluctant to call this check mate, as you put it, because the Secretary of State is not enforcing that "judges" must use the form provided. They still get to fashion their own form, rather than to check their choice on the form required by law to use.

The witness is crucial in any oath or affirmation. An affirmation must be witnessed by a proper judge and so they can play a game where the seeker of judiciary must then request the oath of the witness, from the SoS and COVID-19 has that office shut down. We have found one judicial officer apparently - Steven Leon BERNARD - the chief justice at the court of appeals. But we need LOBE's oath to confirm. That is in the works. There are two suitors' appeals before BERNARD and the tribunals are disqualified by deviant oaths.

Administrative government cannot exist without judicial oversight and so it makes sense that it would come out of the court of appeals. However it is sad so see that BERNARD may be it. Considering Colorado's historical role in fiat currency this might mean that in all the world BERNARD is it - the judicial oversight. We (a suitor) requested he order two oaths from the SoS in the name and interest of justice, and he did. Otherwise the SoS is stalled out, blaming COVID-19. We will see if BERNARD will order the oath on his own witness, to his own oath?

I consider it more end game, than checkmate.

David, I called checkmate because no matter their move they had to concede the fact that you brought to light their corruption and had to follow the proper procedure, guess we still have to see what will come of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gavilan

David, I called checkmate because no matter their move they had to concede the fact that you brought to light their corruption and had to follow the proper procedure, guess we still have to see what will come of it.

---

That is what I meant too. It feels as though BERNARD is pressed into making a monumental decision - soon. Endgame.

My case was abated in 2004 but the prosecutor revived it in 2009, after nearly five years. So it had no chance at all had I run to any attorney. I am explaining this so you understand that David A. GILBERT was senior prosecutor during my Senior Citizen days when I confused that terminology with redemption. First note the collusion into racketeering by the Chief "Judge" SAMELSON.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...4&d=1445304077

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...6&d=1445304415

Now for bond-dodging pioneer David A GILBERT:

Attachment 6174

Attachment 6175

Pay special attention to the term for GILBERT. He was properly bonded for a six year term but renewed his oath with a deviant bond-dodge in criminal syndicalism in four, corresponding to contemplation of breaking the law - prosecuting a redeemed man - contemptuous of me being widely known a Sovereign Citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Pay special attention to the term for GILBERT. He was properly bonded for a six year term but renewed his oath with a deviant bond-dodge in criminal syndicalism in four, corresponding to contemplation of breaking the law - prosecuting a redeemed man - contemptuous of me being widely known a Sovereign Citizen.

---

The only sovereign citizen is those wearing a badge and a black dress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

Judges who take an oath ending in IN GOD WE TRUST properly indicate they are bonded in commerce to act on those individual CQVT trusts to write orders, but they must also recognize the peoples’ / parties’ underlying capacity to bond such orders.

---

I'm thinking you meant to say ... SO HELP ME GOD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lorne

I'm thinking you meant to say ... SO HELP ME GOD.

---

Thanks Lorne; nice Catch. I like when folks pay attention to the detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

The only sovereign citizen is those wearing a badge and a black dress.

---

I am presuming you mean Star Chamber. This is also trustee of the resulting trust.

The baser interpretation would be that whoever holds the force gets to be king. He who wears the robe is judge de facto in command of the sheriff. We have a suitor like that. He dealt in guns for a living and when contesting a foreclosure challenged the "judge" jurisdiction. The judge sent him out of her courtroom and so he was headed for the clerks office to conclude business and the sheriff deputies arrested him for contempt, pretending the judge had the authority to send him from the courthouse, not her courtroom.

Sooner than try staying out of prison for the phony felony charges he gave up his business dealing guns. He kept saying, She will throw me in prison.

The Star Chamber had execution right over the sovereign.

Attachment 6177

But that does not mean there is nothing to be learned from the Michael DOUGLAS movie by that name.

Timing tells me that the thread is brought up regarding my patent. Something I have always pondered is how I managed never to directly Refuse for Cause Robert J. BRYAN for his oath:

Attachment 6178

It sure looks like I did; maybe the clerk removed it from the Doc? Look how there are no PACER markings.

All in all though when it came to publishing the Notice of Misdeed regarding the Trust, how the phony process never effected the irrevocable trust, the Doc(s) were published by BRYAN from chambers. Like the clerk is not familiar with the law. So I see why I have not "recused" or otherwise rejected his de facto authority but it seems logical I would have been conscious of it at the time in 2017.

Attachment 6179

The journey is truly amazing!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

Regarding also Gavilan's post about bringing to light their corruption, I offer this interjection about the Endgame --

I know you, DM, place great reliance on the form of oath that judges take. While the oath bonds their operation of the office and their immunity, I find that it’s irrelevant to our (redeemed people) access to justice whether their published oath shows IN GOD WE TRUST or In God We Trust or that a proper witness validated it, in relation to the judge’s function with respect to the individual municipal cestui que vie trusts (designated FIRST MIDDLE LAST). We have relief. All actions are begun in commerce, on the presumption that all parties to it transact their energy in commerce. The individual CQV trusts were established by central bankers as the vessel / account for the American people to move their energy in global commerce. The 14th Amendment to the original U.S. Constitution (with Bill of Rights) was utilized by the bankers (who funded the post Civil War government’s operation – to benefit them) as the source of authority to establish those trusts, because people can choose to operate as a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States, or choose to not do so by not energizing the private currency of the bankers; to energize that currency renders one “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as a citizen.


The Congress, via the Fed Act, provides for the two separate societal capacities of the people. That contract entered into with foreign bankers (or banking cartel), for the benefit of the American people, means the people are the intended third-party beneficiaries. People themselves bond their energy as to their own societal standing. Judges who take an oath ending in IN GOD WE TRUST properly indicate they are bonded in commerce to act on those individual CQVT trusts to write orders, but they must also recognize the peoples’ / parties’ underlying capacity to bond such orders. The Congress has preserved the redeemed people’s temporary pass-through use of such trust vessel to simply impart truth about a matter to an official, but we do not move from within such vessel. Only attorneys operate a commerce-based vessel, as do people who act as their own attorney to move public-estate interests.


All judges are attorneys, being members of the Bar Association given a license to utilize the UCC. Judges try to obtain all the parties’ consent that they DO operate commerce. So one’s initial act is critically important. Upon first-instance knowledge about some proclaimed obligation that does not apply to us, we redeemed people must seek that person’s authority relied on and we must also provide that person with knowledge of our sole authority over our interests by invoking “the supreme Law of the Land” (the Decl of Indep through the U.S. Const that incorporates all of the Bill of Rights) and the Fed Act that secures our non-commercialized societal capacity as the operators of the republican form of government under the Laws of Nature’s God.


It seems to me that judges who publish an oath ending in In God We Trust are without bonding to issue judgment and order Instruments in commerce, unless it’s the litigants themselves who bond the judge’s power, which would occur most of the time.


The reviewing power of a judge’s J&O Instrument wrongly issued resides in the United States Attorney General, especially since the Bankers’ CODE no longer includes reliance on the TWEA. The ‘war’ has actually always been only on peoples’ minds. Pres Trump is with intent to boot judges who evidence misconduct in office. Until now there has been no sufficient means for us to hold judicial officers to function in compliance with “the supreme Law of the Land”–-U.S. Const, Article VI–-and the “Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof” that constitution’s mandates (i.e. the Fed Act).


In support of my foregoing humble opinion, I offer the gist of this simple update as to my encounter with the federally-franchised state-level court system (started on another thread here). Per an active case–-being now at the stage of an internal appeal in the circuit court regarding the lower-court judge’s maladministration of the NAME commerce vessel and my separate but related original claim against the harm done to my independent societal interests by the lower-court attorneys (prosecutor and presiding judge)–-the out-of-county presiding judge assigned by the State Court Admin Office has ordered the “appellant’s attorney” to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. I have previously specially motioned for this judge’s disqualification, for refusing to recognize that I am who I say I am; I had made known to this presiding officer per detailed fact-based documented evidence, filed from my Sui juris capacity, that I do not energize and am not now moving from within that NAME vessel. She has included that motion as a secondary matter to be heard per the title of her just-issued ORDER document. So, I’ve R4Cd her ORDER Instrument, because she has not referenced my “Sui juris Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant” capacity and has instead shown the appellant as moving PRO PER via the NAME that is shown as the “Defendant” and “Appellant”. This is another attempt that this presiding judge has made to induce me into consenting to arraignment, by now using the threat of dismissing my opportunity to obtain timely settlement. I then sent a copy of my R4C to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the STATE OF MICHIGAN jurisdiction. I made known to that officer that she is the obvious “appellant’s attorney” being summoned to a hearing, given that she is the highest-ranking attorney in the STATE who has superintending control power over the court system and its personnel and its operational entities (the NAME as an entity). I invoked the supreme Law of the Land as the Law commanding her to appear, to prevent the presiding judge from enslaving me and prevent her issuance of a fraudulent ordering Instrument (lacking my energy-bonding) into the Federal Reserve System / global commerce. I’ve previously provided this Chief Justice with knowledge that my societal capacity relies also on her recognition of the operation of the Fed Act. I did so because the Chief Justice must direct the State Admin Office to assign a competent and impartial officer to my cause. This current assigned judge is the second one that the SCAO assigned to preside. I disqualified the previous one for trying to conscript me into his commerce jurisdiction.

---

I read through it twice and commend you for such a concise perception. The CQV trust is plain to you and English nearly fails for you.

Quote:

---

It seems to me that judges who publish an oath ending in In God We Trust (sic) IN GOD WE TRUST are without bonding to issue judgment and order Instruments in commerce, unless it’s the litigants themselves who bond the judge’s power, which would occur most of the time.

Quote:

---

So that typo could be either way, upon perspective.

---

The reviewing power of a judge’s J&O Instrument wrongly issued resides in the United States Attorney General, especially since the Bankers’ CODE no longer includes reliance on the TWEA. The ‘war’ has actually always been only on peoples’ minds. Pres Trump is with intent to boot judges who evidence misconduct in office. Until now there has been no sufficient means for us to hold judicial officers to function in compliance with “the supreme Law of the Land”–-U.S. Const, Article VI–-and the “Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof” that constitution’s mandates (i.e. the Fed Act).

---

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...6&d=1568365290

Extraordinary!

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...9&d=1464804300

That is the essence of Doc 6, in the Patent Repository. The R4C on the Letter is on its way, I hear:


https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction_input

9500 1130 2198 0301 3226 75
Attachment 6181

It sounds as though you, Cheryl Marie are finding the board approaches an endgame too.

I keep a bunch of great minds...

Quote:

---

when one can patent betrayal itself one can trademark life . David Merrill is the trademark significant .
• A distinguishing guise old friend that's a trademark of the highest design. our ego (in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 5:24 AM David Merrill <> wrote:
Pardon my grand ego trip.

The patent and trademark office never had any intention of betraying Big Pharma for my invention.

---

Above, you strike to the heart of A Course in Miracles. Upon changing a few words per page a new organization trademarked the title and now you buy their rendition at a high price, if you want to have reading group classes. I spent six years at 3hr/week studying the original rendition, one paragraph at a time.

Until Y2K the original rendition was secret work product of the CIA MKULTRA project. Even declassified very few people associate Bill's dosing Helen with LSD to Subproject 130 and its LSD source Subproject 77. This is essential in understanding ego formation, to take a trip off to the sidelines and witness the ego in formation. Page 53/now 58 says, I will never judge your ego, but I am trying to explain how the ego functions. Without knowing the origin of the work product however, ACIM invariably becomes a course in attacking the ego.

Guys know this is the advertisement for the stretchy gusset in the crotch - Duluth Trading Company.

Attachment 6182

But we have all been there?

One might better comprehend that the Olympus Ordeal is about Paul being related to Caractacus the king of the Brits. Caractacus was renamed Eubulus by Caesar and subjected to Rome in trade to stay his execution. A vassal king certainly represents the taming of the ego.

Attachment 6183

---

I have been enjoying Star Trek - Discovery, a new serial. There is the myocelium a myocelial field much like I have imagined. Especially when I have said the pyramidal neuron architecture in our brain(s) (including the abdominal brain) maps exactly the stars in the nighttime sky. So grab an episode toward the end of Season 1 to get a feel for what I am talking about.

Now get a glimpse of how I utilize the myeloconia in the pineal gland.

Yeah, thinking about installing a spore hub drive in my car. Just beware of alternate universes when doing jumps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

I’ve read through your Doc 15. I get your invention. Awesome!


Pertaining to the patent office’s communication back to you, that you R4Cd, I think you may have confused its personnel about your societal capacity; their communication seeks your commerce-based id (legal name linking to the residence / mailing address of the cestu que vie trust NAME) plus your compliance with other regulations pertaining to public-estate obligations as to the “commercialization of new technologies via the United States” from which they think you desire to benefit (from your Doc 15 page 48).


I offer this because of the content of your Notice’s caption, Doc 15. I’m using the history synopsis document I’ve complied (along with other people) that I recently linked on the thread about how to purchase a home. Here’s that link again.


Specifically, regarding your Doc 15, I suggest that you file a corrected caption and opening paragraphs to reflect the following:


(1) The court’s name should be shown in all upper-case letters, since you (rightly) identify the Defendant as a corporate entity, not the actual government. I think that’s what you mean. The courts, since the Civil War, are functioning in breach of the organic trust structure of our government. That’s what’s so. But you are actually providing notice of your invention to the ‘awake’ officers at the federal level who are ending that breach, President Trump being chief amongst them who also wants the cure for the COVID-19 virus.


(2) You, as a redeemed man, act “on and for the behalf of The United States” (the Union of States), not the United States. The latter is the designation of the municipal government that was later usurped by central bankers’ establishment of the municipal corporation. To act therein would be as a member of the Congress anyway. “The Constitution of the United States” (dating from March 4, 1789, fully ratified in 1791) enumerates what services the Congress is to provide to the people of the Union. The reference in its preamble: “for the United States of America” pertains to the British Territorial Government that was to provide services, via the District of Columbia, to British subjects inhabiting land here, and also to provide the American people peaceful relations on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways here (as the outcome of the 1783 Paris Peace Treaty ending our Rev War). See my history link, pages 1-3.


(3) You should place “c/o” in front of the municipality-designated street address, and you could even indicate “Mailing location:” in front of that. You occupy the physical land of “Washington” by right in dominion-of-soil, not as a resident of the STATE OF WASHINGTON or the State of Washington.


The Union controls the mutual soil jurisdiction of the people who form the States. The 1787 Constitution for the united States of America (dated May 25, 1787) is the original equity contract and federal constitution, the National Government for delegated purposes. The Decl of Independence pertained to the united [lower-case “u”] States of America. Unredeemed people have abandoned their God-created living-estate rights and constitutionally-protected societal Trust capacity to benefit from our shared sovereignty. And to benefit from our shared insights, and inventions.

---

Like in 2003 when China reacted to my Eradication of SARS invention by announcing (threatening) to patent the genome, this invention announcement is to prevent somebody from capitalizing on my "awesome" invention. Nothing more.

One might look at misguided David HUDSON. He kept thinking he should capture manna, or what he called ORMES, the white powder extracted from the meteorite impacted Arizona soil. The invention involved superconductivity and so the DoD became involved. It became more and more involved for David to get his patent, and finally the DoD was insisting he be able to convert the ORMES back to gold metal. That is when he realized that nobody could patent his invention, because he was already the inventor.

That was all he wanted all along. He did not want some big corporation company to grab the invention and hide it. So he quit throwing money into the ill-begotten notion that he was trying to get his name on ORMES.

Monatomic gold and such, especially healthy is Dr. DEAN with her Magnesium Miracle, is in the open domain. Anybody can put two electrodes in water with a DC voltage and benefit.

I enjoy your faith in the CQV. There was also the Treaty of 1213 where the Pope allegedly overturned the Magna Charta two years before its signing in 1215. Both were in the Lodge. So by 1666 there was allegedly the governing of the Venetians through Rome. Ergo, the Olympus Ordeal deals with Paul and his remand to Rome. I had a pass to the Passages museum display while the Green Initiative put together the Bible Museum in DC. Amazing stuff.

You can look for methods to regulate energy through machinations of law, using unbound administrative officials behaving as though they are judicial officers. Or you can manage energy. You probably saw the envelopes where I sent my patented invention to China. And I have other venues, including the brain trust too.

Thank you for assuming this is a problem. I have US Patent #10,999,999 and even the typo in the header - #11,999,999 on the same invention.

You have explained the intentions in the Letter well. I recall the specific instructions on the inventor name were exactly in alignment with Black's Law Dictionary 5th. And the diversions of energy also align with your suggestions about ALL UPPER CASE.

If that is the reasoning behind the rejection, then it was incumbent upon the USPTO to explain it that way. Instead they lied about three points that are simply proven out in the receipt. I am managing the energy, just like I did in 2003 and I explain that clearly. I am not applying for a patent. I have applied the patent for healing purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

Did you yourself assign that specific number, which you term a “US Patent number” to your invention? In choosing that number, did you not use the USPTO’s numbering system, meaning, did you not enter their commerce domain to obtain it? If so, they had the right to assume that you chose to apply for a patent and to thus require that you conform to their rules.


Was it incumbent upon the officer who sent you the rejection letter, or the USPTO as a commerce-based organization (which is disclosed), to explain that, in commerce, one is an individual who is expected to know what he/she is doing? Commerce -- an international jurisdiction with rules of engagement -- is not trade, which occurs as a conscious energy exchange between two or more sovereign people.


I get a similar response – i.e. ‘I was owed full disclosure and therefore I’m not responsible for’ – when I suggest to people that, if they proclaim they are of the sovereign people operating the States in the Union, but bond their energy with global currency controlled by a foreign entity, they have nullified their qualification to operate the sovereignty.


When you, DM, say “three points that are simply proven out in the receipt”, do you mean their receipt of your physical document (how it was addressed by you), or their receipt of the points made within the content? If the latter, do you claim that the recipient – who likely acts as the initial screener of incoming mail – had the duty to read the content and discover and understand your capacity in relation to your invention (i.e that you are not applying for a patent but are applying the patent for healing purposes) before issuing the rejection letter?


My point being, wherein which jurisdiction of law one stands and makes offers is so critical to communicate that one’s very first presentation must clearly indicate that. Ergo, my suggestions about how you’ve identified you as the inventor of your invention belies (or leaves questionable) that you are the one offering it to all people from the cosmic jurisdiction of law that is so aptly and intentionally phrased by the framers of our government as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. If that jurisdiction were to be clearly identified upfront in your Doc 15 caption and your patent doc's opening presentation, as I've suggested, then it seems to me that you can claim the right to utilize the USPTO's number. Its clients and/or customers are offered the same benefit from your invention as are all other people.

---

What I keep hearing is that, "If you want to be understood in commerce, then act the role."

Or maybe rephrasing, "If you speak to the unredeemed, behave as though you are not redeemed yourself."

I say, Let the dead bury the dead.

Therefore the Notice stands sound in commerce. I signed it "Trustee of the Resulting Trust." I saw the instructions and understood how they wanted to divert the energy through the CQV Trust, as you describe it. This invention is much more effective the way I am executing application of my patent. The USPTO is mine now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

My point being, wherein which jurisdiction of law one stands and makes offers is so critical to communicate that one’s very first presentation must clearly indicate that. Ergo, my suggestions about how you’ve identified you as the inventor of your invention belies (or leaves questionable) that you are the one offering it to all people from the cosmic jurisdiction of law that is so aptly and intentionally phrased by the framers of our government as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. If that jurisdiction were to be clearly identified upfront in your Doc 15 caption and your patent doc's opening presentation, as I've suggested, then it seems to me that you can claim the right to utilize the USPTO's number. Its clients and/or customers are offered the same benefit from your invention as are all other people.

---

What I don't understand is my interest in explaining.

Maybe I should point out where, in the patented invention I say clearly that my invention replaces that loss.

A wacky looking Iranian strips some copper wire, burns it with a torch and advises people to use a dead AA battery to dissolve the copper with zinc into water. Then carefully drink the water with the pico - monatomic copper. This will cure and prevent COVID-19. Manna is manna. Once the metal loses its gluons it behaves all the same. The only way to distinguish what is in it is by arcing for minutes, reaching the boiling point of the metal(s) and the will be a flash while that particular manna compresses charge and disappears. But gold corresponds to the pineal gland and a fairly low boiling point among the transition (Noble) metals. So we find that composed the burning bush and sure enough Moses returned from the mountain enlightened.

P.S. I am adding some items from my desk. What you are looking at is magnesium manna fabrication. Yesterday the current was 1.1 uA (micro ampere) and today it is .88 uA. I carefully draw from the clear center of the glass with a straw then replenish the glass with Berkey Blue filtered water. Just the same, after a while without drinking the current went down, not up. So by keeping the voltage low I pump monatomic atoms of pure magnesium into the water from the negative (black) electrode (cathode). Rust, or magnesium oxide builds up and precipitates off the positive (anode) electrode. So the ionic content would rise if I were pumping metal clusters into the water, which would happen if I passed a certain voltage - maybe 2.5V instead of the 1V.

Human magnesome. I mention this as informative reading in US Patent #10,999,999.

Attachment 6187

Attachment 6188

Attachment 6189

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

Regarding also Gavilan's post about bringing to light their corruption, I offer this interjection about the Endgame --

I know you, DM, place great reliance on the form of oath that judges take. While the oath bonds their operation of the office and their immunity, I find that it’s irrelevant to our (redeemed people) access to justice whether their published oath shows SO HELP ME GOD or "So help me God" or that a proper witness validated it, in relation to the judge’s function with respect to the individual municipal cestui que vie trusts (designated FIRST MIDDLE LAST). We have relief. All actions are begun in commerce, on the presumption that all parties to it transact their energy in commerce. The individual CQV trusts were established by central bankers as the vessel / account for the American people to move their energy in global commerce...

---

The bond company went bankrupt. This is the nature of sustainable debt. Maybe better, "The New Common Law."

Quote:

---

David, could you satiate my curiosity what happened to the bond company in your case?

---

Attachment 6191

Think "case law" and you might get it. Precedent; or stare decisis. So with BERNARD, like found earlier in this thread, Steven Leon is tasked with preservation of a term, Judiciary. But he cannot allow this to become precedent, that any entire "judge" career be termed vacant and completely reversible. So what he did was to assemble a completely new tribunal of unknown "judges" to rule there was no precedent given. No authority.

This is juxtaposition from the common law of England still founding Colorado territory:

Attachment 6192

But the Territory never properly formed. It required 30 days for the restructure to take hold just like all the Government Shutdowns. These days the territory is virtual.

Attachment 6193

The only real shutdown was from businessman CEO (not President) Donald John. It is the only one that lasted more than 30 days. Search by words yourself, the attachment.

These days think - Bretton Woods - when you think international bankruptcy in constellation, in admiralty. But you also have it right there in this thread that BERNARD pretends to be judicial. You cannot change your oath of office and still be bound. BERNARD has not changed his oath, but what he did was pull a fast one. Upon being ordered, he produced the oaths of the tribunal by prompting the reluctant Secretary of State - then he swapped out the tribunal without notice. And even held up the mail using COVID-19 in the prison system.

Ergo we find that the Patent #10,999,999 hits the nail on the head. We all fearfully vilify a particularly clever and contagious virus for suddenly killing the infant and elderly. We fear monger, as I have put it as The Inventor. Except of course MJ - chuckling at the masked masses. But the objective is to cause everybody to tremble and accuse those who do not become vaccinated with my competitor intrusive injections to be criminal. I have disassembled a multi-billion dollar industry by reviving ancient modalities of healing and preventing disease.

Now the rubber meets the road with managing energy flow, capital flow. Or as I put it back in 2003, capital integration.

How did the meeting go?

Ambrogio.Cesa-Bianchi@bankofengland.co.uk
Annamaria.deCrescenzio@oecd.org
Mark.Joy@bankofengland.co.uk
AKokeny@imf.org
Etienne.LEPERS@oecd.org
Dennis.Reinhardt@bankofengland.co.uk
Julia.SCHMIDT@banque-france.fr

Which is the better-described breach of trust. Not healing the world, when the cure is properly presented. So now Cheryl Marie might better see why the USPTO is mine. I am the Trustee. And as found in Doc 12, the lienholder.

Attachment 6195

A couple of days back the governor for the State of North Carolina issued an executive order basically stating that it is a landlords duty to notice a tenant of this new EO 171 which relates that if the tenant cannot pay the rent due to effects caused by Covid-19, then the landlord cannot evict said tenant for lack of performance on the rent.

You can read said EO here - CLICK HERE

Now consider the ramifications of such an EO and the constitution. Remember that the State cannot pass a law which interferes with the obligations of an existing contract. So what of the contract between the landlord and the bank? Will or can the bank foreclose if the landlord can't perform on the mortgage? Begging the question "Has the constitution been suspended due to emergency circumstances?"

If the answer is no to the foregoing question, then does the bank become the new landlord upon foreclosure? And will the current lease overreach a foreclosing of all the equities in the property? The governor who of course has politicized this Covid-19 foisted as much fear as politically possible stating that the "rural" people who are "generally white" should not assemble in groups such as "church, etc." Anybody with even half a brain can see thru this mask-erade as it is clearly an attempt to persuade those who would vote for Trump to not vote at all due to the possibility that they "might" get sick. In the name of "goodwill", it appears said governor is buying voters with taxpayer dollars. How much chaos is needed to usher in their beloved Socialistic State under one religion?

Honestly, I can't even believe how ridiculous this Covid business has gotten. Said governor even went so far as to say not wearing a mask is unpatriotic. Groaning inside. So stupidity has taken over. Because clearly common sense has been thrown in the street and is being trampled by those who would manipulate a people who refuse to use their own minds. But what is new under the sun?

I'm reminded of Jim Morrison (Lyrics to THE END) - The Doors

"Can you picture what will be
So limitless and free
Desperately in need of
some strangers hand
In a desperate land....

Lost in a Roman wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane
All the children are insane
Waiting for the summer rain, yeah....

The killer awoke before dawn
He put his boots on
He took a face from the ancient gallery
And he walked on down the hall"

===============

The bond used to be Fidelity. In consent, a bond can be an insurance policy to insure the bottom of the ship. But companies go bankrupt all the time and continue to work in restructure. So the question begging to be asked is: "If a company has filed for bankruptcy, then how do I use the courts to collect a debt that is noticed on UCC1?" Or better asked "How do I get a judgment against the actors in and for said company in their individual capacities such that said judgment can be filed on the County against their legal names?"

Clearly a $5000 bond used to understand the office of District Attorney is fungible but if it is exceeded in judgment, then how to collect individually? Can a man shirk liability of his actions? I would say no, but then again I am continually amazed at the nonsense portrayed these days by the actors wearing badges and feminine black dresses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

Now consider the ramifications of such an EO and the constitution. Remember that the State cannot pass a law which interferes with the obligations of an existing contract...

---

The Constitution is suspended in the actual theater of war. We cleared way for remedy with the Olympus Ordeal alright. However if you examine the Executive Orders regarding COVID-19 it is clear Donald John feels he can utilize Title 50 where the Trading with the Enemy Act resides in War and Military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

How much chaos is needed to usher in their beloved Socialistic State under one religion?

---

I call that commercial priestcraft and somehow or another the manna at Hathor Temple was abandoned and forgotten. Such a hoard must have been for the spiritual ascension of humanity. There is another instance where the Tribe of Dan started fabricating manna on Mount Hermon to the north and came under a severe attack from Jerusalem. These days it is fluoride in the toothpaste and drinking water.

Clean up and decalcify your pineal gland to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

Honestly, I can't even believe how ridiculous this Covid business has gotten. Said governor even went so far as to say not wearing a mask is unpatriotic. Groaning inside.

---

That is a major point about my invention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

The bond used to be Fidelity. In consent, a bond can be an insurance policy to insure the bottom of the ship. But companies go bankrupt all the time and continue to work in restructure. So the question begging to be asked is: "If a company has filed for bankruptcy, then how do I use the courts to collect a debt that is noticed on UCC1?" Or better asked "How do I get a judgment against the actors in and for said company in their individual capacities such that said judgment can be filed on the County against their legal names?"

---

Even so, such judgments are null. Government is an irrevocable trust but when the trustee is in breach, there are options.

1. overthrow the government
2. set passive and be ruled by vacant trustees
3. become the solution - the resultant trustee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

Clearly a $5000 bond used to understand the office of District Attorney is fungible but if it is exceeded in judgment, then how to collect individually? Can a man shirk liability of his actions? I would say no, but then again I am continually amazed at the nonsense portrayed these days by the actors wearing badges and feminine black dresses.

---

This is a good segue into Cheryl Marie's notice. I have attached Dan MAY's oath and bond. I should point out that when at the secretary's counter I wanted the bond and a lady pretending to be busy nearby said sternly, Oaths ONLY! I started to explain, OATHS ONLY!! When I said one more word - OATHS!!! ONLY!!!!

But with this bond note that it is only valid if properly signed and it is not. So it is easily dodged by the insurance company.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...9&d=1466340637

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

Addressing the foregoing portions of your post:


(1) Your reference to the common law of England states how it is applicable to the Territory (the Territorial government): “the Common Law of England, so far as the same is applicable, and of a general nature”. The applicability pertains to the American form of government, established per the Decl of Indep, and the Northwest Ordinance concerning the acquired western land-mass.

---

It is easy to make that mistake, without having studied my work carefully. The territory became on February 28 and the Congress adjourned March 28 (1861) leaving the cure term short by a day, for the proper formation of the Territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

(2) Your claim that the Colorado Territory never properly formed is precluded by your above reference to that Territory. The western land was originally divided into two general Territories (northern and southern), likely for the benefit of the army protecting the settlers and for the judges riding circuit, from a governmental management standpoint. The Northwest Ordinance provides for people to settle and together form a State Territory, or territorial State, and then for said people to apply for inclusion in the Union of States. To my understanding, Colorado was a territorial State, but not yet included in the Union of States at the start of the Civil War, having satisfied the requirement of the number of permanent settlers. That is why the seal shows both societal designations.

---

I concede to your notice, to keep the peace. I am sick and tired of being goaded into various wars. Even though I point out your mistake about the formation of the territory, you have a good point. But the common law of England was around before the ill-formed Territory...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

(3) Your statement that ‘these days the territory is virtual’ is accurate, because that term does not pertain to the governmental Territory. My history synopsis explains that foreign bankers utilized the aftermath of the Civil War as the opportunity to establish a commerce-based territory, based from the District of Columbia, that the American people could energize. President Trump is in the process of shutting down the federal-level breach of our governmental structure caused by the bankers. But it is we people who must start operating civilian government at the State level.

---

The fiat began with Governor GILPIN on the non-territory, leaving Colorado a war chest for the Union side of a self-prosecution. If the American people lack knowledge how to energize their estates they are simply masks. Donald John's process of shutting down? That was so at the starting gate. Robert Glover is not the chief justice of the US Supreme Court and therefore the Inauguration was an act. Dinner theater.


This is why we manage the Reelection from virtual embassy and consul - diversity of citizenship under the 'saving to suitors' clause in a club. More on that afterward... But please remember that Donald John is not the President.

Spend a little time on the photos I just added at the bottom. Notice Olga is Russian/Ukrainian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

(4) BERNARD is not pretending to be judicial. He’s operating administrative law in the commercial jurisdiction STATE OF ____ . As I’ve previously pointed to, the oath displaying SO HELP ME GOD secures that the oath taker is bound as a commerce officer, and is not impersonating a judicial officer of the soil and land jurisdiction of a State in the Union.



(5) There is no such Patent number 10, 999,999. The USPTO utilizes the number 10 to designate a “Utility” patent application. Here’s the link from USPTO.org https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1485.html


Notice this example presented there showing Application No. 10/999,999, pertaining to UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION, for correction in avoidance of abandonment of claim.


Patent No.: 9,999,999
Application No.: 10/999,999
Issue Date: May 1, 2002
Inventor(s): Eli Y. Rosenthal


(6) You sent your invention description to the USPTO of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. The Application number assigned is 17/023,866. The number 17 may internally designate a Utility Application.

---

After pointing out the two mistakes you have made leading you to this statement you have not changed your mind, then I concede to your reality. I am notified. Many times I am prepared for such a challenge and would simply point out the R4C pending waiver of tort on BRYAN and MARTINEZ oaths. Notice that they have altered their oaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

(7) You are making a claim that you have “US Patent #10,999,999, when no such US Patent number exists.

---

That is what I have notified the USPTO about. US Patent #10,999,999.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

How can you be the trustee of this commerce-based matter, even if you claim the USPTO is an entity in bankruptcy? Furthermore, as I’ve also provided, the Venetian-family cartels controlling the USPTO are fulfilling what they deem is their duty – enslaving the earth’s population by any means.

---

Yes. I have been duly notified of your reality. I concede. You are right. When it comes down to brass tacks though I will likely be unaffected. I have scripted a great response to somebody making comment in prosecution - That if they would note, this is before BRYAN and MARTINEZ, two alleged federal judges. If they are not telling me that US Patent #10,999,999 does not exist, it probably does indeed exist. They are trained attorneys who know about the resulting trust.

Like I said, through the breach of trust. BERNARD does indeed pretend to be judicial. It says so at the top of his biography I presented earlier in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

If anything might be valid about your claim, you should be publishing Notice of your claim on what the USPTO claims is “this application 17/023,866” (my emphasis). They are obviously referring to ‘application’ as a noun. You seem to be referring to ‘application’ as a verb --- your managing of energy flow with your non-commercial use of that number per the right acquired via your declaration of authority: Lawful Money, and your unique thumbprint.

---

I concede if you are prosecuting for the USPTO. You have given me notice of your reality and I am not going to deprive you or even bother trying to convince you otherwise. I listed a few emails and if you get a look at the domains you might start getting where I have been giving notice too - of my reality. And so they concede as they take in the results of the IMF summit.

And like you said, the Vaccine is awesome.

Attachment 6198

Attachment 6199

Attachment 6200

I have redacted specifics so that you do not confuse her. Either way though, I am sure your warnings would simply interest her the more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

In addition to the above --

If you're saying that the people who formed the Colorado territorial state compact had been noticing the people of the Union that they had reached the permanent-population number to qualify for separate territorial-government (land-dominion) status, rather than seeking Union status, then that issue was what would need to be verified. But until verified, their territorial status was not ill-formed. Their intent must be considered valid. So the silver used by the governor was a usurpation of the peoples' valid authority to exercise their societal right of dominion over the certain soil boundary, unless the people consented.

---

The formation was never ratified through Congress. It was play acting.

The US Patent #10,999,999 has been issued to my invention. I never actually published R4C on BRYAN. Even in this Notice of the patent, I just write below - Note, this oath has been altered from the Form of Oath. That contemplates I might disqualify him. For now, he is useful because he is publishing law from chambers for me.

This is what I meant by warring. If BRYAN and "Chief Judge" MARTINEZ are compliant with my authority as lienholder, then there is no reason or interest in pointing out your mistakes here. Thank you for insight on those governed by the Pope (CQV Trust) and the Venetians. The conveyances of energy are articulated clearly in your posts.


P.S. The R4C and Doc 15 were delivered yesterday at 7:40 am. 9500 1130 2198 0301 3226 75

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

(1) What fact-based evidence do you rely on to pronounce that the people who gave notice about their claim of being a Territorial State “was play acting”? Or, what else do you mean?


(2) What fact-based evidence do you rely on to claim that US Patent #10,999,999 is a patent number?


(3) Your statement, that “there is no reason or interest in pointing out your mistakes” renders you in dishonor. Your intended summary dismissal of my input evidences your attempt to put me into dishonor, or worse, to leave me in what you pronounce is dishonor. I take issue with such disrespectful conduct on your part, and it matters not that you are the/a creator of this forum.

---

I pointed out the mistakes you are making, and basing presumptions upon.

You have failed to acquire my interest. I have nothing to prove to you. I am aware that may make you feel badly. Sorry about that, but I do not feel that puts me in dishonor. I am not obligated to prove anything to you.

I appreciate your construction of the CQV Trust and its energies. This corresponds with your theories about the Venetian family rulers.

Attachment 6203

Attachment 6204

It is like the ALL UPPER CASE conspicuous notice and UCC are the language of the dead. You can have a birth certificate which without a death certificate evidences a living man or woman, but you just spell the NAME IN ALL UPPER CASE and magically they have been missing for over seven years?

I am really enjoying this thread. Thank you Cheryl Marie. The CQV is a good venue to explain the history. CM and MJ both recall the Libel of Review and how we use the USDC for conduit into and then out of admiralty.

Of course MJ knows the benefit of tailoring the Libel of Review to the suitor's personal experience and understanding.


P.S. Additionally I remember to mention Are You Lost at C? - and the METRO 1313 Head of the Beast fax tree issue, being the municipal jurisdiction.

These are good to revisit now and again. On the tip of my brain is how the Crown always has the prerogative claim to flotsam, jettison and so one has to register anything found, any claim to it with the District Court. That is of course the mailbox, that little federal enclave, but the Crown (Venetians) would like that kept secret so they honor the LoR as an abatement.

Quote:

---

Thank you for your continued support through highly informational emails and interactions.

I desire to have your opinion on the following matter.

On September 21st 2020 I was pulled over in a national park by a US Park ranger.

He attempted to issue or gain acceptance of a presentment ticket. I politely refused to sign and refused enter contract.

There was no argument from the park ranger about my refusal to sign.
He next tried to present me with copies of the contract and said that I must receive them. I again politely refused and did not take receipt.
At which time I was informed by the two Park rangers of potential damage and violence that could result if I did not take receipt. When asked if I understand, I said no (and I did not mention this to the park rangers but I said no because I over stand them).
So basically I kept refusing contract and saying no and they went away after telling me they would just mail it to me and if I didn't pay it a warrant would be issued for my arrest.

First you should know that for all commerce since 2006 I have used a PO box. I do not receive mail at any physical address.
The driver's license has the PO box as well as the registered vehicles.

I had been checking this PO box a bit more regularly as I anticipated a certified mail presentment but it has not arrived at the po box

On October 31st at a property that I only visit, but is titled in the name FIRST LAST, there was a certified mail envelope from the national Park in the USPS mailbox addressed to me. I'm a bit confused of why it was addressed to this physical address...

On the back was the perforated remnants of PS form 3811 domestic return receipt.
When I checked the certified mail number at the USPS website it claimed that it was delivered to an agent.

I have never signed for this certified mail. While thinking about this over the weekend I came to the realization that the USPS mailbox is likely considered a USPS agent.

I'm wondering how you think I should proceed to challenge this or if I simply write refused on it and leave in the usps agents (mailbox) control. It's the same idea as going to the post office and refusing it at the commerce / teller counter in my mind.

The DMM domestic mail manual states that certified mail that has been signed for can still be refused if unopened, but must be wrapped in a new envelope and postage paid. But again I have never signed for it or taken receipt.

Part of me thinks that this is just something that the local post office does for "convenience" in rural delivery areas so I'm thinking that there may be a process for that refusal locally.

My plan for today is to go to that post office and inquire about how to refuse, all while leaving the certified mail presentment in the agent's control.

Photos attached, I digitally redacted the physical address.

Happy to discuss this over the phone as well and am available today. # redacted.

what are your thoughts?

---

This is rich.

The proper way to handle this with the agent(s) is to write Refusal for Cause across the presentment and remove the Defendant's Copy for yourself before returning the R4C to the agent/principal. But this is so effective the agent may panic and things turn violent. Probably after a short conversation with the Park Attorney.

When opening a box, USPS, FedEx, private or UPS one is compelled by federal law to include a residential address. So the agent mentioned on the Return Receipt is likely the PO Box provider, who in turn disclosed upon the color or authority, the residential address.

Now, the best remedy from brain trust experience is R4C with a voluntary payment of the fine amount. Maybe overpay it to compel a receipt that will probably admit no confession of guilt has been entered. Typically the payment means a guilty plea.


The mailbox is the USDC in miniature:

Attachment 6208