There was "a carbon copy of a birth certificate" and a submitted coupon with incomplete verbiage (according to Coresource Method) sent in to Quest: please explain which part of this process, what operation of law or what verbiage included you find to be the main reason setoff was accomplished here, in your opinion.
Originally Posted by motla68
You act like I am preventing anybody from asking questions. All they have to do is jockey their mouse to the Quote button.
The only examples you have, show us what worked.You say you ask, but you have already made up your mind how it worked, so why ask?
Deposited for Credit on Account or Exchanged for Non-Redeemable/Negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of Equal/Face Value.
That was the verbiage for several years. It works great!! You seem to be trying to convince me that it was something else about sending the obligation to the Treasury. I don't buy it! You have not sold me on it. That is why I say so. If you showed me an example that only had that verbiage on it - accompanied by a Setoff - then I might really give your theories that you can apply the canon law's blue wrapper some thought.
I am simply holding you to some rules of evidence. You can try convincing everybody of anything you like and if I am not convinced, as you see already, then I say so. When you became dishonest about it, I banished you. That had the effect of making me explain exactly why, clearly for everybody.
Maybe nobody ever explained the scientific process to you. You have to have Controls. If you try two or three things at once, you never have Control. You never know which one of the things worked if you get the results you were after. Not until you try the things individually and Prove them.
I have attached a couple poignant snippets from a great movie called Proof. A mentally questionable mathematician (Gwenneth PALTROW) is accused of stealing her famous father's (Anthony HOPKINS) Theories when it was actually that she was pulling him along while he was going too senile to do the work. So you might see how it becomes questionable who is actually formulating the theories - even in the daughter-mathematician's mind.
I do not recall initially saying anything about the name Coresource, perhaps I am mistaken if you can show me on the original post?
Just keep in mind if I could say, it would be an opinion not a fact because I was not there when it happened. The new results people are having lately from what I hear, I could not tell you if it was the Lawful Money statement or how it was signed or the fact that a Carbon Copy of a Birth Certificate was included. Let me try to lay some thoughts out here for you:
- This event took place last year when we were not using the robin-egg blue paper so it was definitely not that.
- Putting the Lawful Money statement on it initially was just to make a statement that the intent was to protest their payment requirements for the want of Lawful Money. Recently though the successes people have had this stamp was NOT used. So was it that? I cannot say for sure, was not there when it was processed. Even a transcript from my friend would be just hearsay speculation without a letter from the processor saying " this is what made this work ________ " fill in the blank.
- We have looked into special ways of signing, such as using " Authorized Signatory " which was shown some time ago on this forum for vehicle taxes on a Buick that had been put through.
Recently though the presentments put through people have had, the presentment was not even signed. So nope, that was probably not it
- The only thing that was never changed is the Copy of the Birth certificate.
More on recent presentments put through, now we just write on the presentment the Birth Name in caps, a colon after that and then " property of the state ". We did however include a copy of the authentication letter for the certificate of live birth which has the same verbiage on it as the Federal Reserve Notes in the context of " Full Faith and Credit ", sometimes they come back " Full faith and credence" which is basically the same thing.
Some people in our group seem to think that this represents the Lawful Money being held in Treasury, but this is why I wrote directly to 2 registrars to get some answers and still waiting a reply. Maybe some day we will get it down to just showing the Authenticated COLB without any need to write ANYTHING on the presentment. Would it be great if I could show you all that
letter from the registrar clarifying all this?
So for right now if your looking for at least an opinion I do not have one until I get a reply back from one of those registrars. I sincerely want to believe that you are with me on this in spirit though that we are trying to get some direct answers on all this instead of it just being an opinion.
Also we keep striving to make things simpler for people, so we continue to see how simple we can make it for others to do as well, this is why some people are just amazed of how easy it was and they stick around for more.
Your claim of " not showing something " = being dishonest. This is not my conscience. Now if I specifically told you that I did NOT have something when I really did, the this would be dishonest in my book.
Too much control is what limits the brain from other possibilities in most cases, I do not live by those rules. Do you not understand by our constant changing of how we do this, removing things to make it more simpler is a pioneering effort to find out exactly what makes it work? ... Exorcism of the demons. Or in techie lingo, daemons.
Ah yes, the theories. Most of the time a proven theory is just one's interpretation/belief, he then gets others to believe the same thing and then that something becomes the law. I know about this, attorneys stake their livelihoods on this. The 12 magical people in a box with their beliefs if you can sway them in your favor. BUT was the attorney or any of those 12 people there at the actual event? usually not so it is unproven unless there was a witness there at the time it happened. Now what does this even say about the validity of the Bible?
I think you are intentionally evasive and elusive as it would cost you fifty cents for two pages.
You might have thought on your own to take a digital camera which of course would cost you the time and nothing more.
Looking at this example - the second ticket:
It is obvious that you have expressed remedy that is found in the law in the first expression. You have remitted the charges as a financial instrument (ordered in FRNs private credit) to the Treasury - demanding redemption in lawful money.
Now all you need is a (free) photo of the Dismissed stamp, or however the clerk there marks the docket report in Wake county on or around March 1, 2011. Then you repeat that process while you have your camera in the courthouse for the first ticket, marked USA instead of State of NC. Now you are on your way to convincing me of what I already know and drive home every day of this Website:
Exchanged for non-negotiable/non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes of Equal/Face value.
That has been redacted to:
Redeemed Lawful Money.
In your argumentative manner, you have said something about that my remedy is not the only remedy. My remedy is the same remedy found in the Fed Act. It is our remedy. And you are using it too! It is Demand to bring the ticket, the Charges, before the Treasury for Redemption in lawful money.
They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...
So as unpleasant as it sounds to the readers, you have certainly been worth raking across the grater for information - especially this example:
There you have a woman who acquired the Setoff with just the remedy and none of the unscientific frills. And yet we seem to be at odds with each other, when you are busy bolstering the same remedy found in the Fed Act, and calling it my remedy - and demonstrating some weird science where you try four different things, and then deduce - I am not sure which one caused Setoff?
If you are that illogical, then you best not be teaching at all!
I have experience in electrical engineering. Quite a bit of high-pressure technical troubleshooting in there - that career history. If you keep it up you will be exactly in the same place of intellectual development about remedy two years from now.
Thank you for coming back Motla68. You have made a lot of headway toward validating we have a remedy that is recognized in law. It is not some esoteric hiding Roman law and disguising the Lieber Code - albeit I really would like to show everybody this alleged First Executive Order prolonging Emergency Conditions that OBAMA allegedly signed when he took Office; I have heard that rumor several times. If you would please complete your evidence packages? Take your camera if you are busy saving quarters.
You mention that I am concerned about my reputation on Quatloos? I gather that was sarcasm as anybody knows it by definition. I think where you are going with that is thwarted by my links for people to go explore that mentality of denial and protectionism for themselves. Basically I am warning you that you going there here will quickly group you among attorneys and infantile trolls who rant and attack me on any assertion other than the merit of the truth, history and law. You probably best leave that to the Quatlosers, who will be here eventually as they are easily bored should I get too busy with new suitors - bringing a viable remedy to individuals - to keep them entertained for a week or so. Speaking for myself, I understand you are a much different animal than the Quatlosers; but as I might be vitiating their style of trolling along with your un-science, the readers will have difficulty differentiating you from the typical Quatloser.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Even though it gets unpleasant, the remedy comes through all the rubbish and experience has taught me that people read it; even though most people would prefer not to. I opened the Website speculating that the Quatlosers, when they get bored enough with their kind of fun, finally get here - that will be a major growth spurt phase for StSC.
Last edited by David Merrill; 04-20-11 at 10:13 AM.
What the Dismissal actually consists of is an arrest warrant. You go to the courthouse, identify yourself and get a copy of the Dismissal now. That is when I will believe otherwise.
We have a local suitor like this too. One day I was at the courthouse and he got curious enough to request I pay the $5 to acquire a Register of Action third party. I had to supply the full legal name and DoB.
The clerk carefully redacted all phone numbers, SSN and addresses from the RoA. The disposition of the felony case was Warrant Issued for Arrest - Failure to Appear was the Charge. Well, the police came to the fellow's business some years before looking for First Middle Last and the suitor responded, There is nobody here by that name. True enough. He had never given anybody that name - the alleged victim had in spite. (Hearsay.)
Now however, if First Middle ever identifies himself to be First Middle Last for the constructive trust FIRST MIDDLE LAST he is off to jail for Failure to Appear and if the DA thinks there is enough evidence on the original felony - that too. The suitor has not provided information where to find him, so that could still hold up.* Even though the police officer who came by was looking at a mug shot of the suitor as she asked for him by full legal name! So you can see the power of misnomer. No pleading - no arraignment.
Until this fellow identifies himself as fiduciary for the cestui que vie trust indenture, he is fine. The DA obviously knows and instructed the police officer. Meanwhile the fellow just operates under other trust names - even one ABCD Inc. where he is regularly paid in cash lawful money, it "owns" one of his homes that he lives in and he manages pretty well for himself even hiring a cheauffer to drive him around every day.
He does not get the privilege of utilizing the trust name relegated to him through the birth certificate registration system. He will be held responsible to settle the charges.
So Motla68, do not tell us you would go to the courthouse and get a copy of the Dismissal when you are actually afraid to. Rather send you pal to do it and bring us the Register of Action. My bet is that there is an arrest warrant on you in your legal name.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Speaking for my felony persecution I provided a 24/7 cell phone number for the judge to call me and a promise to report to the jail upon demand in the Abatement for Misnomer. Therefore when the DA tried to resume the prosecution 4.5 years later I liened the state $20M for violating my speedy trial right.
Last edited by David Merrill; 04-20-11 at 02:41 PM.
Again I dismiss your accusation as comical personally, the state definitely knows where to come get me if they wanted to, I do not hide behind no trusts. The people at DOT know my wife as well and that I am her husband. You have made it quite clear in your posts that you also are missing the fact that I am not the legal name. MJ also tells me that they told him not to come back to the courthouse unless invited. So when I get time to go do it then I will, no I am not scared to go down there and I have said this several times. Your throwing in little comments here an there about this warrant thing without proof yourself is not helping matters anyway, your manifesting a reality which does not exist and no science to prove it otherwise. I know the type of special warrant you speak of and know of others who have received this in other study groups then our own, so far there has been no such notice anywhere of it as they had received. I am not saying the name because I cannot think of the name of the warrant right now, but it has to do with inquiring for more information, this is where they try to trip you up on consenting to being the name.
" I am ineligible for those benefits ".
http://youtu.be/sS3_JyQmShM
I now do not ever claim to be a trustee for the name. Always return the paper back to source and say no thank you to the offer.
Last edited by motla68; 04-20-11 at 03:49 PM.
Thank you David for the link to the "shock testing in canada thread" with the Bank of Canada Act regarding the Cdn equivalent of lawful money redemption
Last edited by John Booth; 04-20-11 at 05:24 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote