Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Explanation Letter and Admiralty Article

  1. #1

    Explanation Letter and Admiralty Article

    This two-page letter was hidden in my directory Provost Marshal for a few years under Page and Page 2. I think it best served with a couple articles that help supplement the content.

    The spice is the way at the bottom of page 1, the case stalls out with the federal judge. That is the same situation with all the Libels of Review. There is not a taxpaying judge out there willing to step out of his Article I robe and put on a genuine Article III hat.

    Several years ago I was waiting for some new suitors in the Qwest building (Wall Street Deli) across the way from the 10th Circuit Courthouse. As I passed two gentlemen having a conversation I heard enough to discern one was a federal judge so when he passed by me I asked him if he was an Article III judge? He chortled, Yeah, Hardly! Then he decided to discern a little about me before going on. Then he became a little more serious about it; Hardly ever - but I have been thinking about that lately. I watched him cross the street and enter the 10th Circuit Courthouse like he worked there alright.

    As a new suitor files the LoR, at Judge Assignment I instruct him to ask, Is this an Article III judge? The clerk will generally affirm, Yes. [Recently the clerk did not know. - Same thing, incompetence.] The clerk is either misinformed or does not know. It is pretty obvious actually - if the judge is a taxpayer he has no business presiding over tax matter, for example. But more than that, if he is a taxpayer, and they all are then he is having his salary diminished then that is against the Constitutional description for any Article III judge. Either way, he is biased by the IRS and Treasury. Biased is Conflict of Interest and not equal to Judge.

    But one of the more interesting typos is about Erie Doctrine - the author JK says 1933 when he meant 1938 - according to page 18 about the Secret Admiralty Jurisdiction quoting from Proctor WISWALL's Comparative Paper. 1938, not 1935! But here I found it in the 1935 Laws for Colorado - guess where? - the Mason Library.


    Here it is - at the center and origin of fiat currency in America - three years prior to Federal. And I was having such difficulty finding WISWALL's original Lecture, it was being scrubbed - I was getting search engine hits but they were dead ends; that when I located WISWALL himself I had a recorder going:

    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1E...Y2M3NTMx&hl=en

    Of course, she never sent the Paper. I finally tried some obscure search engines and found it.




    Attached Images Attached Images   
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-24-11 at 04:13 AM.

  2. #2
    There are probably at least four paths to develop this thread, each of which will branch fully into very interesting insights about history and law. Erie RR v. Thompkins (1938) is as interesting as Delovio v. Boit (1815) and Swift v. Tyson (1842) too. All of which describe and define admiralty on the land - insurance/bottomry - seizure, forfeiture, to role of the Crusades in adopting the Laws of Oleron (top of Page 3) into the Black Book of Admiralty...

    The two instances so far mentioned though, that is for this post. - The two recent cases where the federal "judge" was apparently stuck in some kind of rut, wondering how to get the diversity issue off his bench and remand it to state court for settlement, but still have a career after doing so. The 2005 case was only 9 months stalled at the time the author wrote the letter. Ten years prior though, my pal who co-authored Are You Lost at C? would complain how federal judge Wiley Young DANIEL would not take off his Article I robe and dawn an Article III cap - for the purpose of the diversity ('saving to suitors' clause) issue is for the federal judge to decide which (e)state law should be applied and remand the case accordingly.

    Jim wanted DANIEL to remand the case to Colorado state court so that he could pursue a settlement for the $10M demanded on the LoR. DANIEL just sat still and silent but that may have been because the IRS released all sign of any Notice of Lien at the county recorder and that would collaterally release all jurisdiction. In that event though, it is routine for the judge to say so on the record... nothing.

    Jim was a 32nd Degree Mason too though. And he had mastered the Fibonacci Sequence in his stock market dealings as a financial advisor and sold his entire portfolio on the eve of the 2007 Crash - meaning he made a lot of money for his clients that day. In early December of 2005 I filed my Are You Lost at C?-style LoR with an in forma pauperis for the court to pay the $120 Fed notes because my cause was against the International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service (which is United Nations) and I did not want to have to pay in the currency issued by the Respondent. As I was driving back from Denver Jim paged me - very rare. I stopped at a truck stop to call him. He offered to pay my $120! I thanked him and was a bit stunned at his intelligence level involving my filing? I assured him if the in forma pauperis failed, I would be taking him up on his generous offer. No Go! I was to turn around, go back to Denver where the clerk of court would be waiting after hours to sign consent for Jim to pay by credit card - Today Only - the offer was only good for that day!

    In that timeframe too, a suitor treated me to a weekend in Montana. Listening to the 4:00 Mark hear me inquiring what I could about Refusal for Cause - even back in 1995! Later though I sat and witnessed Leroy Michael's confidence in the law as he chuckled writing in International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service upon a $15K Comptroller Warrant; rather than the typical IRS. UN instead of Puerto Rico. SCHWIETZER knew what I was doing but did not expect that I held (and still have) no trust in the UCC for my common law. So instead of citing the UCC I just wrote in Without Recourse below my True Name, Family signature. I suppose I had an inkling that would be compelling a post 1976 End to the Financial Emergency too...

    [Meaning in both of these examples I was compelling that the US Government go back to pre-1861 substance and specie.]

    I doubt if Leroy would have chuckled had he known the day after that Comptroller Warrant hit Ogden campus that the feds would be picking him and Dan PETERSEN up at the rural post office out there on the Jordan, Montana plains. That was the start of the 13 Week Montana Freeman Standoff.

    But I should not forget to mention, with a Government Shutdown/severe budget cut looming on the immanent Default as Congress fails to raise the Debt Ceiling in a couple weeks. [I say that because with no positive credit for the US Dollar anymore, Congress has no incentive to keep spending our children's money; especially with BRICS having emerged as an alternative SDR (paper gold) system of trade.] What I nearly forgot to mention was that two weeks later - after that strange call from Jim, Judge SPARR rejected my in forma pauperis. So I went back up to Denver and paid to file my case - on the Eve of the 31-Day Government Shutdown! Several people pointed out that was what is understood in the corporate world as Restructure. Typically Restructure is to assign a new trustee or Receivership:



    Ergo, Daniel's Calendar for more reasons than one.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-24-11 at 12:39 PM.

  3. #3
    Erie R.R. v. Thompkins and Swift v. Tyson had to do with government attempting to "legislate from the bench" by creating a federal common law except that this "common law" had to do with commercial instruments and crafting a uniform set of rules for them federation-wide.

    Forum shopping was the result which attorners obfuscate all of this with the term "diversity jurisdiction".

    Erie R.R. v. Thompkins was basically a spin-off. This closed the door to forum shopping, but the federal common law for handling commercial instruments remained.

    Prime example of unintended consequences.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    Erie R.R. v. Thompkins and Swift v. Tyson had to do with government attempting to "legislate from the bench" by creating a federal common law except that this "common law" had to do with commercial instruments and crafting a uniform set of rules for them federation-wide.

    Forum shopping was the result which attorners obfuscate all of this with the term "diversity jurisdiction".

    Erie R.R. v. Thompkins was basically a spin-off. This closed the door to forum shopping, but the federal common law for handling commercial instruments remained.

    Prime example of unintended consequences.

    That seems a valid perspective. There are several.

    The mental model I prescribe to is that Swift (1842) was declared an error of the Court in 1938 by Justice Louis Dembitz BRANDEIS. Common law, being case law was effectively reset; starting valid common law in 1938. So in the article we can understand the typo, maybe he even meant it, that he says Erie was effective in 1933. Congress going basically into a bankruptcy default, then pulling itself out with the homes of Americans as the new mortgaged chattel made the new common law of 1938 very much like a bankruptcy proceeding.

    Finding that it was three years prior - 1935 on the Colorado estate is revealing!


  5. #5
    stoneFree
    Guest
    Bump.

    I first ran into this thread at work with insufficient time to explore, but then forgot to come back!

  6. #6
    NICE BUMP! I can't believe I missed this thread from about seven months ago.

    Thank You, David! Beautiful and mystical set of books up there like something out of a movie or a dream. I believe I am engaged in a very nice dream at this moment.
    Last edited by EZrhythm; 11-30-11 at 10:07 AM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    As a new suitor files the LoR, at Judge Assignment I instruct him to ask, Is this an Article III judge? The clerk will generally affirm, Yes. [Recently the clerk did not know. - Same thing, incompetence.] The clerk is either misinformed or does not know. It is pretty obvious actually - if the judge is a taxpayer he has no business presiding over tax matter, for example. But more than that, if he is a taxpayer, and they all are then he is having his salary diminished then that is against the Constitutional description for any Article III judge. Either way, he is biased by the IRS and Treasury. Biased is Conflict of Interest and not equal to Judge.
    Perhaps I can simplify it a bit. The taxpayer *IS* an treasury agent. Any judge that is a taxpayer is working for the IRS like all of those folks filling out tax forms. The taxpayer is a tax agent collecting tax. How sneaky is that? The "average Joe" (sadly a term for a slave) sitting down filling out tax forms every year, handling W-2s every two weeks is a tax agent. Someone told me they were disgruntled with the IRS I told them basically "YOU *ARE* A TREASURY AGENT!"



    For those who are too astonished and in denial to get it: EVEN THE ACT OF COLLECTING TAX FROM "YOURSELF" AND PAYING IT INTO THE US TREASURY IS TO ACT IN THE CAPACITY OF A TAX COLLECTOR OR TREASURY AGENT. IF YOU WITHHOLD FROM THOSE THAT YOU PAY, YOU ARE ACTING AS A TREASURY AGENT! PERHAPS THOSE TAX FORMS SERVE AS EVIDENCE IN THE U.S. TAX COURT (U.S. COURT OF THE EXCHEQUER) THAT YOU HAVE NOT STOLEN ANYTHING FROM THE PRIVATE AND THAT YOU HAVE NOT STOLEN FROM THE PUBLIC (THAT YOU DID A FAIR ASSESSMENT). PERHAPS A "TAX AUDIT" IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER TAX AGENT ISN'T ROBBING "THE HOME OFFICE".

    Now the good news, is that if one REALLY REALLY gets that, a lot of the emotional fog can fly away and in comes clarity--remedy is seen better.

    In review, any judge that is a taxpayer is a tax agent--that means they are working for (or *ahem* sitting on) the U.S. Tax Court. Oh but remember!!! The U.S. post office facilities were put under the Secretary of the Treasury, right? Remember, the fabled "Sheriff of Nottingham" was a tax collector!!



    P.S. Your badge number maybe goes something like this: XXX-XX-XXXX. The "Us vs. Them" pantameter is hard to keep up after a post like this, ain't it?
    Last edited by allodial; 11-30-11 at 07:02 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  8. #8
    I think you are right on with that. It also explains why there is no resistance lately to properly filing and publishing the Default Judgments (foreign judgments) resulting from the Libels of Review.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Good post allodial, yes a trustee of sorts. Pretty obvious when they give you a right to self assessment and then take away that right with a frivolous filing penalty. Also for the fact when you sign that form it is under penalties of perjury.

    Signature, can a signature come from natural law in accord with statutes? nope
    Take the "g" out, what do you get?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I think you are right on with that. It also explains why there is no resistance lately to properly filing and publishing the Default Judgments (foreign judgments) resulting from the Libels of Review.
    And no surprise, Federal judgments are paid out pretty much like tax refunds through FMS Treasury. The flip-side is, if they harm you they could become liable to pay as if it were a tax. Its a two-edged sword for them. If an assessment is made against them per a judgment, for them to argue is to argue tax matters and to question the public debt--that is probably why they were served a can of "Shut up and do your job, clerks."--risk management, actuaries, inn sewer ants, etc. Consider that the typical traffic court case is like "rate-limited" (think network traffic) by the fact that the 'judges' have to give a criminal burden of proof before they can collect on their assessment. THE WAY THEY HAVE TO HANDLE THE CASE IS THAT THEY MUST PROVE THAT THEY CAN JUSTIFY THE TAX!!!!! The requirement of giving an alleged breach of contract a criminal burden of proof is designed to STOP THEM MAKING FRIVOLOUS ASSESSMENTS!

    I drafted a bond that successfully covered *a person* for IRS tax obligations but a stipulation was that the bond didn't cover frivolous or hostile claims made by the IRS. That kept the IRS from getting wide, greedy, google-eyes over the notion that they could just send the person a bill for $500K and get paid out of the bond. Maximum assessments were sent out in the initial phase of settlement of accounts, but the IRS folks eventually wound up owing once the examination was through--they didn't make a stink just made a few delays here and there. Overall, the folks I've met that work for the IRS have been very friendly and interesting-to-know--coming at them without hostility makes a big difference. The IRS folks knew I was enforcing and doing things according to the IRM as a sovereign intervening and seeing to it that proper and adequate settlement of accounting for a seven-year period was performed per the extant rules or regulations. To at least some extent they are my servants. And for those Christians, remember being a bad master wasn't smiled upon by Y'shua ( / Jesus)--it works two ways people. Shouting and screaming at the IRS agents like an arse when oneself, one's dad or one's great grand pappy set the system to begin with might be a good way to get a free psychological evaluation--thus I avoid complaining. If you collect tax as a federal judge, you can't kvetch about paying it without expecting some negative reverberations. David Merrill, also consider that the tax filing requirements are far more stringent for attorneys. Members of the bar appear to be REQUIRED to have an SSN or tax ID. So there is some "cross talk" and "metaphysical improvement in resolution" going on here in the sense that attorney at bar is always a taxpayer.

    In that time frame too, a suitor treated me to a weekend in Montana. Listening to the 4:00 Mark hear me inquiring what I could about Refusal for Cause - even back in 1995! Later though I sat and witnessed Leroy Michael's confidence in the law as he chuckled writing in International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service upon a $15K Comptroller Warrant; rather than the typical IRS. UN instead of Puerto Rico. SCHWIETZER knew what I was doing but did not expect that I held (and still have) no trust in the UCC for my common law. So instead of citing the UCC I just wrote in Without Recourse below my True Name, Family signature. I suppose I had an inkling that would be compelling a post 1976 End to the Financial Emergency too...
    I suspect the IMF only comes into play when it comes to general payments to the U.S. Treasury. Consider the Secretary of Treasury to be like a transistor, gate or router. If the money is destined for overseas, he has to deal with IMF/BIS. Like you, I take hype with a grain or two of salt. The idea that the IRS is the IMF is a bit sketchy. That there is overlap--no doubt. I have a few texts on the UCC and one of them makes it clear that the UCC is a "State law". Consider however that the District of Columbia is in a sense a "State".

    P.S. No doubt, there are times when the servants get out of line.. perhaps an understatement in view of past experience. However perhaps "dulocracy" describes what happens when the masters behave too stupidly, drunken or indifferent to stop their servants from clowning around.
    Last edited by allodial; 12-03-11 at 06:57 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

Posting Permissions

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