Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files

I have duplicated a couple posts from the What Happened to SJC Thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock Anthony

Hello Axe,

I'm pleased that we again have a place to meet!

You are not the only one that would like to learn of my experiences concerning redemption of private credit into lawful money and its affects on tax liability.

While some may be disappointed that I've yet to get around to filing (I've been sooooo busy), please be comforted to know that I'm still around and have every intention of documenting my experiences her at StSC. This week I will open the federal evidence repository within the exclusive original cognizance of the US. Afterwards, I'll proceed to file the 1040 and wait to receive the biggest refund in my history of endorsing private credit.

So, please, if you are in contact with AgentSmith (one of my favorite characters from SJC), please inform him that he may find me here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axe

Nice. I've been redeeming lawful money for 2 years, and have copies of every one.

Now and then I get caught in a time crunch and have to do a bank transfer, which doesn't give me the opportunity for the non endorsement, but the amount is under 14K per year.

What made me interested in your endeavor was the fact that you were actually talking to the irs about it and were moving forward blatantly. (in a good way)

I'm less audacious, as I have a family with small children that need me to stay out of trouble.

But if I were younger and single, I'd have thrown caution to the wind long ago.

Anyway, glad to see you back and look forward to watching what happens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Christopher

Hi Axe,

I hear what you are saying. I threw caution to the wind before I had my wife and child. Now I am cleaning up the mess. I too have redeemed money for 2 years and plan on filing this year as such (if I figure it out). I am also in the works of filing the LoR and using it effectively. I hope the more of us that do it the better. It will be great to see lawful money really making a difference.

---

My intent behind copying this discussion under this thread title is basically that we need to move these things forward only under the context of evidence repository. If you do not properly document your record forming in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States, the IRS and other attorneys (reviewing any Refusals for Cause) will spot your incompetence, not being a court of record and it will not be safe to file for a Refund or R4C a presentment.

It does seem to work conversely though, for some metaphysical reason like how a dog can sense fear. If you train properly in the lesson plan and develop good record-forming skills with your evidence repository then it would seem you can confidently (competently) R4C a presentment with no evidence repository at all.

One suitor (understand this one is a former Army Ranger) had a traffic ticket just before we met and he filed his LoR. It was amazing how quickly he learned the principles but he had genuine fearless chutzpa too. A few days later he went in to the pre-trial traffic hearing and knew inherently that when the clerk gave him the yellow slip with the trial date on it that was a new Presentment. He pulled out a pen and wrote Refused for Cause across the Notice and boldly walked to the bench saying, Let the Record show that this presentment is Refused for Cause timely and returned to the Presenter. He then left the judge stuttering a little but asking, What am I supposed to do with this? - shaking the R4C/Notice in the air. He left and nothing more came of it.

The wonderful thing about this confidence (competence) is that he was utilizing the recording equipment and cattle court full of witnesses for his record-forming. He did not so much as keep a copy or carry an audio recorder!



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Since I have learned that the driver license itself is a bond. One fellow I met (RAP/RuSA oriented) has a speeding ticket issue he countered with Sovereign Citizen arguments that would have come out of my mouth fifteen years ago. The court clerk mailed him an unsigned arrest warrant with the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST's name on it so he went unprepared (with $250 cash) to the clerk and inquired. They told him he was under arrest and his bail was $250. He started to leave to visit an ATM but they handcuffed him so he called somebody to bring the cash.

I explained it to him.

The executive officer (stopping officer) knows that in traffic the man is already with one foot in jail. The driver license and the privilege it represents is considered by the court to be worth about $250 - general bond rule. Speeding by way of charge is usually about $125 and the general bond rule is that 2X that amount be posted. By exhibiting his trust in the State and the TRUST; LAST, FIRST M. the man was posting the $250 bond because of the presumption that the driver license - property of the State, which is easily revokable was worth that much to the man. When he went in with sovereign citizen Patriot arguements about jurisdiction, the judge determined he might not put that much value in his driving privilege and revoked his card as bond - brought him in to put up something that was likely to be of more value but equal value to most people - $250 cash.

I sum though, an attorney in a black robe today might revoke our former Army Ranger's driver license. That did not happen to him though - about ten years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I have duplicated a couple posts from the What Happened to SJC Thread:










My intent behind copying this discussion under this thread title is basically that we need to move these things forward only under the context of evidence repository. If you do not properly document your record forming in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States, the IRS and other attorneys (reviewing any Refusals for Cause) will spot your incompetence, not being a court of record and it will not be safe to file for a Refund or R4C a presentment.

It does seem to work conversely though, for some metaphysical reason like how a dog can sense fear. If you train properly in the lesson plan and develop good record-forming skills with your evidence repository then it would seem you can confidently (competently) R4C a presentment with no evidence repository at all.

One suitor (understand this one is a former Army Ranger) had a traffic ticket just before we met and he filed his LoR. It was amazing how quickly he learned the principles but he had genuine fearless chutzpa too. A few days later he went in to the pre-trial traffic hearing and knew inherently that when the clerk gave him the yellow slip with the trial date on it that was a new Presentment. He pulled out a pen and wrote Refused for Cause across the Notice and boldly walked to the bench saying, Let the Record show that this presentment is Refused for Cause timely and returned to the Presenter. He then left the judge stuttering a little but asking, What am I supposed to do with this? - shaking the R4C/Notice in the air. He left and nothing more came of it.

The wonderful thing about this confidence (competence) is that he was utilizing the recording equipment and cattle court full of witnesses for his record-forming. He did not so much as keep a copy or carry an audio recorder!



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Since I have learned that the driver license itself is a bond. One fellow I met (RAP/RuSA oriented) has a speeding ticket issue he countered with Sovereign Citizen arguments that would have come out of my mouth fifteen years ago. The court clerk mailed him an unsigned arrest warrant with the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST's name on it so he went unprepared (with $250 cash) to the clerk and inquired. They told him he was under arrest and his bail was $250. He started to leave to visit an ATM but they handcuffed him so he called somebody to bring the cash.

I explained it to him.

The executive officer (stopping officer) knows that in traffic the man is already with one foot in jail. The driver license and the privilege it represents is considered by the court to be worth about $250 - general bond rule. Speeding by way of charge is usually about $125 and the general bond rule is that 2X that amount be posted. By exhibiting his trust in the State and the TRUST; LAST, FIRST M. the man was posting the $250 bond because of the presumption that the driver license - property of the State, which is easily revokable was worth that much to the man. When he went in with sovereign citizen Patriot arguements about jurisdiction, the judge determined he might not put that much value in his driving privilege and revoked his card as bond - brought him in to put up something that was likely to be of more value but equal value to most people - $250 cash.

I sum though, an attorney in a black robe today might revoke our former Army Ranger's driver license. That did not happen to him though - about ten years ago.

---

David, your post above shows the vital importance of "restricted endorsements" on all commercial agreements. Ie: True name with 'all rights reserved' clearly above it, or maybe "without prejudice".

The entire process of obligation must be controlled, because every single time something is signed or the Trust used, it creates a Nexus for the STATE/DC to act upon. The same for demanded lawful money redemption and use to pay any fee.

If and when the STATE/DC runs into a patriot (as above) with no restricted endorsement and true name, they have their nexus, no matter where that endorsement is found.

They can get a nexus in other times and places, like use of elastic currency and the 14th Amendment.

I look at it like a chess game where I get to set up my defensive posture BEFORE the other player gets to move at all.

Control all endorsements with True Name and reservation of rights ab inutio (or admit and correct my error should it come up on the record with abatement for misnomer or counter claim), never claim their ID as being me. Demand, use and record Lawful money redemption. Evidence repository or Article III court case should they push an issue.

No matter what move the STATE/DC makes (short of killing me) they run head first into a lawful defense and their oath of office and/or the law of the land.

It truly is the Art of War.

David,

So are you saying that if we have been redeeming lawful money and making copies of every check with the restrictive endorsement, we still need to file these in a $350 case jacket with our local district court in order to be valid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axe

David,

So are you saying that if we have been redeeming lawful money and making copies of every check with the restrictive endorsement, we still need to file these in a $350 case jacket with our local district court in order to be valid?

---

No. Not at all. Some posters brought up concerns about getting in trouble. Redeeming lawful money is valid upon your demand. If you have been keeping copies then you have a record of your redemption and thus you have a record that you have not been contracting with the Fed. It is a lot more convincing to an IRS agent, especially the IRS attorneys to have a competent witness too - an evidence repository. The best scenario is best imagined that the IRS agent finds you have included all your Withholdings in the Refund - what they are likely trained to call a Zero-Income Return. You would have at least three non-endorsed paychecks with it - one from the beginning, middle and end of the tax year filed. You want the IRS agent to either Refund your Withholdings or drop your Return into a chute to an IRS attorney for closer legal examination.

Therefore when you file for a Refund of all your withholdings it might be wise to have at least a $39 Miscellaneous File functioning as your evidence repository. The IRS agent would see you have a copy of your Return and redeemed paychecks filed in the federal courthouse and be that much more pressured to pass the Return off on an attorney.

Filing a Libel of Review without very careful study first is no better a repository than the $39.* It works great for bill collectors and if you are in a line of work where you get sued regularly. It terminates subsequent debt scavengers too because if the current one sells it without disclosing the federal case that is fraud. One suitor sets up business systems. He gets paid a lot for a week's worth of work and some technical support. If the business folds though, he gets named because attorneys are looking for money and he gets paid a lot. He has successfully R4C'd plenty of new suits successfully. He began with a LoR. Some of the clerks of court say that you can only use the $39 deal for one R4C and related papers. If you have R4C'd a bill collector and then try to R4C a speeding ticket, the clerk may send it back for an additional $39 case jacket.

The same suitor decided to quit paying his Homeowners' Association fees (without asking me about it) and tried R4C on the bills. The attorneys began to move on his home! He might have lost it for $800 in breach of contract. If somebody makes a change in a current contract, then you can R4C the change only. If you are in a contract you cannot expect to successfully R4C the billing cycle you agreed to. That is what is going on with redeeming lawful money. Your demand is your way to terminate the contracting with the Federal Reserve and be dealing exclusively with the obligations of the United States.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* The nature of common law has always been case law; stare decisis. Authority in common law is comprised of case opinions that are formed in the appellate courts. No informed suitor is going to appeal his LoR when it gets dismissed and they all get dismissed. You might be able to Google up a few case opinions that slur the LoR because I share the template over the Internet. These people appealed when their LoR was dismissed and that generated precedent. The objective of the LoR is the evidence repository.

The product of improved comprehension of trusts and contracts is highest title in your property. - Self-governance.

AHHH okay thank you. I'm very frustrated with getting the sequence of best and most complete protection correct. I'm going to start another thread with steps laid out in very specific fashion as I understand them now.

My hope is that you and other successful Suitors will help me out by setting me straight where I've gotten something wrong.

Thanks,
Tom

That works!

I have only heard of libel of review from Winston Shrout. He basically uses it as a catchall way of re-opening 'completed cases', and recommends using the fact that the charges were never certified onto the record as the usual basis.

It seems like you are using the libel of review to get a heap of information onto the public record, in relation to you the man, and your transmitting utility. You seem to be aware that it is likely to fail as an action in this regard however, and that makes me wonder whether its value is that, "once its on the public record its THERE on the public record" win or lose?

Hello David Merrill,

How do you square the text of the FRCivP Rule 60(e) when applying the use of the LoR as a remedy?


Cordially,


ProfessorPhi

Looking into opening a Miscellaneous Case File electronically. Thoughts? Obviously the payment method would be by card, so demanding lawful money to pay the filing fee would not happen?