Why saving to suitors is an asine methodology

[David Merrill]

Did anybody read Stranger in a Strange Land? I recall the author wrote a great jurisdiction argument into that.

[motla68]

The only issue with the system is that it is now modeled around the money -- and protection of it.

It seems to me that when they constructed the Judiciary Act, they provided a clause for the common man. It seems to me that when the government had to turn to third-party money as a solution to their then problem, they included an opt-out clause - although they don't tell anyone. I want to believe it was done for the benefit of the common man/woman to exist in the system. Perhaps MYSTICONE is troubled by fear of the system. I know I certainly have that concern on my mind. In following the research here and doing as much double checking as I can, I come to the same conclusion as David regarding the intent and interpretation of the code sections.

If the Saving to Suitors clause is not there to provide remedy for the common man/woman -- incidently, to which I believe is the entire intent of the declaration, what is it there for?

You are correct Richard, they are in self preservation mode right now because there is some double minded intents out there and that scares them to think what is to become of their future careers and wealth, remember the 80s movie The Antz , there is one scene in there where the Commander and Chief of the warrior grasshopper speaks of his greatest fear " If they every figure out there is more of them then there is of us we are doomed!" . In the end of that movie though both societies come to a meeting of the minds on their own without government intervention when lives are at stake.

I do not want the money, I just want life, liberty and happiness as it was written.

[motla68]

As a strategist and (in my opinion) master of timing, I believe that after being back a bit from banishment, Motla68 and Mysticone had a plan for me to banish Mysticone, leaving Motla68 indemnified of that mess, leaving him here to make me out to be a tyrant. I agree that Mysticone is in Category 2, but that my "thick skinned" approach and confidence in the remedy itself is quite sound and he will stay. I imagine if he or she will not pick up on a more productive and readable writing style, then in return, people will only give as much effort to reading Mysticone's posts as he is willing to put into them before posting. Basically a self-imposed Ignore Listing.

LOL , I can see why you might think this, no not all the world is out to get you David, You just have some things going on around you that you may not be able quite yet to explain scientifically and your thinking this is putting the foundation of a Suitors remedy in theory at risk. The same behaviour comes from a mother protecting her child that she has spent so much time to raise, but even a mother eventually learns you got to let go and let it fly on it's own. It will always be a part of you no matter what and when you learn to let go of that Ego it will set your mind free, life will be a little less stressful, the quatlosers badge of honor will roll of your back like a mountain stream.
I had put that Document out there about indemnification in the early Republic, how even suitors can do it and also a while back the skit of showing the parallels of how our group would say similar things in court, but with different words as a suitor would to help get you a little closer to understanding that you do not have to be a suitor to do what we do.


https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1IGG2wTE BQ5L1PHeMlbLYjitV9AkoCfGN_05AkNPxayExRETzGrrxMAcVX 4DU&hl=en&authkey=CP2A2v8D

Peace and love to you my neighbor.

[motla68]

Did anybody read Stranger in a Strange Land? I recall the author wrote a great jurisdiction argument into that.

I have not read this in it's entirety, but yeah it is partly a jurisdictional thing, the inspiration is there. Jurisdiction versus dominion that I speak of and what MJ has mentioned.

[Michael Joseph]

It would be great if you could record some audio of one of these "no papers" questioning encounters so as to gain a sense of howand why you get met with smiles and others get met with strife.

Do the smiles extend past your area on the county you inhabit? Do you believe smiles are what you would be met with if questioned anywhere on this land when you travel freely at the wheel of a car?

Perhaps you could provide the people here with a general run-down of events and responses during your roadside encounters which create smiles and unimpeded travel.

The LEO's on the Metro area where i travel now know me quite well as some clown tried to burn down the house I possess, and there has been some gang related activity; however, in regard to the LEO's if I was to be pulled over, I just do not argue with them. They are gonna do what they are gonna do. If they create a new person, then so be it. I comprehend the trust construction and I will be sure to tell the LEO - I have no trust in you. As such when discussion occurs with the Trustee bound by Constitution - matters are resolved with smiles.

I think that both Mysticone and David are right. The State owns the Person - and if one is acting for said person and is in breach of Trust, then thats gonna be a problem; David is right too because there Always has to be Choice - else like Mysticone said - slavery.

The Pot cannot turn to the Potter and complain. So the Person is subject to the Rules of the State. A man may be subject to the rules depending on his office or not.

The State is a HUGE Express Trust. And to Mysticone - one acting for Cestui Que Trust can use 12USC411 - absent trespass because that Person holding the Beneficial interest [CQT] created by the State is Subject to all of the State laws [see the express trust now]. And therefore the man acting in and for said Person has a Choice - to demand lawful money or not.

So in fact the Slave is the CQT. The man in the example is always with Choice to act in and for said CQT or not. And even if he chooses to act in and for said CQT, there is still choice - to demand lawful money and stay without the Federal Reserve Trust [districts] or not.

shalom,
mj

[David Merrill]

Motla68;


People depend on me not to let my mind fly on its own. I enjoy enough of that anyway, but regarding remedy in law, I will stick to what works in accord to what is written.

I think that both Mysticone and David are right. The State owns the Person - and if one is acting for said person and is in breach of Trust, then thats gonna be a problem...

The chief judge finally understood, after being named on a $20M lien for denying the truth.

[Frederick Burrell]

I don't know who MYSTICONE is or where he came from, but he sounds like a typical agent provocateur or another "guru" who thinks he knows what's what and will use NLP-type programming and leading poll-questions in an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the simple remedy in law that is at the source of all bondage...

"...they shall be redeemed in lawful money by demand..."

It is obvious this "MYSTICONE" is cluless as to the actual reason behind filing the LoR; it is solely to establish an evidence repository whereby we form the true and correct record of events of our own affairs. We exercise that lawful court and competence in our own right as free, immune and peaceful inhabitants on the land who will not consent, agree or acquiesce to be chattel against the debt of other men and their repugnant creations. Winning the "suit" is not the goal; in fact, we expect that it will be thrown out and dismissed. What we are left with is all we wanted in the first place, our own case jacket, paid for in lawful money, in order to form the lawful, true and correct record of our affairs as courts of competent jurisdiction.

Nowhere is there any "questioning of the debt of the United States". Their debt is their debt, who is questioning that? We don't challenge it, we simply instruct them to settle it themselves since it is their own responsibilty and liability absent a willing volunteer to alleviate their burden.

To be a "citizen" or "resident" requires our knowing and willing consent, agreement or acquiescence. If we grant none of these, we are absent that character. The refusal to be the bond, surety or fiduciary is in our own right. That is evidenced by the remedies from that fealty and servitude written into all of their laws. If that were not so, then the crime of true tyranny and forced bondage could be levied against those who attempt to ensnare the people at large into debt slaves. Instead, the "legality" of contracts provides the cover and protection of would-be tyrants. Cowardly and dishonorable at their core, they utilize their legal jargon, code and intentionally misleading "agreements/contracts" to deceive the masses into voluntary servitude.

They have no rightful or lawful standing or character to claim any rights or title to any land or property while they continue their unrighteous and dishonorable maintenance of a repugnant and abominable trust formation/mechanism which has become nothing more than a harnesser and harvestor of the energy and sweat equity of every innocent living soul born on this land.

There is NO rightful and lawful claim that can be made from that standing and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. The chattelizing of human flesh and bone is one of the most repugnant and dispicable acts before the Almighty Creator since it is, in reality, a theft and kidnap of His sons and daughters for purposes completely contrary to His Divine Will and Plan.

Straight to the heart of the matter. Thank you MJ. Clear and concise nicely presented and neatly packaged. fB

[David Merrill]

I appreciate your post too Anthony Joseph. I have started a thread.

[MYSTICONE]

BECAUSE the common law man has not standing or capacity to Suitor against the State he is a citizen/trust of.
If you are trying to claim a common law remedy, you are doing so as an admitted " STATELESS PERSON",
STATELESS PEOPLE HAVE NO STANDING/CAPACITY TO SUE, ONLY TRUST OWNERS HAVE THE CAPACITY
TO SUE PARTIES, BUT BEING THAT YOU DO NOT OWN THE TRUST, THE STATE DOES, YOU HAVE NO CAPACITY
TO SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT-= THUS TORT FEASOR.. YOU CANT EXIST OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM, AND THEN
COMPLAIN THAT THE STATE INJURED YOU BECAUSE= STATELESS INHBABINATS HAVE NO RIGHT OF PROTECTION AS FAR AS
CONTRACTS ARE CONCERNED, NOW IF YOU WANT TO LIVE TOTALLY OFF THE GRID ON YOUR OWN ISLAND AND NEVER
CONTRACT WITH YOUR FELLOW BRETHREN, THEN YOUR REFUSAL TO CONTRACT WITH SOCIETY MIGHT HAVE MORE
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES- THUS WHERE THE REMEDY OF THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, WRITTEN INTO
THE UN CHARTER- GIVES ONE THE ABILITY TO FORM ONES OWN COMPACT/STATE, SO THAT WAY THE CAN
EFFECTUATE REMEDY IN ABILITY TO FREELY CONTRACT/COMPACT/TREATY WITH DIPLOMATIC AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES.
tHE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION, AND THE RIGHT OF EXHILE, THATS WHAT THE KEYMAKER WAS ABOUT IN THE MATRIX SERIES.
TO OWN PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO FORM YOUR OWN ESTATE- WHICH THE UN CHARTER BASED ON NATURAL LAW AND THE LAW
OF NATIONS ALLOWS YOU TO DO. OTHERWISE BY TRYING TO EXIST OUTSIDE THE TRUST SYSTEM AND NEVER CONTRACT-
WHO CAN REALISTICALLY LIVE A VAGABOUND LIFE LIKE THAT- THATS WHERE THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT/ RIGHT TO PROPERTY USE ARGUMENT BECOMES WEAK.
SURE YOU CAN REDEEM LAWFULLY MONEY, BUT YOU DONT HAVE STANDING FOR LAWFUL MONEY, BECAUSE YOU ARE ACTING IN THE CAPACITY AS A STATELESS
PERSON, BUT THEN CONTRADICTING YOURSELF ASKING THE STATE TO OFFER YOU PROTECTION IN THE REFUSAL TO CONTRACT, WHICH YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TOO.
ITS THE OLD ADAGE "TRYING TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO"

[David Merrill]

Mysticone;


Your posts are difficult to read. I have an estate - we all do. The law does not distinguish:


They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...


It does not say that some people can and some people cannot. By the formatting and capitalization it is obvious that you do not really care enough to put much effort into your posts; therefore do not expect much in return.