View Poll Results: DOES THE 11TH AMENDMENT REFUTE SAVING TO SUITORS?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, you are an abscounding debtor and have no immunity against the state as a trustee/

    0 0%
  • No. Davids Saving to Suitors Trumps the 11th amendment and grantee/trustee equity law

    3 100.00%
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 90 of 90

Thread: Why saving to suitors is an asine methodology

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    The old english standard used the letter f for the pronunciation of S sound, there is how many different languages in the world? all spelling the same word differently so why should anyone care if someone misspells a word, who are they to have any authority of what languages people speak? I think the majority of people in here are smart enough to guess what was the intent of the spelling.

    Additionally anything anyone posts in here is lets pretend, a pack of lies, even if a photograph is provided it does not ring truth until someone agrees that it is truth, it takes 2 people to have a truth. Some people are just not disciplined to go look up this stuff on their own and find truth for themselves, you would think a group of grown men and women would have more integrity then that.

    On what law is in place the belief in doctrine is the same, one man has a belief it is admiralty and another says it is trust law, there is no truth unless two agree on the same. But in this same breath that truth agreement is a trust and you cannot force one trust upon another, 18 USC 242.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    The 11th Amendment, according to my reading and interpretation thereof, states that the judiciary powers have been stripped from federal courts in cases of both law and equity which is then followed by a comma with additional clauses.

    The only jurisdiction left would be admiralty law.

    Anyone want to rip the above stated to shreds, please feel free. I love dialectics. Other eyes will see or provide what I cannot.


    Sometimes it is edifying. One suitor rediscovered Title 22 U.S.C. §611 through a friend's experiences during a federal prosecution. Some people in the brain trust chimed in about what an interesting discovery it was; unregistered agents of a foreign principal have no standing in an American judiciary...


    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    The old english standard used the letter f for the pronunciation of S sound, there is how many different languages in the world? all spelling the same word differently so why should anyone care if someone misspells a word, who are they to have any authority of what languages people speak? I think the majority of people in here are smart enough to guess what was the intent of the spelling.

    Additionally anything anyone posts in here is lets pretend, a pack of lies, even if a photograph is provided it does not ring truth until someone agrees that it is truth, it takes 2 people to have a truth. Some people are just not disciplined to go look up this stuff on their own and find truth for themselves, you would think a group of grown men and women would have more integrity then that.

    On what law is in place the belief in doctrine is the same, one man has a belief it is admiralty and another says it is trust law, there is no truth unless two agree on the same. But in this same breath that truth agreement is a trust and you cannot force one trust upon another, 18 USC 242.
    I probably come off a killjoy by reminding everybody that this has formed jurisdiction in the Libel of Review since I first rendered it out of the original Are You Lost at C?

    To follow click here and find the link; Legal Authority. You can find that law pretty quickly in the Libel of Review.

    Respondent, acting as "City METRO officer - TITLE HERE" city of Washington, District of Columbia is agent of a foreign principal, a "foreign state" defined at Title 28 of the United States Codes §1603, and Title 22 U.S.C. §611 the Division of enforcement for the Department of revenue (for example C.R.S. §24-1-117 [Colorado]) under principal State Governor in convention with METRO organization a.k.a. Public Administrative Services Headquarters (PASHQ - signed for example by Edwin C. Johnson by John T. Bartlett; The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, The Year of Crisis 1933 Random House p. 21.) The Department of Revenue of course being the execution of bankruptcy proceedings against the citizens of the United States since 1933 currently formed "International Monetary Fund" and "World Bank" etc. - the State, City METRO municipal and police powers under United Nations charter law - protected by the same alleged positive law jural society (international treaty) exemptions home rule (of for example, Article VI and Article XX of the State of Colorado Constitution, "Transfer of government.")

    Motla68;


    What I hope for are reproducible mental models - mathematics. Applicable and practicable renderings of common understanding and law.

    Have fun finding somebody else to agree with you and your many "truths". I like I John 5 though, about amniotic fluid (water) and the hymen both bearing witness to the Virgin Birth in Faith of Jesus CHRIST. That at least seems to bear out my point a little - as though God supervises what will be the one Truth among us.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  3. #83
    The US a fiction cannot create itself. Only a flesh and blood man can create a fiction.

    The creation cannot be greater than its creator.

    You are also the the liable party. In that we are responsible for all government debt.

    Hence we are the grantors/beneficiaries and the government servants are the trustees and are bound by the rules of the trust.

    As grantors/beneficiaries and administrators we are not bound by the laws of the trust and also dictate policy which the trustees must carry out.

    We have been mislead into believing we are the trustees......

    He who put in the equity makes the rules. with full libility. fB

  4. #84
    I am in a ten-week course using The Science of Mind by Ernest HOLMES for the textbook. I think that it may confirm that in that reality, in the simplest terms, you are correct fB.

    Suitors, the inner brain trust I believe are pretty well dispelled of the notion we are the trustees. We Refuse for Cause in an admiralty non-response, that cannot be ignored.




  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Sometimes it is edifying. One suitor rediscovered Title 22 U.S.C. §611 through a friend's experiences during a federal prosecution. Some people in the brain trust chimed in about what an interesting discovery it was; unregistered agents of a foreign principal have no standing in an American judiciary...
    This echos very strongly Rod Class.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I am in a ten-week course using The Science of Mind by Ernest HOLMES for the textbook. I think that it may confirm that in that reality, in the simplest terms, you are correct fB.

    Suitors, the inner brain trust I believe are pretty well dispelled of the notion we are the trustees. We Refuse for Cause in an admiralty non-response, that cannot be ignored.

    I'm not to sure about that, I suggested that we are in fact the beneficiary/grantor and as such we can also act in the capacity of the
    the administrator and was accused of having less than pure motives.lol Also a load of justifications for using other trust creations other than just taking control of the existing one for purposes of interacting with the present system. O'well they shoot horses don't they. fb

  7. #87
    People seem to be having success with this approach. Of course it pisses off the judges and there are usually threats of being arrested but it makes so much sense, when you put it all together. They have put us in the trustee role, and we are buying it.

    THE MATRIX AND
    THE U. S. CONSTITUTION

    First: “the Sovereign must inquire if we are on the (public)record, and if not, insist upon it!
    Say nothing, sign nothing and answer no questions until you are convinced that the
    proceedings are being recorded!” ( perhaps a good recording is worth purchasing)

    Secondly: all a Sovereign has to say for the record is: “I am a beneficiary (Might be better to put yourself in the role of the adminstrator of the trust, put in that position by the grantor/beneficiary) of the Trust,
    and I am appointing you as my Trustee!”

    Thirdly: the Sovereign then directs his Trustee to do his bidding! “As my Trustee, I want
    you to discharge this matter I am accused of and eliminate the record!”

    Fourthly: if the Sovereign suffered any damages as a result of his arrest, he can direct that
    the Trust compensate him from the proceeds of the Court by saying; “I wish to be
    compensated for [X] dollars, in redemption.”

    parenthesis added by me.

    It would also be a good Idea to have a claim of right affidavit in place, like the one in you LOR before getting to court.

    I like your approach best, never go to court in the first place.lol fB
    Last edited by Frederick Burrell; 10-06-11 at 02:23 PM.

  8. #88
    post deleted by fB
    Last edited by Frederick Burrell; 10-06-11 at 04:30 PM.

  9. #89
    Whenever I see people talking about how any portion of the Constitution can deny or disparage people's rights, it brings this to mind:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    The 'saving to suitors' clause recognizes a right people have.

    Further, the 9th doesn't say "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights people have, ..." It doesn't limit the scope of enumerated rights to only the people's rights, but is much broader and includes any rights the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or the Officers and Employees may have.

    To me, this is very elementary seeing as how the very purpose of creating these governments in the first place was to protect people's rights... even from the government.

    Further, regarding the position that the individual people are not sovereigns, I'll stick with what John JAY, the very first CHIEF JUSTICE of the supreme Court published in the first major case it tried (seeing as he knew the Framers and his concept of "original intent" came from first hand interactions with them):

    It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the Courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects [...] and have none to govern but themselves[.] --Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 - Supreme Court 1793

    The only dissenting opinion in that case didn't dissent on this fact.

    Further still, interpretations of the 11th amendment (or any portion of the Constitution, or any creation of the Officers and Employees of the STATE[S]) which are construed to deny or disparage the sovereign rights of the people are invalid - tho, in practice, due to the ignorance of the majority of the people of their rights, powers, and duties, they are trampled every day by some of the Officers and Employees of the STATES and the UNITED STATES.

    I can not think anyone who would waste our time with such positions as MYSTICONE has presented is anyone's "BUDDY." This kind of self defeatism is like a virus... and just because a group of people is trying to enslave another group doesn't make them slaves... someone only becomes a slave when they accept they are a slave.

    Magnanimously,

    Christopher Theodore of the family of RHODES

    P.S.

    The poll in this thread is lame. It's like asking someone: "Are you still beating your children?"

    Albeit, a bit more sophisticated then that...

  10. #90

    Truth is good bad and ugly thnx

    For anyone who wears their heart on their sleeve or for the ones who have nothing up their sleeve.The generation of us who taken it all on chin breaking even is the only win.try getting even and your first to be outdone.The folks that founded this site are that balance on that road called breaking even. The folks that fund this sight in its fiscal obligations are that same wealth that funds it also with spiritual yet intellectual balance with that oversimplification that redundancy provides remedy for the crisis or that emergency survey life .no one knows where you were before your birth and no one knows where you were when you died not EVEN you BREAK EVEN. Kristofferson, The PILGRIM from the rocking of the cradle too the rollin of the hearse. Every draw defeats a battle you draw your own battles if indulgence was wisdom nobody be any wiser . I return to this thread for self indulgence understated wisdom from the wisest

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •