Hundredth Monkey - USA Vacates Prosecution!

The thread here is based entirely upon a clerk of court error on the docket report. Click Here or skip down to my 3/11 correction.




This libel of review (LoR) has been laundered by a bible studied suitor first, who rendered (attached) what I call "generic counterclaim Yisrael" (Order of Melchizedek, not Levi). Then it was laundered by Mark Edward on behalf of Fred Francis. At the end though (scroll to the bottom - Doc 13) we find that it was processed by David Wynn MILLER, or at the least his Quantum Language technology.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5169/r4cstamp.jpg

I find it highly amusing that the judge wants to put the kabosh on Mark and Fred!

Quote:

---

Appearance Bond Entered as to Fred F Frink (1) Pretrial Supervision remains in effect. Court adds condition of supervision: No direct or indirect contact with Mr. Mark Edward Hill. All other conditions to remain in effect. SEE BOND FOR COMPLETE CONDITIONS. (cc: PTS/USPO/USMO) (AE) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

---

More amusing is that every time I look at the criminal docket I find new gems - like Doc 28:

Quote:

---

MOTION/REQUEST for court order for counsel to have access to the court by Fred F Frink (filing pro se). (Attachments: # 1 Mandatory Judicial Notice Conflict of Interest, # 2 Affidavit of Lawful Money in Support of Request for Transcripts, # 3 Rescission of Signatures) Clerk noted for 11/9/2012, (RS) (Entered: 10/31/2012)

---

Beautiful execution!

So it is no wonder the judge Ordered Fred to quit speaking with Mark in late November, but look at mid-December:

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/9...ntemptofro.jpg

The result being the USA has vacated all charges against Fred Francis!

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/2...1213termin.jpg

Being that we are laymen trying to decrypt the obvious we should look at a different criminal indictment where the poor fellow went to prison. Here is the same portion of the docket report before trial; and then after conviction. Sadly I did not get the docket report on Fred's criminal indictment from prior to the USA vacating its cause or I might better understand exactly when the clerk changed that counts accounting.

I call this Hundredth Monkey because as much as I have tried I cannot remember ever meeting Mark Edward. I feel like he has been studying me very closely for quite some time. I even wonder if he is a suitor who lied to me about his true name. The Hundredth Monkey applies because Mark Edward, whoever he is has exonorated Fred Francis from several federal felony charges.

So this means redeeming lawful money has reached critical mass. You all are no longer dependent on Planet Merrill for remedy! Somebody else has understood it well enough to apply it for somebody else still.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. This looks like it is so unprecedented that the judge is still keeping the vacated cause scheduled for trial in June. I can only see that maybe the judge is just that infuriated that in June, he hopes to throw Fred in the slammer for 20 days for Contempt of Court - disobeying the Appearance Bond! (Click here - last stipulation.)

P.P.S. I hope that no readers misinterpret this to reflect badly on remedy. Suitors do not get federal indictments unless they deviate frowardly from the 'diversity of citizenship' offered consul under the 'saving to suitors' clause. That is why this Hundredth Monkey is exquisite - neither Fred or Mark are suitors!

The only suitors who have also suffered indictment were out there with Tim TURNER's RAP/RuSA or something like that. Now it looks like we can fashion the LoR to exonerate even these people!

Thanks David! I wanted so badly to send the Federal Judge in my LOR a "no trespassing" warning, but then you reminded me I needed him as a witness to my LOR!!

The importance was not that he offered to "dismiss" my LOR, it was that he gave his witness it was there in the first place!

In the mouths of two or three witnesses, shall all truths be established.

Still, the aggressive side of me likes the approach taken by the non-trust Suitor above!

I received another comment about how belligerent this particular Libel of Review was. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I received another comment about how belligerent this particular Libel of Review was. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.

---

Well, "they" are the ones who set the standard with: "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohiohttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/911242#) App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin earl

Well, "they" are the ones who set the standard with: "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohiohttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/911242#) App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

---

That would explain why Fred and Mark seem to be standing on the abatement (Page 106) as sound:

Quote:

---

7. Write across all pages of abandoned paper in upper and lower case letters, "Refused for Cause without Dishonor and without Recourse to Me.' Place all abandoned papers in back of the Asseveration.

---

That last "appearance" by Fred was before Christmas. It would seem they have confidence in the abatement and its success is evidenced by all counts being "Terminated".

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3...1213jurytr.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That would explain why Fred and Mark seem to be standing on the abatement (Page 106) as sound:



That last "appearance" by Fred was before Christmas. It would seem they have confidence in the abatement and its success is evidenced by all counts being "Terminated".

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3...1213jurytr.jpg

---

David,

So the significance of this case and it's application to the lawful money remedy is over my head. Please break down the timeline in laymans terms. I do understand your point about critical mass, others using your forms and/or methods successfully, but it is difficult to get through all the legal jibber jab...

Also, to vacate charges. I'm just trying to know what Fred did, how he defended himself, how the courts responded, and what the conclusion was. I can interpret the best I can, I'm just looking for affirmation of my interpretations..

This hopefully will help others suitors new to the case.

It looks to me like the R4C came after they hired David Wynn MILLER to parse out the verbiage. So I think David's video worked well for advertizing.

I don't know if the parsing did anything.

Mainly what I see though is that the charges are terminated. Looking at the R4C too though, I suspect that the judge cannot touch the case without indicting himself for treason.

Wow, some nasty charges this guy had. Very rare that someone would beat those

http://redmond.patch.com/articles/re...#comments_list

The clerk of court was contacted and asked about the terminated counts. She corrected the docket report:

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/299...1113counts.jpg