Tips and Tricks of Court

[george]

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.

[JohnnyCash]

"I would prefer not to." — Bartleby, the Scrivener

[george]

"I would prefer not to." — Bartleby, the Scrivener

whatever..

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

[JohnnyCash]

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.

[george]

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.

[JohnnyCash]

A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.

[allodial]

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.

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.

[JohnnyCash]

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.

[David Merrill]

I have found no one better, nor who knows more about what court is really about, than David Merrill.

Thank you. Maybe the first hard lesson I ever learned was about scripting. Never try it. That goes with doctrine too - keep it flexible.

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.

[xparte]

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