David, could you satiate my curiosity what happened to the bond company in your case?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-26-20, 02:48 PM
Gavilan

David, could you satiate my curiosity what happened to the bond company in your case?

Where they tried for you to take a mental examination and the judge dissolved the bond company? I don't quite recall the particulars, yet I am still curious how you were able to put them in check mate.
10-26-20, 04:49 PM
David Merrill

2 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavilan

Where they tried for you to take a mental examination and the judge dissolved the bond company? I don't quite recall the particulars, yet I am still curious how you were able to put them in check mate.

Dissolving the bond; I call bond-dodging. This is done by altering the oath of office.

This is better understood by comprehending the Masonic symbols on Colorado. And then knowing that Colorado never formed properly a territory in 1861 and so the State is still a war chest, even after the war has ended. The Trading with the Enemy Act has been omitted from the Bankers' CODE, as of Jubilee - 2016. But more to your point here we have Rectification of Judiciary. Here is some more detail.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...4&d=1467987761

The oaths became more and more deviant from the above form of oath. But they started with the third judge on the "psychological evaluation as an arraignment tool" case. The first, the Chief Judge cancelled my $20M performance but since I showed up the bill is outstanding. The second judge recused immediately and the third, David A. GILBERT swore out a phony oath and was the one you refer too, who tried to destroy my mind. But I would not consent and kept audio recordings. I showed up at the psychologist/neurologist at the ordered time but he wanted me to sign consent forms. I told him I was there by court order, my consent was a null issue.

I told him he was ordered by the court to conduct a psychological evaluation which he refused to do, ordering me to leave his office. He was in contempt, not me. But he lied and I could prove it because I had the audio recording.

I call it the Olympus Ordeal, which is what I consider "my case" rather than the rant of a fake judge. I fashioned notice through PACER served on Colorado USDC evidence repositories that fashioned pressure to reform the Form of Oath.

Attachment 6167

Resulting in the Secretary of State publication:

Attachment 6168

I am reluctant to call this check mate, as you put it, because the Secretary of State is not enforcing that "judges" must use the form provided. They still get to fashion their own form, rather than to check their choice on the form required by law to use.

The witness is crucial in any oath or affirmation. An affirmation must be witnessed by a proper judge and so they can play a game where the seeker of judiciary must then request the oath of the witness, from the SoS and COVID-19 has that office shut down. We have found one judicial officer apparently - Steven Leon BERNARD - the chief justice at the court of appeals. But we need LOBE's oath to confirm. That is in the works. There are two suitors' appeals before BERNARD and the tribunals are disqualified by deviant oaths.

Administrative government cannot exist without judicial oversight and so it makes sense that it would come out of the court of appeals. However it is sad so see that BERNARD may be it. Considering Colorado's historical role in fiat currency this might mean that in all the world BERNARD is it - the judicial oversight. We (a suitor) requested he order two oaths from the SoS in the name and interest of justice, and he did. Otherwise the SoS is stalled out, blaming COVID-19. We will see if BERNARD will order the oath on his own witness, to his own oath?

I consider it more end game, than checkmate.
10-26-20, 08:18 PM
Gavilan

David, I called checkmate because no matter their move they had to concede the fact that you brought to light their corruption and had to follow the proper procedure, guess we still have to see what will come of it.
10-27-20, 03:07 AM
David Merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavilan

David, I called checkmate because no matter their move they had to concede the fact that you brought to light their corruption and had to follow the proper procedure, guess we still have to see what will come of it.

That is what I meant too. It feels as though BERNARD is pressed into making a monumental decision - soon. Endgame.
10-27-20, 04:49 PM
David Merrill

2 Attachment(s)

My case was abated in 2004 but the prosecutor revived it in 2009, after nearly five years. So it had no chance at all had I run to any attorney. I am explaining this so you understand that David A. GILBERT was senior prosecutor during my Senior Citizen days when I confused that terminology with redemption. First note the collusion into racketeering by the Chief "Judge" SAMELSON.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...4&d=1445304077

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...6&d=1445304415

Now for bond-dodging pioneer David A GILBERT:

Attachment 6174

Attachment 6175

Pay special attention to the term for GILBERT. He was properly bonded for a six year term but renewed his oath with a deviant bond-dodge in criminal syndicalism in four, corresponding to contemplation of breaking the law - prosecuting a redeemed man - contemptuous of me being widely known a Sovereign Citizen.
10-27-20, 07:42 PM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Pay special attention to the term for GILBERT. He was properly bonded for a six year term but renewed his oath with a deviant bond-dodge in criminal syndicalism in four, corresponding to contemplation of breaking the law - prosecuting a redeemed man - contemptuous of me being widely known a Sovereign Citizen.

The only sovereign citizen is those wearing a badge and a black dress.
10-27-20, 08:16 PM
lorne

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

Judges who take an oath ending in IN GOD WE TRUST properly indicate they are bonded in commerce to act on those individual CQVT trusts to write orders, but they must also recognize the peoples’ / parties’ underlying capacity to bond such orders.

I'm thinking you meant to say ... SO HELP ME GOD.
10-27-20, 10:59 PM
David Merrill

4 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by lorne

I'm thinking you meant to say ... SO HELP ME GOD.

Thanks Lorne; nice Catch. I like when folks pay attention to the detail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

The only sovereign citizen is those wearing a badge and a black dress.

I am presuming you mean Star Chamber. This is also trustee of the resulting trust.

The baser interpretation would be that whoever holds the force gets to be king. He who wears the robe is judge de facto in command of the sheriff. We have a suitor like that. He dealt in guns for a living and when contesting a foreclosure challenged the "judge" jurisdiction. The judge sent him out of her courtroom and so he was headed for the clerks office to conclude business and the sheriff deputies arrested him for contempt, pretending the judge had the authority to send him from the courthouse, not her courtroom.

Sooner than try staying out of prison for the phony felony charges he gave up his business dealing guns. He kept saying, She will throw me in prison.

The Star Chamber had execution right over the sovereign.

Attachment 6177

But that does not mean there is nothing to be learned from the Michael DOUGLAS movie by that name.

Timing tells me that the thread is brought up regarding my patent. Something I have always pondered is how I managed never to directly Refuse for Cause Robert J. BRYAN for his oath:

Attachment 6178

It sure looks like I did; maybe the clerk removed it from the Doc? Look how there are no PACER markings.

All in all though when it came to publishing the Notice of Misdeed regarding the Trust, how the phony process never effected the irrevocable trust, the Doc(s) were published by BRYAN from chambers. Like the clerk is not familiar with the law. So I see why I have not "recused" or otherwise rejected his de facto authority but it seems logical I would have been conscious of it at the time in 2017.

Attachment 6179

The journey is truly amazing!!
10-28-20, 01:17 AM
David Merrill

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheryl Marie

Regarding also Gavilan's post about bringing to light their corruption, I offer this interjection about the Endgame --

I know you, DM, place great reliance on the form of oath that judges take. While the oath bonds their operation of the office and their immunity, I find that it’s irrelevant to our (redeemed people) access to justice whether their published oath shows IN GOD WE TRUST or In God We Trust or that a proper witness validated it, in relation to the judge’s function with respect to the individual municipal cestui que vie trusts (designated FIRST MIDDLE LAST). We have relief. All actions are begun in commerce, on the presumption that all parties to it transact their energy in commerce. The individual CQV trusts were established by central bankers as the vessel / account for the American people to move their energy in global commerce. The 14th Amendment to the original U.S. Constitution (with Bill of Rights) was utilized by the bankers (who funded the post Civil War government’s operation – to benefit them) as the source of authority to establish those trusts, because people can choose to operate as a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States, or choose to not do so by not energizing the private currency of the bankers; to energize that currency renders one “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as a citizen.

The Congress, via the Fed Act, provides for the two separate societal capacities of the people. That contract entered into with foreign bankers (or banking cartel), for the benefit of the American people, means the people are the intended third-party beneficiaries. People themselves bond their energy as to their own societal standing. Judges who take an oath ending in IN GOD WE TRUST properly indicate they are bonded in commerce to act on those individual CQVT trusts to write orders, but they must also recognize the peoples’ / parties’ underlying capacity to bond such orders. The Congress has preserved the redeemed people’s temporary pass-through use of such trust vessel to simply impart truth about a matter to an official, but we do not move from within such vessel. Only attorneys operate a commerce-based vessel, as do people who act as their own attorney to move public-estate interests.

All judges are attorneys, being members of the Bar Association given a license to utilize the UCC. Judges try to obtain all the parties’ consent that they DO operate commerce. So one’s initial act is critically important. Upon first-instance knowledge about some proclaimed obligation that does not apply to us, we redeemed people must seek that person’s authority relied on and we must also provide that person with knowledge of our sole authority over our interests by invoking “the supreme Law of the Land” (the Decl of Indep through the U.S. Const that incorporates all of the Bill of Rights) and the Fed Act that secures our non-commercialized societal capacity as the operators of the republican form of government under the Laws of Nature’s God.

It seems to me that judges who publish an oath ending in In God We Trust are without bonding to issue judgment and order Instruments in commerce, unless it’s the litigants themselves who bond the judge’s power, which would occur most of the time.

The reviewing power of a judge’s J&O Instrument wrongly issued resides in the United States Attorney General, especially since the Bankers’ CODE no longer includes reliance on the TWEA. The ‘war’ has actually always been only on peoples’ minds. Pres Trump is with intent to boot judges who evidence misconduct in office. Until now there has been no sufficient means for us to hold judicial officers to function in compliance with “the supreme Law of the Land”–-U.S. Const, Article VI–-and the “Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof” that constitution’s mandates (i.e. the Fed Act).

In support of my foregoing humble opinion, I offer the gist of this simple update as to my encounter with the federally-franchised state-level court system (started on another thread here). Per an active case–-being now at the stage of an internal appeal in the circuit court regarding the lower-court judge’s maladministration of the NAME commerce vessel and my separate but related original claim against the harm done to my independent societal interests by the lower-court attorneys (prosecutor and presiding judge)–-the out-of-county presiding judge assigned by the State Court Admin Office has ordered the “appellant’s attorney” to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. I have previously specially motioned for this judge’s disqualification, for refusing to recognize that I am who I say I am; I had made known to this presiding officer per detailed fact-based documented evidence, filed from my Sui juris capacity, that I do not energize and am not now moving from within that NAME vessel. She has included that motion as a secondary matter to be heard per the title of her just-issued ORDER document. So, I’ve R4Cd her ORDER Instrument, because she has not referenced my “Sui juris Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant” capacity and has instead shown the appellant as moving PRO PER via the NAME that is shown as the “Defendant” and “Appellant”. This is another attempt that this presiding judge has made to induce me into consenting to arraignment, by now using the threat of dismissing my opportunity to obtain timely settlement. I then sent a copy of my R4C to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the STATE OF MICHIGAN jurisdiction. I made known to that officer that she is the obvious “appellant’s attorney” being summoned to a hearing, given that she is the highest-ranking attorney in the STATE who has superintending control power over the court system and its personnel and its operational entities (the NAME as an entity). I invoked the supreme Law of the Land as the Law commanding her to appear, to prevent the presiding judge from enslaving me and prevent her issuance of a fraudulent ordering Instrument (lacking my energy-bonding) into the Federal Reserve System / global commerce. I’ve previously provided this Chief Justice with knowledge that my societal capacity relies also on her recognition of the operation of the Fed Act. I did so because the Chief Justice must direct the State Admin Office to assign a competent and impartial officer to my cause. This current assigned judge is the second one that the SCAO assigned to preside. I disqualified the previous one for trying to conscript me into his commerce jurisdiction.

I read through it twice and commend you for such a concise perception. The CQV trust is plain to you and English nearly fails for you.

Quote:

It seems to me that judges who publish an oath ending in In God We Trust (sic) IN GOD WE TRUST are without bonding to issue judgment and order Instruments in commerce, unless it’s the litigants themselves who bond the judge’s power, which would occur most of the time.

Quote:

So that typo could be either way, upon perspective.

The reviewing power of a judge’s J&O Instrument wrongly issued resides in the United States Attorney General, especially since the Bankers’ CODE no longer includes reliance on the TWEA. The ‘war’ has actually always been only on peoples’ minds. Pres Trump is with intent to boot judges who evidence misconduct in office. Until now there has been no sufficient means for us to hold judicial officers to function in compliance with “the supreme Law of the Land”–-U.S. Const, Article VI–-and the “Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof” that constitution’s mandates (i.e. the Fed Act).

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...6&d=1568365290

Extraordinary!

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...9&d=1464804300

That is the essence of Doc 6, in the Patent Repository. The R4C on the Letter is on its way, I hear:

https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction_input

9500 1130 2198 0301 3226 75
Attachment 6181

It sounds as though you, Cheryl Marie are finding the board approaches an endgame too.
10-28-20, 07:51 AM
David Merrill

2 Attachment(s)

From the brain trust

I keep a bunch of great minds...

Quote:

when one can patent betrayal itself one can trademark life . David Merrill is the trademark significant .
• A distinguishing guise old friend that's a trademark of the highest design. our ego (in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 5:24 AM David Merrill <> wrote:
Pardon my grand ego trip.

The patent and trademark office never had any intention of betraying Big Pharma for my invention.

Above, you strike to the heart of A Course in Miracles. Upon changing a few words per page a new organization trademarked the title and now you buy their rendition at a high price, if you want to have reading group classes. I spent six years at 3hr/week studying the original rendition, one paragraph at a time.

Until Y2K the original rendition was secret work product of the CIA MKULTRA project. Even declassified very few people associate Bill's dosing Helen with LSD to Subproject 130 and its LSD source Subproject 77. This is essential in understanding ego formation, to take a trip off to the sidelines and witness the ego in formation. Page 53/now 58 says, I will never judge your ego, but I am trying to explain how the ego functions. Without knowing the origin of the work product however, ACIM invariably becomes a course in attacking the ego.

Guys know this is the advertisement for the stretchy gusset in the crotch - Duluth Trading Company.

Attachment 6182

But we have all been there?

One might better comprehend that the Olympus Ordeal is about Paul being related to Caractacus the king of the Brits. Caractacus was renamed Eubulus by Caesar and subjected to Rome in trade to stay his execution. A vassal king certainly represents the taming of the ego.

Attachment 6183

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page