Presentment handled without cash, check, money order or credit card,

[David Merrill]

Yes, let them I ask.. let them ask. This is what I am saying, I would like to hear from others who have questions. You say you ask, but you have already made up your mind how it worked, so why ask?

Now your saying Canon law is not Right on? Have you changed your mind now? Keep in mind the following post is not from the past, it is from tonight
where you said this was right on:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post2021

For me I could not give a rats backend what Quatlosers has to say about anything, but I see you like to post there too and take great stock in what they think of you. This is an example of the difference in our thinking. You like to have the last word, I get it now.

You act like I am preventing anybody from asking questions. All they have to do is jockey their mouse to the Quote button.

You say you ask, but you have already made up your mind how it worked, so why ask?

The only examples you have, show us what worked.

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.

[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.

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.

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?

[David Merrill]

I think you are intentionally evasive and elusive as it would cost you fifty cents for two pages.

Hey, if you or anybody else in this forum wants to pay for it I will be more then happy to go down to the courthouse and get a copy of the 2 case files that says " dismissed " on the 2 tickets worked out this year. This is just not worth my investment of anything right now, there is bigger things I am working on to even worry about that.

You might have thought on your own to take a digital camera which of course would cost you the time and nothing 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?

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.

[David Merrill]

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.