Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: The Libel of Review

  1. #1

    The Libel of Review

    The Libel of Review, as you read in the Instruction set at the bottom is for the purpose of providing an evidence repository for Refusals for Cause. There is no sense trying to teach attorneys in black robes about law and history; they paid college tuition for that already. The important thing to focus on in the body of the LoR is the example Clerk Instruction. That explains the entire lesson plan and leaves the other text fluff - for the objective of getting an evidence repository in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government, which was formed to protect your property rights.

    The LoR was first developed by a friend of mine and some of his "friends", whom I never met in a book called Are You Lost at C? I have a full copy of the book, which about 2/3 is attachments and may eventually get that on my scanner for you all.

    The initial precept is the same precept in my rendition of the LoR. The federal judiciary operates fundamentally in admiralty. This is because the several compact states at the time of the Judiciary Act where the 'saving to suitors' clause is found were independent republican nations. The US government was formed as liaison between them as a municipal city of Washington, District (not state) of Columbia. Then in 1790 the districts overlaid on the states were assigned to handle the debts of the United States government.

    Therefore any causes arising from the US government's Fed (FRNs) are an insurance policy awaiting claim (bottomry) and take on the nature of an admiralty claim - Delovio v. Boit (1815). The diversity may be between the man/woman and the trustee/fiduciary for IT in all upper case letters (CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST) or the same thing in different terms, if you know your true name - the man/woman and the contractor with the Fed (endorsement of private credit).



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by David Merrill; 10-16-16 at 09:07 AM.

  2. #2
    First the link was removed from the Google Docs directory:



    It may be that I messed it up. It has been replaced with a new link.

  3. #3
    Why is it that Tim Geithner is named as the Respondent in the LoR?

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by InTheCrease View Post
    Why is it that Tim Geithner is named as the Respondent in the LoR?

    Service to the agent is service to the principal.

    However the added twist is that the Secretary doubles as US Governor for the UN's International Monetary Fund (Trust Fund). This makes him the agent of a foreign principal and emphasizes the mesne process missing - that he never filed in the district courts of the US.

    On that note though, is the fraud of using people's mailboxes as federal enclaves. The mailbox, under the penumbra of Congress is like the USDC in minature or expedited process. However since Congress allows everybody to think that is their mailbox out front, that is a fraud by omission right there.

  5. #5

    proper service

    I have found it difficult to have the LoR served. The targets have retired or are being shielded by auntie iris. The court is threatening to dismiss because of lack of proper service. Professional service processors have been denied access to the named defendants. The full name of the defendant is not included anywhere on any of the bogus paperwork they have filed making it difficult to find them outside their lair.

    For future reference, if you intend to travel this road, prepare your case....have a professional process server accompany you to one of the 'audit meetings' or 'case resolution meetings'....have verified proper service before filing.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by jreeves View Post
    I have found it difficult to have the LoR served. The targets have retired or are being shielded by auntie iris. The court is threatening to dismiss because of lack of proper service. Professional service processors have been denied access to the named defendants. The full name of the defendant is not included anywhere on any of the bogus paperwork they have filed making it difficult to find them outside their lair.

    For future reference, if you intend to travel this road, prepare your case....have a professional process server accompany you to one of the 'audit meetings' or 'case resolution meetings'....have verified proper service before filing.
    Hi Jreeves;


    In the opening post it is pointed out the objective of the LoR is to acquire an evidence repository so that you might perform the functions of a court of record. The LoR always gets dismissed.

    A professional process server will provide an affidavit of due diligence that should suffice in court. The court threatening to dismiss because of poor service is likely a good sign your process is persuasive. Or that your service is faulty.

    Remember though that the objective is to form a record with a competent clerk of court.

  7. #7
    David Merrill,

    When considering Rule 60(e) of the FCivRP, how do you find the Libel of Review to be advantageous?


    Respectfully,

    ProfessorPhi

  8. #8
    hi David, can you help me to understand what the the term "libel of review" means? Ive looked up each word in Black's Law 5th but when used together its not making sense to me.

    Im pretty familiar with the process/method but just not understanding how the term fits it.

    actually have the same question for "refusal for cause", too.

    I think it would help me tremendously to understand all this.

    thanks

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by george View Post
    hi David, can you help me to understand what the the term "libel of review" means? Ive looked up each word in Black's Law 5th but when used together its not making sense to me.

    Im pretty familiar with the process/method but just not understanding how the term fits it.

    actually have the same question for "refusal for cause", too.

    I think it would help me tremendously to understand all this.

    thanks
    Libel of Review and Libel in Review (both attached) are both admiralty terms. In terms of process they are synonyms but I adopted an older term for my process after evolving from Are You Lost at C?

    The Libel of Review is fluff wrapped around a suitor's first Refusal for Cause and establishes the Record with the USDC Clerk of Court as published on PACER. This is sometimes effective in itself for whatever claim but also serves for future Refusals for Cause on the Record too.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by David Merrill; 09-15-16 at 12:41 AM.

  10. #10

    common law counterclaim in admiralty -

    common law counterclaim in admiralty - this to me is very confusing. So how can we do a common law counter claim against a statutory complaint in Admiralty and once we move to Admiralty how then do we come back to common law?

    this is really very hard to understand.

Posting Permissions

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