The Libel of Review is an expression of home economics!
The Libel of Review is an expression of home economics!
One might find this Crosstalk edifying!
I got a wonderful confirmation today. Look at Page 11.
I revive this cryptically short post from a couple weeks back for the sake of the new suitors. One found it impossible to file a tax return under Miscellaneous Case file yesterday, the US clerk of court insisting that this is a civil matter and it will be for the traditional $350. So I am pondering if to simply put a 843 Form cover on the “Complaint” rather than the Libel of Review. This would simply redact the entire filing to a simple Claim on the Return and evidence (demands on the back of paychecks) under Summons:
Suitor v. Timothy Franz GEITHNER
I suppose the complaint would be that of “conditioning” in a social fraud by omission that GEITHNER is presumed as United Nations US IMF Governor to be propagating through his contribution to certain combinatorial mathematics between the member states of the UN. This manifests through the UN’s World Bank and IMF, now burgeoning a national debt that discourages investing in the US Dollar (T-bonds; audio attached). GEITHNER’s interference with the redemption process might be such irresponsible fiduciary behavior as to get him thrown in prison? This abbreviated Complaint sounds quite scientific and concise. It could even lead to a one or two paragraph Libel of Review template.
Far more likely though, GEITHNER will simply send a full Refund Check!
Regards,
David Merrill.
I am thinking to keep this citation though - as it relates directly to the Judiciary Act of 1789 wherein the 'saving to suitors' clause if found:
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES … 136. When a seizure has been voluntarily abandoned, it loses its validity, and no jurisdiction attaches to any court, unless there be a new seizure. 10 Wheat. 325; 1 Mason, 361. First Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789. Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856.
Keep your eyes on this thread.
Keep in mind this may be getting major improvements in the next few days:
Here is a glimpse of the new "Libel of Review" - in the rough.
Gdude was asking about help setting up an evidence repository. Find the example clerk instruction in the LoR and that should offer some explanation. Furthermore though there is a brain trust of suitors operating to critique the new form and template. Now with this post though, that editing process has opened up to you too Gdude. I call this an echo chamber and it is among several echo chambers. The brain trust is an echo chamber too.
Steel sharpens steel.Awesome job DM!
My only suggestion is to add the word "contract" into the civil action, since a Claim rests on violation of a contract which then caused an injury by the violator.
I feel the use of the word trust in the opening paragraph as a synonym to contract is adaquate but discussion may change that word.
P.S. A new suitor contributed just this morning:
That looks like the Informer to me and I hope my inquiring where it came from works a worthwhile lesson about rules of evidence.IRS FORM 843 - Redeeming Lawful Money
Although IRS Form 843 cannot be used for claiming back income tax, it can be used for an abatement of the fee paid for the presumed use of private credit in the form of Federal Reserve Notes that is based on the amount of income denominated thereby, when said presumed use has been consistently rebutted by lawful money being demanded for all transactions per 12 USC 411, with a substantive record of same created as admissible evidence by all related financial institutions in their normal course of business documentation. This IRS Form 843 is a good tool to further expose the unspoken legal foundation of the ?income tax? ? that it is a legitimate usage fee for the use of the private credit and script of the Federal Reserve System.
P.S. For example the spelling of the IMF Head is LAGARDE. This is a rough draft.
Last edited by David Merrill; 10-18-12 at 02:31 PM.
There is an interesting article being talked about that cites an interesting IMF Workpaper.
In context the purpose of getting to the federal repository is to get into the Congressional Record and bring the entire argument/accusation by McFADDEN to light. He is allegedly the congressman who promoted the American equitable title and caused Congress to have to write up HJR-192.
Crosstalk;
I am going to have to get down to the repository today then. Additions to the new LoR might include:
1) The judges being paid increases according to the Dollar?s decreasing value
2) McFADDEN?s accusations of 1933 leading to the equity rules embodied in HJR-192
3) The 1938 merger of law and equity ? (1935 Colorado) around Erie RR Co. v Thompkins.
4) The 1666 cestui que vie Act.
This is based on HJR-192 being a protection of equitable claim as America went into mortgage to save the Fed.
Last edited by David Merrill; 10-23-12 at 02:30 PM.
David,
Hope these scans of the Congressional Record will help you find some more relevant cites for the LOR.
McFadden June 10, 1932 - The people have a valid claim against the Fed (see page 12602 for valid claim, 12603 for Congress as Trustees)
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8B...kNqQUNXOVRsdFk
McFadden May 23, 1933 - Charges of theft (see page 4056)
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8B...0dYSlBRUElrTmM
NOTE: underlines and notations added by me
Doug
Last edited by doug555; 10-23-12 at 08:55 PM.
I was trying to find your cites before I left!Originally Posted by doug555
Here are some McFADDEN images.
Thanks a lot Doug;
Can you try fitting McFADDEN's accusations and complaints into a revised rendition of this cause?
Lawful Money Complaint
NOTE: This ia a very rough draft... only citing relevant 1932-33 McFadden "charges". We really need to state evidentiary facts... actual incidents of refusal to redeem FRNs, which, it just so happened occurred with me this last week when a bank called me back the next day after opening a checking account to come back in to re-sign the bank signature card, this time without the phrase "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on it. The legal department said it only deals with Federal Reserve Notes. I am thinking it may be best to just write a nice letter (sent with delivery confirmation) just documenting the facts that occurred, that I did in fact make my demand known, which is all that is required for me to do, and that I forgive their mis-take of not complying with Federal Statute 12 USC 411.
Doug
Last edited by doug555; 10-24-12 at 01:49 AM.
That was slick of them to call you back by phone, rather than to write it out in a letter. I have seen a couple letters though.
Thank you for framing the accusation. Administrative process depends on judicial support for authority.
Last edited by David Merrill; 10-24-12 at 07:55 AM.
David,
Deed of Payment
Deed of Payment Letter
Perhaps the New LOR Complaint could use some of the items from the Deed of Payment, and the logic therein.
Doug
P.S. The Deed of Payment Letter was just an idea to try on Corporations to show our good faith intent to create a contract to use public lawful money, instead of private credit, in future transactions. It has not been tested yet.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
