Glimpse Tomorrow's Technology - Garnishment in Admiralty

[David Merrill]

This particular case demonstrates Steven Terner MNUCHIN, the Secretary of the Treasury reverting to True Name, as US Governor of the IMF. It took a week to enter it on PACER and over the weekend yet to actually appear on PACER. This Certificate of Mailing revealed that PACER-marked copies would be mailed after they appeared on PACER. This suitor, for good reason does not like to go in the federal courthouse. Especially since the last thing on his 2009 evidence repository is the clerk returning his "Notice and Demand for Lawful Money" in 2013. Some suitors have good reason to put no trust in the unbound "judiciary".








Without an internal comprehension of the remedy and trust law, many people learning on the Internet will mix used up patriot myths like "All Rights Reserved." So this is intended for entertainment and to guide the seeker to www.lawfulmoneytrust.com for that deeper understanding before application.

[marcel]

Adobe Reader 2.0 for Pocket PC. Now that is a throwback.

[David Merrill]

Adobe Reader 2.0 for Pocket PC. Now that is a throwback.

I forgot how to hold my tongue while jockeying my mouse. So much for new technology!!


I am glad somebody was paying attention...

[xparte]

I see the forum has plenty of viewing . The lack of membership that once did participate is not unique as the old verbiage I tossed my encyclopedias britannica as the sight knows everything.Or cant accept digging for knowledge just to have that truth and determination ruined with legislative truth . I have never hired a plaintiff but the inheritance has the power of attorney too claim i am decedent Or death bye astonishment My assistance is a unregistered Death thats the astonishment. I absolutely agree the plaintiff is your prosecuting yourself Some suitors have good reason to put no trust in the unbound "judiciary". And finding a bound judiciary requires a jury not the redaction panel of indorsements known as "judiciary". David how can one enjoy his record after its formed . Does the r4c record follow me around like a criminal one how does a private criminal record differ from the public criminal record. And all agreement is private before its public.

[David Merrill]

I certainly enjoy that there are usually more than 50 readers here at any time of day!

Lately the new technology steers toward suitors who have had their Record abrogated - STRICKEN Docs - by these pretenders.

[xparte]

[xparte]

There does not seem to be any precedent for use of admissions by privies in criminal cases, but if there is, it should be abrogated along with its civil counterparts.

[xparte]

And yes the viewers should all know Without r4c . Any predictable case will be docked In fairness to David his process cost money but so does getting docked. I am only committed to a conversation that verbiage is understood if i had horns i need no help. so thinking like the law and its students is just how one demands it.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for understanding. There is so much exciting evolution but it is so current, to post it might jinx it.

[David Merrill]

I think it more likely that the true judgment demonstrated by finding of fact has the clerk befuddled. But a fly on the wall might tell tale of the chief judge on the case clowning around.

Quoting Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary:

MASTER. This word has several meanings. 1. Master is one who has control over a servant or apprentice. A master stands in relation to his apprentices, in loco parentis, and is bound to fulfil that relation, which the law generally enforces. He is also entitled to be obeyed by his apprentices, as if they were his children. Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.
2. - 2. Master is one who is employed in teaching children, known generally as a schoolmaster; as to his powers, see Correction.
3. - 3. Master is the name of an officer: as, the ship Benjamin Franklin, whereof A B is master; the master of the rolls; master in chancery, &c.
4. - 4. By master is also understood a principal who employs another to perform some act or do something for him. The law having adopted the maxim of the civil law, qui facit per alium facit per se; the agent is but an instrument, and the master is civilly responsible for the act of his agent, as if it were his own, when he either commands him to do an act, or puts him in a condition, of which such act is a result, or by the absence of due care and control, either previously in the choice of his agent, or immediately in the act itself, negligently suffers him to do an injury. Story, Ag. 454, note; Noy's Max. c. 44; Salk. 282; 1 East. R. 106; 1 Bos. & Pul. 404; 2 H. Bl. 267; 5 Barn. & Cr. 547; 2 Taunt. R. 314; 4 Taunt. R. 649; Mass. 364, 385; 17 Mass. 479, 509; 1 Pick. 47 5; 4 Watts, 222; 2 Harr. & Gill, 316; 6 Cowen, 189; 8 Pick. 23; 5 Munf. 483. Vide Agent; Agency; Driver; Servant.
MASTER AT COMMON LAW, Engl. law. An officer of the superior courts of law, who has authority for taking affidavits sworn in court, and administering a variety of oaths; and also empowered to compute principal and interest on bills of exchange and other engagements, on which suit has been brought; he has also the power of an examiner of witnesses going abroad, and the like.
MASTER IN CHANCERY. An officer of the court of chancery.
2. The origin of these officers is thus accounted for. The chancellor from the first found it necessary to have a number of clerks, were it for no other purpose, than to perform the mechanical part of the business, the writing; these soon rose to the number of twelve. In process of time this number being found insufficient, these clerks contrived to have other clerks under them, and then, the original clerks became distinguished by the name of masters in chancery. He is an assistant to the chancellor, who refers to him interlocu-tory orders for stating accounts, computing damages, and the like. Masters in chancery are also invested with other powers, by local regulations. Vide Blake's Ch. Pr. 26; 1 Madd. Pr. 8 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 9, 19.
3. In England there are two kinds of masters in chancery, the ordinary, and the extraordinary..
4. - 1. The masters in ordinary execute the orders of the court, upon ref-erences made to them, and certify in writing in what manner they have executed such orders. 1 Sm. Ch. Pr. 9.
5. - 2. The masters extraordinary perform the duty of taking affidavits touching any matter in or relating to the court of chancery, taking the acknowledgment of deeds to be enrolled in the said court, and taking such recognizances, as may by the tenor of the order for entering them, be taken before a master extraordinary. 1 Sm. Ch. Pr. 19. Vide, generally, 1 Harg. Law Tr. 203, a Treatise of the Maister of the Chauncerie.
MASTER OF THE ROLLS. Eng. law. An officer who bears this title, and who acts as an assistant to the lord chancellor, in the court of chancery.
2. This officer was formerly one of the clerks in chancery whose duty was principally confined to keeping the rolls; and when the clerks in chancery became masters, then this officer became distinguished as master of the rolls. Vide Master in Chancery.
MASTER OF A SHIP, mar. law. The commander or first officer of a ship; a captain. (q. v.)
2. His rights and duties have been considered under the article Captain. Vide also, 2 Bro. Civ. Adm. Law, 133; 3 Kent, Com. 121; Wesk. Ins. 360; Park. on Ins. Index, h. t.; Com. Dig. Navigation, I 4.

But with so many definitions I cannot be sure. I have heard that common law is nothing but case law; stare decisis. I prefer to think that in American Jurisprudence case law is the spine of the common law. Fundamental in arraignment is the judge or magistrate explaining that his rulings and judgments are not final - the defendant can appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court. NOT! If the chief "justice" of the Circuit Court of Appeals is not bonded because he has signed a deviant oath of office that is fraud and it affects the entire judiciary.

So the mimicry of true name might have been an attempt to salvage competent common law? [Salvage! - Get it?]

Quickly corrected to the full and legal name of the Secretary.

[doug555]

A Synchronicity to share with you... re: the recent "glimpses" posted here.

Mt 12:29 has been on my mind the last couple of days... now I know WHY!! The "strong man" is the "Principal"... MNUCHIN !

Mt 12:29 "Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house."

http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/matthew/12-29.html

I believe you are onto something David!

[David Merrill]

I love such coherent imagery. Thank you.

One interesting mystery cropped up today. Look at the difference between these Affidavits attached. Somebody scrubbed the oath paragraph from one of the images.

[doug555]

I love such coherent imagery. Thank you.

One interesting mystery cropped up today. Look at the difference between these Affidavits attached. Somebody scrubbed the oath paragraph from one of the images.

Interesting, and in the light of Mt 12:29, perhaps they are "voiding" the oath in order to "avoid" a trespass upon the "property" of the Creator... because they indeed FEAR HIM, and know He will intervene, just as He did in Egypt, to redeem HIS People!

[David Merrill]

Yes. Levi as Custodian of the Record bows a nod to the superior Melchizedek:













Puppeteer.


Puppeteer in dynamic with the Wisdom of Solomon - No Kings.

[doug555]

For discussion...

http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.h...=104&page=5124


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453

So help me God.

Above links are to research/verify the below excerpt [bolding added] from Anna Reitz article at:
https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/...ral-judiciary/

The new Oath of Office they imposed on the judicial officers may be seen at Volume 104 United States Statutes-at-Large Page 5124, otherwise shown as 104 Stat. 5124.

The new Oath of Office is very sly in that it appears to be a simple clean-up deletion of unnecessary verbiage in the old Oath of Officeremoved the judicial officers from the judicial branchopen treason against the actual Constitution since 1991, and absolutely no decisions undertaken by these federal judicial officers since then have been in compliance with the actual Constitution. They are all null and void for cause.

I am wondering if this information will be helpful to the new technology in this thread, as another support for the "Refusal for Cause" and the Admiralty Garnishment of the Principal?

Notice the "So help me God." is NOT "SO HELP ME GOD.".

Actually, I believe the Executive took over all branches on April 15, 1861, when the "exigent circumstances" ("extraordinary occasion") began and invested all power to the President.