Evolution of the Evidence Repository

Hello Everybody;


Some money is thrown at keeping StSC backed up and popup/attack free! I found the junked up chat discouraging and write with a renewed vigor.

I am not sure how many of you followed the Olympus Ordeal, my Rectification of Judiciary in Washington (Olympia/Tacoma) as the Home of the Roman Gods - Mount Olympus. That process took the better part of a year in execution and sealed my Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy and composed a positive record that the bond-dodging in Colorado and the Federal Judiciary is rampant criminal syndicalism. The execution of process renders common law incompetent.

Attachment 4817

The incompetence has been there all along - ergo full circle. The 'saving to suitors' clause' is nested in admiralty. Therefore the common law defaults to admiralty.

This also returns the evidence repository full circle to Are You Lost at C? Where I began nearly twenty-five years ago. The "Trafficking in the Souls of Men" of Ezekiel 27 and Revelation focuses on the representative Tyre and Babylonian capture (of the Mind) being the Triumvirate of today. However try as I might, I simply cannot reconcile the fraud by omission with consent. So the equitable nature of the "Equity/Law" blend is vacant as the alleged judicial officers' offices.

Quote:

---

Rule B(1)(c) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must issue the summons and process of attachment and garnishment. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-attachment hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.

---

Therefore I suggest that you might revise your next R4C clerk instruction as I suggest:

Attachment 4815

Great David!!! Now we just need to become competent in Admiralty Contracts... or find some more experts to assist us.

Google search for "admiralty contract"...

I will incorporate your strategy into my "1040 Novation for Frivolous Filing Letter" and "Conditional Acceptance Upon Verification" documents about "offers" from any agency, to ratify and thereafter defend a "contract", and a subsequent "garnishment" in Admiralty upon any dishonors of said contract.

Perhaps this case is relevant: Archawski v. Hanioti, 350 U.S. 532 (1956)

Thanks Doug!

You might find plenty of treasures outside Are You Lost at C? I am familiar with the Memorandum of Law for the Libel of Review. Also Vultures in Eagle's Clothing by Lynn MEREDITH albeit citing the UCC cut my teeth about Affidavit and Rebuttal. So I quickly simplified the Libel of Review into a record-forming evidence repository. Jim's case never caused Wiley Young (DANIEL) to dawn his Article III hat and order the cause back to state court. But just the same, all record of the NOFTL on Jim has vanished from the county clerk and recorder.

Arguments before the Supreme Court are worth pondering, but not for the sake of argument. Process without judgment.

P.S. Circling back to Are You Lost at C?, after twenty-five years tells me that this bond-dodging has been going on a long time. Common law in America is a spoof at best. This is why these processes around Refusal for Cause have held up so well. Put simply, I have now published a papertrail on PACER indicting primarily, the proper court if it had existed; The US Court of Federal Claims. Wherein I published an admission of guilt from a not very bright federal judge:

Attachment 4821Attachment 4822

I am going to restate some points I have been making for years, with these same images. One new point though, that might help you understand:

Attachment 4823

Attachment 4824

Ignore the Pope hat for a moment. Michael Joseph might want to go there and I feel he has better images to back up that claim.

George WASHINGTON swore the first Presidential Oath on the steps of the Mason Lodge:

Attachment 4825

George added impromptu: "So help me God." Those four words are not prescribed in the Constitution.

By 1789 these words made it into the Judiciary Act. And they are found in the same federal judge oaths cited on the oath itself. Like in the example at the end of the above Clerk Instruction. However in all the prescribed Form of Oath citations, So help me God. - is found in proper English; not in CAPITONYM form.

In the capitonym form, this is like the quotation marks around "Name" in Black's Fifth:

Attachment 4826

In other words - "for our use; within the boundaries of our Lodge."

Then we might notice that the Masons were witness to both the Treaty of 1213, and the Magna Charta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Hello Everybody;


Some money is thrown at keeping StSC backed up and popup/attack free!

---

hi David,

what kinda "money" LOL! (had to do it ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I am going to restate some points I have been making for years, with these same images. One new point though, that might help you understand:

Attachment 4823

Attachment 4824

---

points? or symbols? "Cadillac style"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

George added impromptu: "So help me God." Those four words are not prescribed in the Constitution.

By 1789 these words made it into the Judiciary Act. And they are found in the same federal judge oaths cited on the oath itself. Like in the example at the end of the above Clerk Instruction. However in all the prescribed Form of Oath citations, So help me God. - is found in proper English; not in CAPITONYM form.

In the capitonym form, this is like the quotation marks around "Name" in Black's Fifth:

Attachment 4826

In other words - "for our use; within the boundaries of our Lodge."

Then we might notice that the Masons were witness to both the Treaty of 1213, and the Magna Charta.

---

seems 'So help me God" was in the english oaths long before George added it here (George W. the man most seem to know as the first president)


what about Hebrews 7:28

"For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."



does the Grand Sovereign Inspector General swear "So help me God" also?

https://www.bookofthelaw.org/wp-cont...st-300x248.png

There is a nature to make this about God and religion.

For me, anyway, it is about altering the oath. I once thought it important that the judicial "officers" in Colorado removed - "before the ever-living God". It took me so long to figure it out. This is not about faith or religion. The people allegedly upholding the law are breaking the law when they go into the office, leaving the office vacant and without bonding.

Attachment 4828

Attachment 4829

Here we actually find the chief justice of the state Supreme Court signing in criminal syndicalism, in conjunction with the state Attorney General! - And about three months past the "time allowed by law!" Additionally MULLARKEY admits to "swearing in" SUTHERS earlier that year but both were apparently unaware of the above constitutional and statutory law?

Attachment 4830

No way! Look what I uncovered years earlier!


Attachment 4832

I suggest you read the entire PDF file attached.

it is a fascinating verse though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george

"For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."

---

heres something else related to "oath" i found:

Quote:

---

conjure (v.) 13c., 'command on oath', invoke, to swear together; conspire, bind with an oath. in a magical sense: 'constraining by spell' a demon to do ones bidding.

---

True Equivalence.

This is a fundamental interpretation of the Fall - binding together with an oath.



Attachment 4834

Attachment 4835

But that is just the first layer of esoteric...


Attachment 4836

obviously, they do not like the constraints that the oath places upon them.

What I call bond-dodging.

There is a lot more to it, upon researching the Mason library and museum unfettered by the oath.

Attachment 4838

Attachment 4839

maybe accept their dishonor and bond them to their BAR Card number instead?