I like what Im hearing in these so far:
http://www.youarelaw.org/tips-and-tricks-of-court/
have a look! Im watching part 2 at the moment and much of what Ive seen so far is ringing true so I wanted to bring it here for others.
Printable View
I like what Im hearing in these so far:
http://www.youarelaw.org/tips-and-tricks-of-court/
have a look! Im watching part 2 at the moment and much of what Ive seen so far is ringing true so I wanted to bring it here for others.
"I would prefer not to." — Bartleby, the Scrivener
whatever..Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCash
this guy is pretty good it seems so I checked to see if he had other videos.
here is his channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/carlmb1/videos
I took a quick look; the guy (Mark Kishon Christopher) is unaware of the fraud of our Federal Reserve monetary system. I have found no one better, nor who knows more about what court is really about, than David Merrill.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post7712
==================================================
Before I explain that passage imagine a fellow, like me is summoned to testify in court. They find me and by whatever name have tagged that summons to me, You are served. I get to the courthouse at the time and day on the summons and some attorneys meet me in the hall and try pulling me aside into a room with wooden chairs around a conference table. I tell them that I am here today to testify in court. They try to tell me that it is traditional for me to answer a bunch of questions before they call me to the witness stand and I study the summons again and inform them that the summons is clearly for me to testify in court. So I leave the room with them trying to stand between me and the door like they have authority...
Then the judge calls me to the witness stand (by whatever name) and they go through the same ceremony, Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
David Merrill: Absolutely not. [Insert screeching vinyl here. If you don't know that sound you are under 35.]
The judge just sits there but the attorneys from the conference room are beside themselves! After a sidebar discussion they hope to salvage the jury composure, the both of them; offense and defense. So the judge complies with their pleas and decides to bluff me.
Judge: It is traditional for witnesses to say, Yes. If you do not like to swear then we have provided that you might be able to attest instead, in the question.
David Merrill: I will not swear or affirm.
Judge: Please tell the Court why.
David Merrill: As I understand law, the constitutions grant you the authority to compel witnesses to testify. Witnesses are compelled by law to respond to summons and to take the stand and testify in court. I am here today in compliance to the summons to testify. Here I am.
Judge: Then why wont you swear or affirm?
David Merrill: Because I do not want to.
The clever judge knows not to tell me he has authority to make me swear:
Judge: What makes you think that I do not have the authority to make you swear in?
David Merrill: If you had that authority by law then the swearing in ceremony is moot. Congress and the General Assembly would have given up the statutes and procedures for such superfluous wasted words.
Are you starting to get it?
The [tax] Return is there because it is voluntary. The irrecusable obligation arises from reporting. If you are an employee in the United States you are compelled to report but only because you have been endorsing private credit from the Fed. If it were compulsory to file, then the government would simply tell you what you owe and save the words and mailing and reading etc.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Ive now watched all of these videos. he is a student of the David-Wynn: Miller philosophy. that philosophy is that the language was corrupted somewhere around 8500 years ago and what we have is babel (Babylonian) so everything since is fraud.
it is a complicated study, the most complicated BUT it is pure logic whereas non of the others, not a single one, operates on logic.
I seek in earnest for what is true, the DWM methodology is about being correct, knowing you are correct, and having real verifiable evidence of that fact.
I look ahead when considering another mans philosophy as I have with Davids, Lentz, Boris, etc. etc. and what I see with DWM's is perfect way to contract however I also see it is possible to create a computer program to do this work. from there I see it becoming a perfect system that has potential further enslave humanity (not saying that is what will happen or that that is the goal with it)
humans are not machines and I do not think we were meant to function as such. however, it is obvious the current system is broken so, can we use this perfect one without the risk of it becoming self aware at some point?
it is actually quite alarming what DWM has put into place when you look at it this way.
A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.
Without necessarily agreeing with the Babel/8500 years ago . I would tend to suggest that the weakness in language is simply part of the secular humanism 'dumbing down' paradigm. I've found that much prepared by lawyers often has incomplete sentences or very weak on the imperative. "Court is on February 1, 2015. Appearance is required. If the PERSON named above fails to appear an arrest warrant may be issued. Hats aren't allowed. Court rules require proper attire.{a notice}" Doesn't say "Your appearance is required" --nothing in it is imperative. Doesn't say who the arrest warrant will be issued for. Doesn't say who is or isn't subject to the court rules. Lots is left to the imagination of the reader to the extent that they leave you 'volunteering'. The weaker the language, the less responsibility on the writer/speaker should someone obey or adhere to what is said or written.Quote:
Originally Posted by george
All humans are psychic. Most do not recognize it. All humans 'leak' their psychic intuition via their language choices. You have left an extensive forensic data trail.
Thank you. Maybe the first hard lesson I ever learned was about scripting. Never try it. That goes with doctrine too - keep it flexible.Quote:
I have found no one better, nor who knows more about what court is really about, than David Merrill.
Another pundit LB BORK wrote The Red Amendment and has ever since been trapped within the limitations of his book, so far as application of remedy. That is a good example of a lesson to avoid.
For legal troubles in what most people think of as "court" my doctrine is currently research out all the oaths. Use the actors who have good oaths properly published to indict any actors who do not. - Pretty simple really.
Finding who,s Court guaranty A promise to be answerable for the debt or obligation of another in the event of non payment or non performance. 2. a. Something given as security for the ...
Re-presenting what ,if A Man cant present himself as a Man.,then what he is then defending RE-Presents his civil persona or a you .Re-venue = you and that NAME you claim to Re-present if its on paper its about YOU. if its a sworn witness its about a Man and his trial and conviction on and too his truth.The fiction You can be found ordered tried and sentence once it willingly gets RE-PRESENTED & RE-VENUES as a Name or a NAME you are neither YOU or the Names represented as a you .No-body owns me . re-presenting me as YOU a NAMED person facilitates ownership of the name and its Me that has Claimed its ownership.Now you can become that Name.?I submit this my understanding only at superiority me i leave nothing to the Courts.
Read more
My uncle had a random comment generator. Always said mind what you feed it cuz it'll determine what comes out. Now what you have there is high quality. Can I ask where you got that?
Yes indeed. If confronted I might well hire the prosecutor to settle my $20M lien for me! Then he (DA) would be recused for a conflict of interest. [The Lien is against the state Attorney General's own private profit center - State of Colorado Capital Finance Corporation - Conflict of Interest!]
Attachment 2261
Interestingly recuse and recused are still commonly used legal terms but they are stricken from common spellcheckers. Even spellchecker passes spellcheckers!
All of your hot air might have traces of your DNA and have psychometric data of your innermost thoughts and secrets (note: it could come out either end). :);)Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCash
SHTF time? What do you have to show for all the data collection? Nada. Eight years of nontaxpayer thanks to redeeming lawful money. I got a straight flush while you don't even have a pair.
As an outsider, I get a strange sense of certain commenters and their posts and I offer my observations to wit:
For instance, the type of comments and responses by JohnnyCash have a specific, almost contrived, flavor to them whenever the slightest bit of debate ensues regarding "JohnnyCash" directly or questions/challenges regarding "redeeming lawful money". The air turns quickly rabid and anyone on the other end of the discussion gets an offensive barrage of "smack-down" comments which may or may not include personal diatribes - most recently against george and allodial, but there have been a few others.
Now, that is fine if it is the accepted form of discourse on this forum. However, after searching and reading these forums, I see commenters who have been banned for significantly less "forum rules violations" then displayed by JohnnyCash. It seems to this observer that "a little wrist slapping" has occurred by no real sense of treating JohnnyCash's relatively crass discourse, and his non-tolerance of opposing viewpoints, as others who have been banned for lesser type behavior.
Does this matter a whole lot to me? Not really, yet I decided it was prudent to mention it and I imagine any honest and objective observer would notice this as well.
I think it speaks more to the operators/owners of the site than to JohnnyCash since the behavior is acknowledged as existing and yet is still permitted without much blow-back. A retro-active reprimand wouldn't cut it either without addressing why certain members obviously get different treatment than others.
Just some thought to consider; liken it to a comment card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLBereans
Johnny has a keen understanding of remedy, which all-in-all might require a special derivative of the normal transforms of consciousness. There is a subtle adjustment to remedy that can twist it from a cure (frequently experienced Holy Instant) and turn it into an addiction. Once the habit sets in there are problems getting one to ignore the receptor-set.
I view Johnny's paranoia as a symptom. There seems to be an unrealistic perception that there are maybe only about 100 people on the Internet, for anybody with a skeptical point of view to be automatically identified with Famspear.
You touch on it with the misperception that others have been banished for less. Speaking as the sole banisher here, it is tarnishing the remedy provided by Congress that gets people banished. Otherwise once a suitor becomes a remedy addict, on occasion being pushed out of the nest - usually for having to be refreshed about R4C that gets people banished. That manifests in attacking me because I do not openly show my own tax returns and refunds. This symptom discloses that the suitor never understood his or her relationship to the national debt and Federal Reserve districts.
This is the reason I simply cringe at Johnny's paranoia. When I tell him to lay off it, he simply tones it down for a bit. I figure his knowledge of applying remedy compensates for the emotional impact he has on others with his false accusations.
So Johnny;
It does not matter if Famspear is actually haunting me or this website under false nomenclature. You should not be here trying to make him, Famspear or anybody else feel bad about who they are and what their views may be. That is not your job here. People jockey their mouses to places they enjoy. If you enjoy making people feel badly please leave on your own.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Thank you for confirming my observation.
My fit is so hitting the shan right now.
Informative interview: Nathalie Nahai - Web Psychologist