Printable View
Hello;
The clerk of court in Connecticut was reluctant to publish R4C's on the lame excuse that the Clerk Instruction was a Letter, not a Document. She also whined that seeing a red thumbprint was irregular, not suspicious - it just creeped her out.
We made some modifications and the R4C's are being published again.
Great to know, Thank You for sharing, David!
You are welcome!
I presume the Reader will look closely enough at the attached Rejection to be encouraged rather than discouraged. Firstly notice that the original Libel of Review has been against a local court clerk (public trustee) determined in collusion with a mortgage company. Now it would seem that the judge is in collusion with the mortgage company! Furthermore, the clerk is afraid of the judge enough to break the rule, a little bit.
Next notice how the judge has ordered the suitor to refrain from filing his R4C's into the Closed Case. However the suitor continually goes to the courthouse and gets the papers marked FILED. So all that is happening is the clerk of court is being manipulated by the federal judge into not docketing the Filings and therefore not publishing the R4C's on PACER. In other words the suitor just needs to find a publication method for his FILED R4C's.
NOTICE: RECAP it turns out is not free. It loads to "Public Archives" and is free from there but PACER charges for the initial download!
Pay attention to a feature you can load up on your browser called RECAP - PACER backwards. This is where a clever attorney figured out that the US Government cannot legally profit from making public notice of the activities in the federal courts. So factor that in please. The judge is tampering with the US Government's publication service - tampering with an (electronic) witness.
The next step?
I think this suitor should gather all his rejected R4C's and open a Criminal Complaint in a neighboring state or Washington DC USDC for $46 and start the record for this judge's, and clerk's removal and maybe prosecution. I would be happy to see that happen!
Regards,
David Merrill.
She obviously doesn't understand law. The thumb print is a seal; and a biometric seal at that!Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
This is an opportunity to push it back in her face: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!"
The thing is that she is docketing and publishing the R4C's so there is nothing to push back against.
I need some instruction on enforcing my R4C in justice court... the sheriff, clerk and judge have blatantly ignored my timely made registered certified and return receipt R4C's... I now have a default judgement letter and demand to pay.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Hello, and welcome BarlyGurl!
There are quite a few things to understand about contract and R4C - determining when R4C will function and not.
David, thats it? what/where/how? what are they? where to learn what they are if not here? how to find these things if not here?Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
thanks
So, Here I am again. As George alluded, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO RESOLVE the ignoring of my R4C SUCCESSFULLY? Today, I was informed that my WA DL is suspended for traffic citations in OREGON. I executed proper and timely R4C's and they were ignored by the kangaroo court of non-record, conviction was published to the DOT and forwarded to my resident state. It was my insurance company who brought this to my attention..TODAY. I would really like some guidance here... the criminality of the faux court is what I want to overcome. It has been over a year now.
Let me see if I have this right. Someone signed up for a license so that someone might make a use of taxpayer funded roadways of which the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would have an interest. In application of said license someone by express trust [signature bond in fidelity] agreed to bind one's self to the motor vehicle code in the State which that one occupies upon. And now when said applicant [for benefits] has been shown to be in violation of his/her word, by witness of an officer [dejure] of the Federal Reserve districts, then that one assumes that he/she can just refuse a good faith notice issued from the very same venue of which said license was obtained?Quote:
Originally Posted by BarlyGurl
If I was a judge I would ignore such a fruitless motion as r4c in this matter as well. Basically, this one gave his/her word and refuses to keep it. So be it. The benefit of license most likely will be revoked. Shoot if this matter came before my court I would have no other option but to do exactly that - justice must be done. And since God can't lie, man should not lie.
I am sure I don't comprehend all of the complexities of this matter but how can anyone within five or six sentences? How to resolve is to study to show one's self approved. Study, study, study learn the undergirding principles of law and equity. Of course the foregoing applies to any aspect of one's life in regard to promises made in UNDERTAKING in contract. If I undertake to mow your lawn and I promise to do so - whereof is your signature required? That is a one-sided contract - a promise which binds me to a legal duty and gives you an equitable expectation that I would perform upon my promises.
I find it humorous that some would say there is no State and then reference a State in regard to mailing address. Seems a bit double minded to me. What is it? Do you recognize the Ship of State or not? The judgment is in equity. Make a promise keep a promise. The Court does not have to be of record if the parties plead before the Court. Actions imply trust.
==============
Some folks benefit from joining this website. In doing so, they submit freely to the Terms of Use. Said folks create a persona which is NOT them but merely reflects an interest obtained [equity] in the person of which they make a use of to enjoy this website. If they are found in violation of the Terms of Use then their membership will be revoked by the website administration. And no amount of R4C [Refusal for Cause] is going to change that fact. One will argue that their membership is terminated before a kangaroo court of no record and to that end judgement falls upon that one's head by his or her own actions.
a phone # is useless when one needs too know how too use a phone first, knowledge on how to [use] a phone .The law book [use] its there book. the phone and book [use] belongs too a phone company r4c your phone bill [use] dial in or dialed out. this site is a disappointment and of know [use] until its put to good use. just as a phone or the law is a useless Bill . only the owner is billed or fined . stop calling or claiming it yours conn tel conn edison my phone my power my mistake.find out who you are not and then call back with a claim like i am
Quote:
Originally Posted by xparte
I still am trying to figure it out.. I have a difficult time with these things, more than most probably. there is not alot to go on here so I read and listen to others and I see R4C used in different ways. like Karl Lentz for instance, he doesn't use or probably not even aware of David's methodology but he goes right in and refuses it for a cause.
I; a man, not "debtor"
he has lots of audios available but instead of to busy or whatever, he is hard to figure because of his big headed way of explaining things but also seems to be some important pieces missing with his ways to.
its hard. if I ever figure it out, I will make it a point to teach it like kindergaten.
look up Karl Lentz on you tube barlygrl if you cant find what you need here, Ive heard many more success stories from his "students" than anyone else but he is a different breed though and takes some getting used to.
banhammer happy MJ? go for it! I aint got a problem with it or without it and if thats how ya fell, thats how ya feel.
GoyimScum 6 months ago
HA, ok I watched the whole video and can now say I've been convicted and discovered that I no longer believe I have any knowledge of the IRS or any taxes I may or may not owe. If the IRS believes I have done any wrong to a (Wo)man within the corporation, or owe them any depts, please send me a bill asap, hehehehe, this stuff is just so brilliant and is starting to make a lot more sense to me now, THX KARL!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a96xe8l3IKI
Thats it george the kindred garden was our true home now there is knowledge piled on truth in fairness to all the garden is evil how its dealt with is only opinion the garden variety or ego its how we carry ourself not how the garden grows plenty of good seeds spread one who grows his garden weeds his own ego = self? show me how to fish first show me the best spots can u give a guy a fish what if he stops fishing or he hates fishing. When were the bait george whats the catch
when fireworks argument is moot, is the authority to what xparte subscribed unless a private agreement can be reached pledging or pleading a mistake is as good as i shouldnt said that but i meant what i said gettin harmed or hammered is the authors choice in the world of fiction are you not the law? offend a fiction or harm a fiction.first become one or appear as if being one what fiction is without rules. If i said any suitor that uses a $ sign is banned i must be a suitor when banhammered not a guest.try the hammer on a guest and if u dont have that agreement f=u trespass now be my guest . The benefit of a guest is f=u the benefit shared is a trust how and why this is must be in the rules. insight or what,s onsite is based on rules founded or unfounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by george
I find it amazing that someone would actually make an argument before another man concerning his manhood. It is so simple - make a promise, then keep a promise. If you don't desire to contract then don't. But at least learn the law structure. For how can one make a use of law and then claim to be not subject to that law?
Honor is a precious matter.
One asks for books to read, here are a few golden nuggets:
The NUMBER ONE study resource - The King James Bible.
Kenoe on Land Trusts [a must read if you can get it]
Bogert on the Law of Trusts and Trustees ch 1 - 250.
Gilbert on Trusts
Gilbert on Equity
Cases in Law and Equity before the King's Bench and Chancery - GILBERT
CIVIL LAW AND COMMON LAW: TWO DIFFERENT PATHS LEADING TO THE SAME GOAL by Caslav Pejovic
Ancientlaw by Byron BEERS
Society of slaves and freedmen by Byron BEERS
Introduction to Law Merchant by Byron BEERS
The Law of Nations - All three sections - A MUST READ for those who are serious about Self Determination
Leviathan - by Thomas HOBBES
Blackstone Commentaries
Anything you can get your hands on regarding MINISTERIAL TRUST and Corporation Sole - Ref Bible for knowledge concerning these.
=================
If you want Kindergarten then here goes: "If you make a promise, keep it"; and, "Don't trespass or steal"; and, "If you submit, then obey"....
Learn what is a Closed Survey. What is the difference between earth and land? How is dominion established? How is Trust Established?
=================
I find it refreshing that another man thinks for himself. Apparently this Karl LENTZ is not a follower of other men. Kudos for Karl.
Regarding "their law" and "my law" that too is an absurdity which just leads men down the path to destruction. For too long man has been okay to be judged in Administrative Equity - this is, in my opinion, due to ignorance in regard to proper oath bonding. Therefore a proper judiciary is hard to find these days. But why is that? Because the people have fallen asleep, thinking the law somehow belongs to some and not to all.
Making a Use - subjects one to the Closed Law Boundary - being understood by the Treasury at Law. Therefore in Equity if usurpation or tort, there remains a recourse to the people in fungible bond - as understood by Society. Therefore a trustee in breach will not hold office for long. The people will not abide paying out upon damages for long. The converse to this is what happens to day - the office is understood BY AN INSURANCE POLICY. Bottomry as it were - an ancient tradition.
===================
Endorsing the Federal Reserve in Undertaking RE-VENUES myself in my own deed. I did it to myself. Nobody did this to me. And so then it is up to me to rescue me from the Re-venue officers dejure in the Federal Reserve system. For how can I claim under the Will established in Contract [Civil Law] as a third party beneficiary, if I have by my own free will and deed contracted to another? Art I Section X wars against me. I have waived rights by my deed.
Do as Thy Will is the whole of the Law! To walk in The Way of the Creator in the Universal Will fulfills all of the Law. Thelema and Agape = 93 for those who can see to see.
Heb_10:7 Then said I, Behold, I am come (in the volume of the book it is written concerning Me,) to do Thy Will, O God.
Regarding Federal Reserve Notes and discharge:
Heb_10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
===================
The Bride and the Wedding Guests
Best Regards,
MJ
If you tracked with the foregoing you will notice that I am not promoting a PROCESS as some sort of magical spell - rather a WAY OF LIFE - a life style which understands my words by my deeds.
Why use a closed case file.
Just use the certificate mailing number as the 'case number'. That is what they will do anyway, just like traffic court. the case # starts out as the ticket number and then gets converted to a case number.
Hi All, Hi David : )
just want to share personal experience on this matter, I just successfully filed a R4C on two traffic citations with my district court who apparently had never even come across a filing of this nature before.
After a small conversation with the one of the senior clerks who gave me some direction on the format of a document being filed I came up with this:
Name
Address
Town, State
Complaint:
Name of Court
Traffic Citation #1`
Traffic Citation #2
Standing:
First Last redeems federal reserve notes for law money pursuant 12 USC 411 and makes demand for libel of review regarding the following (photocopies of citations attached with R4C written across them).
A copy of this court filing along with said presentments having been clearly refused for cause in red ink will be returned to Name of Court.
Relief:(this was the initial sticking point with getting it filed properly)
This R4C has been made and filed in a timely manner and shall serve as evidence to seek and obtain an injunction should Name of Court claim I have obligations to perform or makes false claims against me in the future.(thank you DM for this part).This action is taken pursuant Original Cognizance of the United States.
Date
Signature
And voila! went right through with no problem.
What this poster is saying might be true if he had the facts straight. Unfortunately, he does not have the facts straight for everyone who might become involved in an issue such as this, and therefore is speaking (to use a David Merrill term) gibberish and only for himself, based upon a misunderstanding of lawful process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
The driver license issued by a state is not a lawful contract at law. It does not contain the five requisites necessary for a lawful contract to come into existence. It is issued by a state based upon the evidence of a certificate of birth having been shown at the time of application. The certificate of birth identifies an artificial person who is presumed to be a U.S. citizen (to be clear here it is the artificial person who is presumed to be a U.S. citizen, not the natural man or woman), otherwise the person could not have been issued the birth certificate. Therefore the driver license is issued to the applicant as a privilege of assumed citizenship (according to the corporate charter, the U.S. Constitution, whose perceived nature was totally modified when amended by the 14th Amendment), but does not impose any compelled performance on the man or woman, only upon such person who agrees to be identified as the surety for the artificial person (legal fiction) NAMED on the license.Quote:
Someone signed up for a license so that someone might make a use of taxpayer funded roadways of which the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would have an interest.
Yet none of these facts are disclosed to the applicant either at the time or after the application for a driver license is made. The applicant is assumed to already know them. In most instances the applicant enters the arrangement without full knowledge of all the material facts. But this does not negate the applicant's ability to modify his recognition of the matter in the future. A valid meeting of the minds cannot therefore take place if only one party is aware of all the material facts at the inception of the agreement. This fact alone nullifies the agreement of compelled performance under the law of contracts at law as long as the person understands how to invoke his choice of law under common law in a corporate courtroom.
Does anyone here know what the five requisites for a valid contract are? A lawful contract at law has the following five (or six) requisites:
Any contract in common law legal systems will itself define the terms of the law, thus superseding any constitutional requirements, and will have all the following five elements which bind each party to the agreement: an (i) “offer” or “subject matter” and (ii) “acceptance” or “meeting of the minds” by (iii) “competent parties” having legal capacity who exchange (iv) “valuable consideration” to create (v) “mutuality of obligation.”
The possible sixth requisite in the matter of a written contract would be the signatures of both parties, thus binding both parties to the agreement. Do you see the State's signature on your driver license? Or even the signature of an agent for the State? There is only one signature on that document, and that is the applicant's. Only one party to the alleged agreement has signed under penalty of perjury, the other party has not. This fact alone nullifies the so-called agreement! In addition, the other party has not disclosed all the material facts surrounding the terms of the so-called agreement, thereby opening the other party to the charge of an act of fraud!
A “meeting of the minds” indicates the ability of each party to negotiate the terms for the agreement. In a driver license, those term are non-negotiable, and are made on a “take it or leave it” basis. This means that no meeting of the minds took place, thereby invalidating the agreement from the get go! No one can be compelled to perform under what is essentially an unconscionable contract!
The above statement is so riddled with miscomprehension of legal process and ignorance of actual Law that it nearly defies logical analysis. Anyone who buys into the misconceptions stated in the above passage is buying into a falsehood.Quote:
...then that one assumes that he/she can just refuse a good faith notice issued from the very same venue of which said license was obtained? If I was a judge I would ignore such a fruitless motion as r4c in this matter as well. Basically, this one gave his/her word and refuses to keep it.
The first misconception is that a “refusal for cause” of a matter is a motion before a court. Quite simply, it is most assuredly not. A motion before a court presumes that there are two parties present and competent to make motions to move a court. And before a court can assume jurisdiction in a matter, the plaintiff must first establish jurisdiction over the accused for the court to even hear the matter in the first place. If the accused returns plaintiff's process “refused” (but not “refused for cause”), the accused has provided prima facie evidence of jurisdiction for the plaintiff in the matter. That evidence is enough for the court to proceed in the matter (that is, until the accused objects to the lack of a material fact relevant to jurisdiction not having been placed in evidence, but merely presumed).
The refusal for cause takes place at the level of the two parties presumably in controversy, before any matter is even brought up to a court. When the accused notifies the court that the matter being brought by the plaintiff has been refused for cause, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to correct his process before entering it with the court. The notice to the court that the matter was “refused for cause” is made to prevent a fraud upon the court (as well as to provide the court with evidence of an objection to the presumed jurisdiction in the matter, specifically, personam jurisdiction, a choice of Law) prior to the plaintiff's correction of his process.
Another misconception is that the accused can “just refuse a good faith notice.” This is a misstatement of fact in the matter of a properly executed refusal for cause involving a driver license and traffic violation. The statement would be true if a person simply returned a complaint (citation) to its issuer simply stating on its face that he was “refusing” the complaint as explained above. Simply refusing a complaint like this would be seen by the court as a response to the plaintiff, providing the plaintiff with evidence of personam jurisdiction in the matter through the assumption of a second party.
But in the matter of a properly executed refusal for cause, there is a significance at law in the phrase “for cause.” A refusal for cause is not a simple refusal of a complaint issued by a plaintiff. The phrase “for cause” indicates that there is a legal cause in the complaint being objected to in the matter, and that for the matter to be able to proceed to court, that that matter first needs to be corrected before the accused will consent to enter the court to respond to the matter.
The whole phrase that is written on a frivolous presentment is: “Refused for cause, timely, without dishonor and without recourse to Me.” The matter is not being dishonored, but rather a presumption of material fact in the complaint is being objected to before the accused will consent to respond to the matter. The objection to a material fact is the cause that is being referenced in the refusal for cause.
Therefore, it is not a simple refusal to take seriously a complaint being lodge by another party. Someone who simply refuses such a complaint without referencing an objection to a material fact (whether that fact be of law or a fact related to what occurred which produced a wrong to one of the parties) stated in the complaint has responded to the matter just as it was laid out in the original complaint. In doing so, such respondent has waived both requisites for jurisdiction in the matter: both subject matter and personam jurisdiction. Therefore the matter may proceed forward as far as the court is concerned.
When one properly objects to such a preposterous issue, and one uses a valid legal process to lodge that objection, one can prevail in the matter despite all the political rhetoric being bantered about by this poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarlyGurl
This does leave one to feel as if one has been told of a promised land, but when Pharoah attacks, no one sticks around to fight him. I am sorry this happened to the LEGAL FICTION, and may be affecting you now!
Delayed response but you're definitely onto something. :) One's mailbox is basically an extension of the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by powder