Compendium of Evidence Repositories before the CIT

[David Merrill]

This Complaint and Claim on Jubilee awaits filing in the Court of International Trade. It is very large so I am linking through my Google Drive.

Click Here.

The $400 filing fee returned from the US Supreme Court has disappeared - apparently stolen by Courier Process Service but as you read, likely an undocumented "Garnishment" by the S. Tejon attorneys. That tort is compounded by the delays, maybe rejection, in publishing my cause on PACER. Interestingly I seem to have backed up publishing all cases for three days...

I have been thrilled though, at the idea of being victimized by the US Supreme Court and Court of International Trade clerks. This kind of dishonor will not go unnoticed in the highest Truth. That is my Trust.

I sincerely hope you will find at least an hour of your time to enjoy reading it. Please notice that the Criminal Complaint is accompanied by a Commission Certificate and completes a verified signature. The Supreme Court clerk returned the original like a hot potato but removed the original Criminal Complaint, that did not have the Commission Certificate at that time, and replaced it with a faded out copy! Interesting! I received that as filing instructions and you will see that I have added notary authentication to my filing with the CIT.

Somehow I think that may be what is holding up the publication on PACER. If they do not arrest the probate attorney they will clearly violate my right to citizen's arrest:

Attachment 4089




Attachment 4091

P.S. I forgot to mention there is a Christian religious aspect to this - omitting the Name of God from the oaths of office. So it would seem I have a Sunday-morning captive audience; or does it?

[Gavilan]

David, have you considered that the judges of the CIT may have their own issue with their instant oaths?

[David Merrill]

David, have you considered that the judges of the CIT may have their own issue with their instant oaths?

I actually presumed they do. Thank you for reading into the COMPLAINT and CLAIM.

I also notice that I cannot find any FOIA entries for the CIT on this website.

Being in NY the Court of International Trade seems more UN-like that US Government. I wonder why www.supremelaw.org has completely overlooked acquiring oaths of office there?

[allodial]

There is also the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

[David Merrill]

There is also the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Again, why I am encouraging people to read up. Mr WOLSKI recused himself and cannot enter judgment. I know this may come across as a mess, but I recite poetry for entertainment. Many people think memorizing things is hard, I find it fun. So please bear with me, summarizing would leave the reader here bereft of many important events.

Attachment 4108


Attachment 4103







Attachment 4109

Been there... done that.


That is the parataxic distortion I found there.

[David Merrill]

P.S. I presumed that if the State was fallen in criminal syndicalism then the US Government was responsible to become the resulting trustee. If you look, all the federal judges are just pretending to be a judiciary too.

So go halfway through the Doc linked on my Google Drive. That was my offer for the US Supreme Court to open up Original Jurisdiction (Article III) but the clerk is either ignorant or obstenant and rejected my offer to behave honorably. Note the presentment offers only Appellate jurisdiction.

Attachment 4110


By the way, it would seem that the $400 has been stolen by the process server in some kind of impromptu garnishment. I do not provide their bread and butter - the S Tejon Brotherhood does. That street has attracted all the attorneys, the closer to the courthouse, the higher in elevation in story #.



P.S. I took a couple hours to read through the linked Doc in the CIT and really enjoyed myself. Of course I wrote it and am biased, but as I write the CIT seems reluctant to publish it on PACER. Therefore I am publishing it myself, so please find some time...


Attachment 4111

[allodial]

P.S. I presumed that if the State was fallen in criminal syndicalism then the US Government was responsible to become the resulting trustee. If you look, all the federal judges are just pretending to be a judiciary too.

When a state fails or falters, all reversion is to the people. The UN and NATO could conceivably have roles in the territories of the United States. The people of each of the several states, however, would experience full reversion of power. While the Hollywood line is one of power reverting to persons with the nicest suits, most elaborate sound stages, most palatable lies and best special effects team: the truth founded on most ancient law is that if a state dissolves or falters the power reverts to the people. The peoples' right to self-preservation has never been the subject of federal legislation and such right was never delegated to Congress.

The trusteeship of the United States government over the territories ceded to the United States by the several states ceased when states were formed. There may be some "nuances" introduced with respect to states formed after the Civil War started.

The Hollywood myth is: "Those guys in the fancy suits have all of the power cos those fancy suits are really groovy."

The truth is ancient: all power reverts to the people when a state fails or is dissolved. In the event of demise of the United States of America, the power reverts to the people of each of the several states which formed the American confederacy. Similarly, if one's landscaper died or had to leave town to visit a sick relative: you can mow your own grass.

[Gavilan]

David,

I was thinking, WOLSKI points out that you may want to use the rules of court, it also seems the Supreme Court refers you to their rules. Wouldn't it be more effective to use their rules, and when you are asserting a particular right that the rules infringe, why not note it? Clearly it is ironic that they themselves are not following the rules if their own oaths are not conforming.

[David Merrill]

The Rules are self preserving for the syndicalism. Here is the complaint in the US Court of Federal Claims.

...that mandate the payment of money.

Right there I have to prove out that I demand lawful money because endorsement is application for private credit that means an insurance policy or stock certificate that is meant by tradition to remain unclaimed, according to FDR's Trust (New Deal), that is BTW "Omitted" from Cornell Law lately. Primarily though, the rule is that I must climb up the appellate ladder exhausting all administrative remedy when I exhausted all administrative remedy by finding and recommending three state district judges around Fort Collins, far enough away from southern Colorado to possibly be unaffected by the social media slur campaign.

Without knowing which judge will be chosen before filing, I cannot be expected to shop for a proper judge at the US CFC. WOLSKI was chosen and he is only pretending to be a judge. Therefore the US Supreme Court was served NOTICE and CLAIM. Again, this is a lot to take in and I must be patient while people respond to the posts I present.

Soon, I will not be writing in explanation but referring people to www.lawfulmoneytrust.com if they want to continue discussing. At least that way they pay for the extra time. I am opening up years of work and hundreds of hours of investigation and dutiful research.

I understand.

One other thing is that the process server has been paid at least $2,825.00 in advance for commissions and has only shown accounting for about half of that. However, she (receptionist) let my commission to make the 40 bound copies set for over a month when I finally spoke to the owner and had to settle for sending in the original alone, not following the rules. Even so notice how he would not specify what day he received that original:

Attachment 4117

That leaves nothing to the imagination. There it is! But try imagining any reason for a professional process server to leave off the specific of when he received the original to be sent to the US Supreme Court?


Answer: The process server sat on it for a month. Malfeasance. There is pressure. For another example my money on retainer is gone and the process server will not give me an accounting.

This is criminal syndicalism in action. That is my Complaint and Cause - Rectification of Judiciary. For those of you who understand my guardianship going back to 2002 and the Bill of Exchange of 2001 then you can start to construct an accurate vision of how all this came together between an eccentric anti-government artist and me with the Government always trying to seize his artwork for a tourist trap.

This is another great reason to discuss this only with students with the will and dedication to pay for the privilege. People will be more careful to look through the evidence repository a little before asking questions.

Bottom line answer: One not need to follow rules about NOTICE except to make it CONSPICUOUS. If the NOTICE is valid, true and based in history, fact and law - then ignoring it might have its consequences; like an enforceable Notice of Jubilee Claim?

[Gavilan]

You know, you may get upset at this.

You make it seem that what you are going through is something new, it is not. William Cobbett went through it in England too, and many others back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Have you ever considered why is it you feel the need to go through it? Really considered it? Why not say, screw this join them and use the system to live large?

It seems to me you want to hear what you want to hear, yes, you have been wronged and let them turn a family spat into a life going nightmare. Think about this, they are corrupt. What enabled this corruption, the people's ignorance. I will do you one better, most of the people making their living in the judiciary industry don't have a freaking clue of what is the right process. They do what they are told to do, or what process to follow, they are not critical thinkers. And here you are blazing in expecting to do right by you when all you do is look like a loony tune to them.

They get scared, when you write out your position to make it self evident to them, they tread very carefully even to the extent that if you give them a chance to save face they take it.

I agree, you have been harmed. What is it that you expect it to be the end result? Then cutting you a check for $20MM? I will give you my opinion, they will settle with you, because indeed you have been harmed, but it will not be near the amount you are hoping for. that's my $0.02 cents,