The Libel of Review

The Libel of Review, as you read in the Instruction set at the bottom is for the purpose of providing an evidence repository for Refusals for Cause. There is no sense trying to teach attorneys in black robes about law and history; they paid college tuition for that already. The important thing to focus on in the body of the LoR is the example Clerk Instruction. That explains the entire lesson plan and leaves the other text fluff - for the objective of getting an evidence repository in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government, which was formed to protect your property rights.

The LoR was first developed by a friend of mine and some of his "friends", whom I never met in a book called Are You Lost at C? I have a full copy of the book, which about 2/3 is attachments and may eventually get that on my scanner for you all.

The initial precept is the same precept in my rendition of the LoR. The federal judiciary operates fundamentally in admiralty. This is because the several compact states at the time of the Judiciary Act where the 'saving to suitors' clause is found were independent republican nations. The US government was formed as liaison between them as a municipal city of Washington, District (not state) of Columbia. Then in 1790 the districts overlaid on the states were assigned to handle the debts of the United States government.

Therefore any causes arising from the US government's Fed (FRNs) are an insurance policy awaiting claim (bottomry) and take on the nature of an admiralty claim - Delovio v. Boit (1815). The diversity may be between the man/woman and the trustee/fiduciary for IT in all upper case letters (CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST) or the same thing in different terms, if you know your true name - the man/woman and the contractor with the Fed (endorsement of private credit).



Regards,

David Merrill.

First the link was removed from the Google Docs directory:

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8...removedfro.jpg

It may be that I messed it up. It has been replaced with a new link.

Why is it that Tim Geithner is named as the Respondent in the LoR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheCrease

Why is it that Tim Geithner is named as the Respondent in the LoR?

---

Service to the agent is service to the principal.

However the added twist is that the Secretary doubles as US Governor for the UN's International Monetary Fund (Trust Fund). This makes him the agent of a foreign principal and emphasizes the mesne process missing - that he never filed in the district courts of the US.

On that note though, is the fraud of using people's mailboxes as federal enclaves. The mailbox, under the penumbra of Congress is like the USDC in minature or expedited process. However since Congress allows everybody to think that is their mailbox out front, that is a fraud by omission right there.

I have found it difficult to have the LoR served. The targets have retired or are being shielded by auntie iris. The court is threatening to dismiss because of lack of proper service. Professional service processors have been denied access to the named defendants. The full name of the defendant is not included anywhere on any of the bogus paperwork they have filed making it difficult to find them outside their lair.

For future reference, if you intend to travel this road, prepare your case....have a professional process server accompany you to one of the 'audit meetings' or 'case resolution meetings'....have verified proper service before filing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jreeves

I have found it difficult to have the LoR served. The targets have retired or are being shielded by auntie iris. The court is threatening to dismiss because of lack of proper service. Professional service processors have been denied access to the named defendants. The full name of the defendant is not included anywhere on any of the bogus paperwork they have filed making it difficult to find them outside their lair.

For future reference, if you intend to travel this road, prepare your case....have a professional process server accompany you to one of the 'audit meetings' or 'case resolution meetings'....have verified proper service before filing.

---

Hi Jreeves;


In the opening post it is pointed out the objective of the LoR is to acquire an evidence repository so that you might perform the functions of a court of record. The LoR always gets dismissed.

A professional process server will provide an affidavit of due diligence that should suffice in court. The court threatening to dismiss because of poor service is likely a good sign your process is persuasive. Or that your service is faulty.

Remember though that the objective is to form a record with a competent clerk of court.

David Merrill,

When considering Rule 60(e) of the FCivRP, how do you find the Libel of Review to be advantageous?


Respectfully,

ProfessorPhi

hi David, can you help me to understand what the the term "libel of review" means? Ive looked up each word in Black's Law 5th but when used together its not making sense to me.

Im pretty familiar with the process/method but just not understanding how the term fits it.

actually have the same question for "refusal for cause", too.

I think it would help me tremendously to understand all this.

thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george

hi David, can you help me to understand what the the term "libel of review" means? Ive looked up each word in Black's Law 5th but when used together its not making sense to me.

Im pretty familiar with the process/method but just not understanding how the term fits it.

actually have the same question for "refusal for cause", too.

I think it would help me tremendously to understand all this.

thanks

---

Libel of Review and Libel in Review (both attached) are both admiralty terms. In terms of process they are synonyms but I adopted an older term for my process after evolving from Are You Lost at C?

The Libel of Review is fluff wrapped around a suitor's first Refusal for Cause and establishes the Record with the USDC Clerk of Court as published on PACER. This is sometimes effective in itself for whatever claim but also serves for future Refusals for Cause on the Record too.

common law counterclaim in admiralty - this to me is very confusing. So how can we do a common law counter claim against a statutory complaint in Admiralty and once we move to Admiralty how then do we come back to common law?

this is really very hard to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

common law counterclaim in admiralty - this to me is very confusing. So how can we do a common law counter claim against a statutory complaint in Admiralty and once we move to Admiralty how then do we come back to common law?

this is really very hard to understand.

---

The Libel of Review is a fluff history lesson wrapped around the first Refusal for Cause. It sets a new suitor up as a court of record. I have seen docket reports with over fifty Refusals for Cause spanning over ten years some times.



P.S. And thanks for bumping this thread. Those links are long dead. I have refreshed them with attachments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

common law counterclaim in admiralty - this to me is very confusing. So how can we do a common law counter claim against a statutory complaint in Admiralty and once we move to Admiralty how then do we come back to common law?

this is really very hard to understand.

---

The federal district court is located in a little enclave called "mailbox". The Complaint in the LoR is simply, "Did the US Governor for the (UN) International Monetary Fund file in the district court?" The Treasury/DoJ will never Answer, revealing that the Postal Process Server (USPS) is a field scout for the belligerent Noachide/pagan/idolater/slave residing within the (e)state of Israel.

NOTICE OF LIEN
Service of Process on China and Israel.

Answer: YOU ALREADY UNDERSTAND.

You just cannot believe your eyes. This is why the Senate pretends to have removed the Trading with the Enemy Act from the Bankers' CODE.

Attachment 4480


And yet, I found it published as always!

Attachment 4481

But elsewhere in the split mind of the blatantly malfeasant trustee:

Attachment 4482



Pretending to lay down the sword is not the same thing. When one bases conflict in delusion, they lay down Free Will. There is no qualifying it by size - so what? So What, if the whole world thinks debt has substance or value? The law follows truth, and equity follows the law...

The World in delusion has become like the two who hurt themselves, struggling in anger to find individuality. NO STANDING. The law is written for "individuals". The master heals out of love. The student with the pony tail had no stance and so was already "flying". He almost got a punch in and the Master had to contort his muscles too quickly, pulling a muscle. That is what I am doing to the world. The BoE was issued in the Name - Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Paul knew Jesus while teaching the Noachide Law in Asia Minor. Paul was "Field Scout" like the USPS carrier, shock testing how a Resurrection Myth would fly in his pagan homeland of Celicia - City of Tarsus.


P.S. I looked closer. Pause and click quickly about that pony tail attacker. The master lightly kicks Pony Tail's left arm! - After he falls. But he does it while controlling the next attacker, causing Pony Tail's arm to flinch intensely.

This is similar to my job description in the Olympus Ordeal. As found at Lawful Money Trust and Bishop Castle websites:

Quote:

---

Update: In August of 2016 David Merrill finished a complete record – Rectification of Judiciary. He addresses the mechanics of a global attack on trust law. Simply put the ability to contract is being privatized into the Bar, for attorneys only. Attorneys at bench (judges) are intentionally fudging their oaths of office so to protect attacks on trusts, as lawsuits against the trustees named as individuals; instead of naming the trust or trustee. David Merrill has made the entire evidence repository available to students here and will be dedicating himself to edifying discussions on these forums.

---

Quote:

---

I am David Merrill. Jim and Phoebe sold Bishop Castle to me in February of 2015 after nearly a year of careful consideration and planning. Fundamental to corporate and trust law is that CASTLE CHURCH TRUST can sue and be sued in its name, CASTLE CHURCH - For the Redemption of the Office BISHOP. Therefore the alleged court action has had no effect on the Trust. Also, there is a criminal syndicalism in effect with virtually all judges in collusion to avoid proper bonding by removing the Name of God from their oaths of office. What you will find on this website, what you are encouraged to learn here is crucial for securing private property. Please visit www.savingtosuitorsclub.net and www.lawfulmoneytrust.com for exploring Bishop Castle - CASTLE CHURCH TRUST.

---

Quote:

---

I reverse-engineer reproducible mental models (mathematics). A prominent transform has been misused for commercial purposes - religion. My job is to carefully regulate the release valves on highly compressed information infrastructures to assure the most stability during the implosion or paradigm shift as people realize that debt (debt/death/doubt) holds no value or substance, and therefore is an absurdity behind any currency. Today (since 1976) gold has been replaced for stabilizing the exchange rate of the US Dollar domestic and foreign with Special Drawing Rights (SDR's). This really marks the stage in removal from lawful money where humans became chattel.

Look up SDR or Special Drawing Rights (Paper Gold) for yourself; but my definition has been: "The measure of a society's conditioning to blindly endorse private credit from the local central bank."

---

P.S. The United States Postal Service became process server for the Post Office under NIXON, while instating the SDR system, in the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements:

Attachment 4483


This photo explains it better:


Attachment 4484


In other words, the Libel of Review is simply a question about the authority - The Author. Who authors law? The Truth? Or deception?

This is an interesting question while moving to New Zealand - remedy is global; we all know it. Men and women are bestowed with a dignity and inherent chance to live without all the violence. The Trading with the Enemy Act was implemented apparently after a murder and then a verbal consultation, where FDR probably neglects to say that the new AG probably "verbally" advised it was illegal, and implemented his "war" anyway - or maybe just that the new AG replacing the one who "died suddenly" advised it was legal, upon the threat of being murdered...

Where do you want to be?