Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: What I have learned so far.

  1. #11
    Hilarious!!

    One of my neighbors worked on the original Star Trek set. She has many great memories. She filled a niche that all the others completely forgot about until about lunchtime. She began arranging for feeding everybody and that turned into one of her duties. She spent a lot of her days working out exotic fabrics and helping get them into all those terrific gowns, outfits and uniforms. She still refers to SHATNER as "Bill".

    Thanks again for the chuckle.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    136
    CHEKOV: Fish on the right side of the boat, Captain
    CAPT: Huh?
    CHEKOV: in John Chapter 21 the disciples aren't catching anything. Jesus says cast your net on the righthand side and they then caught 153 fish.
    CAPT: What does fishing have to do ...
    UHURA: The righthand side of the note is the public side, left is Federation seal. Public versus private.

  3. #13
    Indeed; the Federation is looking to avoid a war with the Klingons again...

    04/11/2018 4

    Corporate Disclosure Statement by CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC (Seikaly, Katherine) (Entered: 04/11/2018)

    04/18/2018 5

    LEAVE TO FILE DENIED-Addendum One to Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition as to INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Leave to File Denied" by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on 4/18/2018. (hsj) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

    04/18/2018 6

    LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Addendum Two to Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition as to INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Leave to File Denied" by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on 4/18/2018. (hsj) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
    Two sealed Addendum Docs? So they are Addendum to Doc 4!

    Name:  Corporate Disclosure CONCORD.jpg
Views: 126
Size:  166.8 KB

    Therefore the Writ of Mandamus is for a recusal. And the "judge" is reluctant to recuse himself so he hides the Addendums, that probably explain how the "judge" has no proper oath of office. See the attached Amicus Brief.


    The House Intelligence Committee was quick to get it. Public and Private!!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-01-18 at 08:55 AM. Reason: typo in "sealed" search; 13 instead of 18

  4. #14
    Oh I did not notice that as I thought i was linking from linking from the gpo.gov or was directed from there. Must of used google search and didn't notice. Thank you for your help. I have corrected the link in my post. May be redundant but definitely don't want bad links that could house misinformation.

  5. #15
    I'm very sorry for the formatting. I never really blog or use forums a lot til now. I realized it was a mess after the fact. Haven't been back on in a while but I fixed it and made it more readable. Thank you for your help on the formatting.

  6. #16
    SUCCESS!! I have processed two checks with the verbiage of non endorsement and am using the title 12 ss 411 certified copies as my defense if things go south or questions get asked. It seems to work. Also my bank is a registered federal reserve commercial bank as well!!! Plus one of the checks was from the Ky state treasury. I am interested in how this will turn out when they get processed. The treasury check however was first declined due to my bank usually following the 6 month rule I found out which is actually UCC 4-404. I had them accept it due to the fact of the KRS 41.370 statute and the fact I got the Ky treasury involved.

    quick link
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/4-404
    Last edited by DTBA; 06-15-18 at 11:45 PM. Reason: left out valuable information of my experiance.

  7. #17
    Mr Merrill,

    Thank you for your inquiry and by all means dissect my posts, agree or disagree. Prove me right or wrong etc. I welcome it. It is how we learn and teach. From my understanding, when you sign a document, you have bonded your self to the words and agree with everything that is on that document. Such as in your video when you were talking about "bonding your substance" to a check signed with a blank endorsement to operate into default private credit script. A naked contract without full disclosure. As the signature, I was referring to the act of notary when you can notarize your own documents with stamp, signature, and thumbprint. (I believe that is the correct three... will verify and correct if not) I assume it functions the same way... signature is authorization, thumbprint is verification, and a stamp puts it into the federal realm of things via the post office. The post office is a very large entity I found out and they do more then just mail. They are responsible for all communications for the military and government. Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk? Anyway off point. My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that. But when I find it or just get another one I will most definitely post it. I do like to be informed though. That way when I talk to someone about this stuff, I am able to enforce it with documentation. I'm still new to this anyways. You and the others hear are way more experienced and are more knowledgeable then me.

    a site I use sometimes to look up stuff quickly. May need a better more informed page.
    https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/re...e-endorsement/

  8. #18
    Thank you. I am just getting started. It has been really exciting my latest technologies and explorations.

    Albeit the breach of trust is simply changing the oath of office, there would seem to be a lot more behind the simple fraud. Not only involving Mark as scribe to Peter and who later interviewed Matthew, Luke and John - but as a Venetian (Rome). This, with Paul writing the Epistles from Roman protective custody as a Roman citizen means that the entire New Covenant is a Roman parable.

    But thank you for posting and I will give your writings a reading...

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by DTBA View Post
    SUCCESS!! I have processed two checks with the verbiage of non endorsement and am using the title 12 ss 411 certified copies as my defense if things go south or questions get asked. It seems to work. Also my bank is a registered federal reserve commercial bank as well!!! Plus one of the checks was from the Ky state treasury. I am interested in how this will turn out when they get processed. The treasury check however was first declined due to my bank usually following the 6 month rule I found out which is actually UCC 4-404. I had them accept it due to the fact of the KRS 41.370 statute and the fact I got the Ky treasury involved.

    quick link
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/4-404

    Source links are always welcome and a great education online.

    Quote Originally Posted by DTBA View Post
    Mr Merrill,

    Thank you for your inquiry and by all means dissect my posts, agree or disagree. Prove me right or wrong etc. I welcome it. It is how we learn and teach. From my understanding, when you sign a document, you have bonded your self to the words and agree with everything that is on that document. Such as in your video when you were talking about "bonding your substance" to a check signed with a blank endorsement to operate into default private credit script. A naked contract without full disclosure. As the signature, I was referring to the act of notary when you can notarize your own documents with stamp, signature, and thumbprint. (I believe that is the correct three... will verify and correct if not) I assume it functions the same way... signature is authorization, thumbprint is verification, and a stamp puts it into the federal realm of things via the post office. The post office is a very large entity I found out and they do more then just mail. They are responsible for all communications for the military and government. Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk? Anyway off point. My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that. But when I find it or just get another one I will most definitely post it. I do like to be informed though. That way when I talk to someone about this stuff, I am able to enforce it with documentation. I'm still new to this anyways. You and the others hear are way more experienced and are more knowledgeable then me.

    a site I use sometimes to look up stuff quickly. May need a better more informed page.
    https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/re...e-endorsement/
    Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?

    The clerk stamps the top of filed Docs. I should spend some more time going into the clerk's rules and oath.

    Name:  oath federal 1789 judiciary act 001.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  790.1 KB

    The clerk of court is obviously in more authority than any judge. But then I suppose I will need to spend some effort to find out if certain clerks have signed deviant oaths of office.

    But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?

    The judge is more an arbitrator of the rules and the clerk specializes in the rules of court. Everything is supposed to happen according to the rules. But as one suitor pointed out today:

    Aristotle if equity's role is to prevent the law from adhering too rigidly to its own rules and principles when those rules and principles produce injustice. Hence equity permits judges to depart from legal principle in order to promote justice. How do i preference redemption as equity?
    Possibly a little poetic for execution but I like the writing style.

    My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that.

    If you already have an account, go get another copy of it. Just say you have misplaced yours.

    While you are at it, ask to read the Tariff. It is the agreement between your bank and the OCC in order to operate. They will pretend that they do not know what you are asking about. Then the manager should finally let you read it in front of a security camera, not photos.

  10. #20
    Indeed I will work on getting another copy. May be Friday cause I work before and after bank hours except on Fridays. The bank tariff is interesting to know about. Makes perfect sense as too the comptroller of the currency regulates all banking. Comparable to a state wanting to participate in the "National Driver Registrar" federal program to issue driver's license per title 49 Transportation.

    I was reading a scan on another topic "LAW states registration not required" which I found out comes from the 73rd congress 1st session document no. 43. However I seem to only find the text in non validated sites but they all read the same. It's titled "Contracts Payable in Gold".

    Links provided:
    http://pacinlaw.us/pdf/sup/Senate_Resolution_62.php

    https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-htyA...%2043_djvu.txt

    http://www.freedom-school.com/readin...le-in-gold.pdf

    They reference the document from GPO.gov but here is the link for the congress records. They reference it to be printed as a senate document but can't find the reading.

    link:
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pag...B-1933-pt2-v77

    Anyway, this congress session seems to show that ultimate ownership is vested in the State and only provides individual's user ship of there said property. Which is why a license is required to do anything now that is normally lawful. We do not own anything. However, being United States (Currency) Notes can function as minted coin, Isn't paying for property with lawful money make true ownership vested in the buyer? My mortgage promissory note states this on the very first line "for all payments to be in lawful money of the united states". Well, that is another argument I used with the bank as it's in there contracts and title 12 ss 411 says FRN's can't be lawful money. I stated am just trying to fulfill my debt/note.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by DTBA; 06-17-18 at 03:30 AM. Reason: typo

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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