Coresource Solution - attempts to disclose from man on the land since 1968

[David Merrill]

That in which I shared with you privately is a sample, names have been changed in it so I doubt he is going to know what you are even talking about because you do not have the names that were on the original. If he respects the privacy of his agreements is another reason he may not give you anything.

I think it would be better to get the original from Sheriff HARRISON, you being like this. Now you are calling me a fraud!

You wrote that the Coresource Solution will pay the roofer and now you are calling me a fraud for indicting you with your own words?

You did not give me anything in private. That does not exist. If I read it, then I will have a bunch of secret information in my head and will constantly be trying to get you to divulge what I already have in my head for everybody here. I never agreed to keep it private. You sent it to me with an advisement that it is private/secret. That is why I did not read it. I did save it to disk adding the word "secret" after the file name so that I do not pull it in a year forgetting what it is. So I am under no obligation to keep it from the members here Motla68; you sent that to me for my use, without me even requesting it.

You are useful as far as I am concerned. You bring a lot of proof out of me with your nonsense. I was not going to mention that you have sent me a template of the Sheriff Agreement you sent to Sheriff HARRISON. You did. When you refuse to disclose it I probably will, provided Sheriff HARRISON is reluctant to send me the original.

Call matla fake and fraud, whatever makes you happy, these are just labels you give because I do not give you all the red carpet treatment and cut the meat for you so you can chew it. I do not serve knowledge up for you on a silver platter therefore I am a fake and fraud? for someone who boasts about knowing court room procedure, would have to say that I am disappointed.

You have indicted yourself for fraud, telling people they can use the Coresource Solution to pay the roofer.

[David Merrill]

We are just changing up the rules as we go along here I guess? Even after I told you that I cannot show you the actual documents because they were private you still persist, I assume your in the same contention as David that you do not believe in Private law, but this is not my contention and belief so still not going to show the actual documents. I respect others privacy, do you not?

It is obvious that there is something very wrong with your teachings. For one thing you are unwilling to teach.

Nope, mostly just that I keep private in the private and public I can show or provide a link to it.

From my perspective you are wasting the readers' time here. I suggest you keep it to your own threads. I don't like you trying to get members from here spending time with your theories - you said you can get a roofer paid from the Treasury with the Coresource Solution. I will give you some time to show your theory works here before I produce at least one letter from the Treasury in response to a service provider (roofer for example) trying to collect on such instructions.

[motla68]

Back in 2005 I sent in a letter requesting any evidence the state had interest in the vehicle that was registered, here is what they sent me back:



I do not have a good scanner so I took a picture on a old digital camera I have which I use for copying documents. The top is cut off so as to get in close enough so that you all can read the text. MJ has seen this document too, but without the editing and can probably testify to it's authenticity.

[David Merrill]

Back in 2005 I sent in a letter requesting any evidence the state had interest in the vehicle that was registered, here is what they sent me back:



I do not have a good scanner so I took a picture on a old digital camera I have which I use for copying documents. The top is cut off so as to get in close enough so that you all can read the text. MJ has seen this document too, but without the editing and can probably testify to it's authenticity.

Sweet! The state is just a repository for registration. After two years they throw away the Bill of Lading. That same function can be exercised by operation of law through the district courts of the US too.

[motla68]

I think it would be better to get the original from Sheriff HARRISON, you being like this. Now you are calling me a fraud!

You wrote that the Coresource Solution will pay the roofer and now you are calling me a fraud for indicting you with your own words?

You did not give me anything in private. That does not exist. If I read it, then I will have a bunch of secret information in my head and will constantly be trying to get you to divulge what I already have in my head for everybody here. I never agreed to keep it private. You sent it to me with an advisement that it is private/secret. That is why I did not read it. I did save it to disk adding the word "secret" after the file name so that I do not pull it in a year forgetting what it is. So I am under no obligation to keep it from the members here Motla68; you sent that to me for my use, without me even requesting it.

You are useful as far as I am concerned. You bring a lot of proof out of me with your nonsense. I was not going to mention that you have sent me a template of the Sheriff Agreement you sent to Sheriff HARRISON. You did. When you refuse to disclose it I probably will, provided Sheriff HARRISON is reluctant to send me the original.


You have indicted yourself for fraud, telling people they can use the Coresource Solution to pay the roofer.

Here is the original post, do you see the words David Merrill in it as you so conveniently edited in, or does anybody?

For all who are interested one of Coresource Solution's methods works like the idea of the Privy Purse. Some people cannot wrap their head around the indemnification process of depositing receipts which causes and increase of assets in the Treasury thus one becomes indemnified of the expenses. Let look at it from another angle, when on increases the assets of a Privy Purse then one becomes indemnified of expenses, such as depositing a house into it then the Privy Purse takes care of the expense of things such as Leaky Roofs.

Read about the Privy Purse here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Purse

The next article you will read here is about a Windsor Estate whom is still under Siege much like here in the states under Lincoln's Army was able to get their Leaky Roofs repaired:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/bu...pagewanted=all

If you take an interest in this to want to learn more about it, then PM me and I can give you some additional resource to research the subject.

Also Check out where it first mentions Privy Purse, it says LIKE the idea of Privy Purse.

The evidence on fraud speaks for itself, here much like what happened in court you constructed an argument to create controversy.

[motla68]

Sweet! The state is just a repository for registration. After two years they throw away the Bill of Lading. That same function can be exercised by operation of law through the district courts of the US too.

Well look at that, we finally agree on something and the world did not come to an end, no FBI, CIA, USA breaking down me door.

Do you think this is just ONE of the reasons why I can call the shots when dealing with traffic tickets? It is not to be sarcastic, it is simply stating the obvious to me anyway. An expression, so if you want to hold that against me so be it.

[David Merrill]

Here is the original post, do you see the words David Merrill in it as you so conveniently edited in, or does anybody?



Also Check out where it first mentions Privy Purse, it says LIKE the idea of Privy Purse.

The evidence on fraud speaks for itself, here much like what happened in court you constructed an argument to create controversy.

This is refreshing then that some of the other members consider you a fake and fraud, and brought this up first. Here is the post Motla is speaking of:

I apologize to any of you if you interpreted that in the same light as Motla has chosen to. The brackets and red font indicate, in my opinion that Motla was directing the comment about not wrapping my mind around something to me.

By focusing on the [David Merrill] insertion Motla is in my opinion trying to misdirect you away from the fraudulent assertion he made. It reads plainly that the Coresource Solution offers to pay for a roof by treating the Treasury under the definition of privy purse.

[Anthony Joseph]

Well look at that, we finally agree on something and the world did not come to an end, no FBI, CIA, USA breaking down me door.

Do you think this is just ONE of the reasons why I can call the shots when dealing with traffic tickets? It is not to be sarcastic, it is simply stating the obvious to me anyway. An expression, so if you want to hold that against me so be it.

It is not that we question your right and ability to "call the shots" when dealing with traffic tickets, it's that you will not FULLY disclose the claimed successful manner/method in which you do this. The R4C method and proper recordation of a court of competent jurisdiction has been FULLY disclosed here with nothing remaining private or secret other than sensitive "personal information" (sanitized copies).

[David Merrill]

Well look at that, we finally agree on something and the world did not come to an end, no FBI, CIA, USA breaking down me door.

Do you think this is just ONE of the reasons why I can call the shots when dealing with traffic tickets? It is not to be sarcastic, it is simply stating the obvious to me anyway. An expression, so if you want to hold that against me so be it.

You have turned on Coresource Solution then. The same thing, said about birth certificates keeps stifling your theories, as I understand them. And if I misunderstand them, that is most certainly your fault, not mine. I am most certainly smart enough to learn from a teacher who is in the very least concerned about teaching.

It is not that we question your right and ability to "call the shots" when dealing with traffic tickets, it's that you will not FULLY disclose the claimed successful manner/method in which you do this. The R4C method and proper recordation of a court of competent jurisdiction has been FULLY disclosed here with nothing remaining private or secret other than sensitive "personal information" (sanitized copies).

Maybe he does that so he can turn on his own assertions?

He has a difficult time wrapping his head around the fact he has no successes in traffic court. It is insulting to my/our/suitors competence that he expects us to believe him and then run off and do our own due diligence, when he could just have said more than he has in 200 posts in about 8 by using the graphic attachment capabilities provided by StSC and the Internet.

He sent me the Sheriff Agreement template along in secret through a suitor who knows us both and expects that I agreed to keep it secret? Wrong. It is nothing to me because it is a secret and we are all trying to learn here. He is insulting, to consider us so incompetent that we would think he has any traffic successes just because he says so!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Frederick Burrell]

Funny in their return letter they did not mention the Federal lien held on the vehicle. Does that mean there is none or are they just not talking about it.

For clarification. Referring to lien placed on the vehicle, that some have talked about when the car was purchase with FRN's or the lien the IRS notifies you of when they want to posses your car. The lien as surety for the national debt. fB