Printable View
Here is a new example Notice and Demand on the Federal Reserve Bank.
This suitor will file the four-page document into his Miscellaneous Case file evidence repository with a prepaid self-addressed envelope and several copies for his various banks. That saves certified copy costs but any time in the future he can buy certified copies from the USDC clerk of court.
Regards,
David Merrill.
There appears to be an error, depending on the author's intent...
The affiant states: "I am outside the scope of any federal district saue [sic - check spelling]..." yet cites the authority of Title 28, which is for the federal districts.
If he is without the districts, why did he put himself back in?
Because the remedy is written in the districts. This is also the nature of the admiralty and Libel of Review. One appears restricted in ministerial authority in order to establish that they are not of that venue.
P.S. I took a look and that citation is in brackets - in a box. This makes it explanatory and/or superfluous. So I knew what you are talking about when I wrote it.
Ok, so the remedy is in the districts. But how do you know that the "districts" of the Judiciary Act of 1789 are of the same nature as the "districts" of Title 28?
Answer: All districts are of the same municipal nature.
If you examine the contortions Congress went through in enacting Title 28 in 1948, I cannot help but consider that this statement may not be true. That is, the "districts" created by Title 28 are political and de facto in nature, in contradistinction to the "districts" created in 1789. Entering the former is therefore purely voluntarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Dennis Craig did extensive research in this area and you can examine the evidence at these links:
http://adask.files.wordpress.com/201...10525-dcb1.pdf
http://adask.files.wordpress.com/201...200702779b.pdf
These are publicly recorded documents, so anyone can use them as admissible evidence (per rules of evidence re: self-authenticating documents, Certified Copies of Public Records).
Thank you Jethro;Quote:
Originally Posted by Jethro
I will check that out.
Here is evidence that the Title 28 districts are fictional and are not considered to be bonafide "units of venue":
"A division of a district, however, is not a unit of venue. See United States v. Burns, 662 F.2d 1378 (11th Cir. 1981)." http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...9/crm00231.htm