No pleading.

[motla68]

Like with Frederick Burrell's post - I interpret it as a complaint, we find something here that reveals quite a bit:



I believe that I parsed out part of the problem. If you are a defendant the judicial officers are obliged to hear you. Otherwise your papering packages do not function because it is not in their charter to hear them. The problem being that while Motla68 uses a papering package of some sort, he will not show us what it is. Therefore he skirts around it, implying there is something there, and it just becomes frustrating to infuriating to try believing he is credible.

Then as for the fantastic science, it shows that he believes some things that are blatantly false. There is no free energy, regardless of how you configure magnets. And the burning water thing - that was great! I like the idea that it takes very little energy to plug in the frequency generator that makes that possible. I can plug things in all day long and hardly burn any calories at all!!

We all have our belief sets and we like to protect them. I am sure with you on that Motla68! It is certainly good to stay flexible and allow others on a Website like this one to scrutinize the source materials that convinced you originally. What you say are allusions and implications that only make sense to me because of the studies I have done into Strawman Redemption and Birth Certificates as Stock Certificates and soforth. Basically, unless you are going to show us the source materials backing your assertions, I have been surmising summarily that most of them are wrong.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Well if MJ has passed it on to you yet I have shared something privately how a gift of lawful money could be given for you to re-do/recycle of a plan you were putting together for the benefit of everyone in this forum. I certainly hope this counts for something?

The other more public stuff has already been posted not only in messages but in videos posted, including the new one put up today:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?166-Deposit-Your-Pledge-Into-a-Bank-and-Freely-Elect-to-be-Bankrupt-and-Insolvent&p=1201#post1201

[David Merrill]

Well if MJ has passed it on to you yet I have shared something privately how a gift of lawful money could be given for you to re-do/recycle of a plan you were putting together for the benefit of everyone in this forum. I certainly hope this counts for something?

The other more public stuff has already been posted including the new one put up today:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...=1201#post1201

I read it twice - nothing.

[motla68]

I read it twice - nothing.

Well then I apologize, not everyone will see the vision of this, now without the correct lense anyway. I can pretty much deduct then a majority will have the same consensus am sorry to say.
I will be leaving this sandbox and put my blessings upon the seeds, if anyone would like to contact me privately I will be available. Thanks for the opportunity of expression.

[David Merrill]

Well then I apologize, not everyone will see the vision of this, now without the correct lense anyway. I can pretty much deduct then a majority will have the same consensus am sorry to say.
I will be leaving this sandbox and put my blessings upon the seeds, if anyone would like to contact me privately I will be available. Thanks for the opportunity of expression.

What I was hoping for is that you would start showing us convincingly, rather than to tease us with the CoreSource Method, but never show us exactly what it is or its foundation in law and history.

I read something from you earlier today from HOUSE. That was not source material, it was an Internet comment.

[motla68]

What I was hoping for is that you would start showing us convincingly, rather than to tease us with the CoreSource Method, but never show us exactly what it is or its foundation in law and history.

I read something from you earlier today from HOUSE. That was not source material, it was an Internet comment.

I have showed many things, some were clipped because the size limit for this forum did not allow for the attachments, MJ has even been sent full files in the past in which we have had many of conversation on. So maybe in his words he can expound on that from his own words, because mine seem to not have any effect. I share my experiences and point in the directions, but I cannot serve up in the way you all are expecting me to, have not done that for anyone who had come through Coresource either because some due diligence is expected on their part. I have found if they discover some things on their own they retain it longer instead of having to answer the same questions or prove the same points over and over again.

[David Merrill]

I noticed that some of the other members were becoming impatient, that's all.

In all the talking about CoreSource, I really have no idea what it is about. I guess that is the point I am making. With the remedy written into the law, the results are plainly due to the remedy.

Also, the size limitations have been greatly expanded for attachments, so please show us about CoreSource.


Thanks!

David Merrill.

[Anthony Joseph]

The other problem I have is the way motla68 writes as though he has the answers/remedies/solutions and yet is reluctant to share them with full disclosure. He always uses phrases like, "you're getting warmer", "you're almost there", "I like what I'm hearing so far" and other such patronizing statements which can be construed as an unwillngness to come completely overt with this supposed "CoreSource" method or way. He boasted about how he intentionally sought out an infraction or citation of some kind on more than one occasion just to prove to someone that the "method" works and is reproducible.

Perhaps we have been shown, with full disclosure, documentation and supporting law and history, the reproducible success of the "CoreSource" method and "way" and I just missed it.

I don't know, perhaps I'm confused.

[doug-again]

off topic observation

I have showed many things, some were clipped because the size limit for this forum did not allow for the attachments, MJ has even been sent full files in the past in which we have had many of conversation on. So maybe in his words he can expound on that from his own words, because mine seem to not have any effect.

See? bean never did this. He had email contact with _lujack, but as near as i know, never sent him a shred of documentation of anything.
He never let anyone speak for him. As above, he never appealed to another member to spell out his own ideas.
bean claimed, in a pm, that he "stood" in a "house" in "New Mexico with" absentcapacity/ white tail beer hunter/ metheist - other than that, he never outed a back channel connection with a member of SJC.
bean rarely let anyone even appear to speak on another's behalf, especially if he, bean, was part of the conversation. Above, we see mot appealing to Mikey to maybe help out. If mot is one of the beans, then his handlers have taken a completely different tack.
To be sure, the beans are watching, and reading. Or, so i believe.
mot is just the bird of the moment.(Job 41:5)

[motla68]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii1tc493bZM

[David Merrill]

Motla68 behaves like I do on Quatloos so I gather that he feels about the same as I do about the attornies and other cyberpetties there, about us. He sure seems to look down upon me like a plebe!

[motla68]

Motla68 behaves like I do on Quatloos so I gather that he feels about the same as I do about the attornies and other cyberpetties there, about us. He sure seems to look down upon me like a plebe!

1st video would not load, here is the link:
http://online.wsj.com/video/recent-g...3C92158C7.html

Watch this next video of why I would show you the first one:

[Chex]

II Objections to Jurisdiction

II Objections to Jurisdiction
[17] A. Nature of Pleas to the Jurisdiction.
At common law pleas by which objection is taken to the jurisdiction of the court are not strictly pleas in abatement, but are in a class by themselves and are designated as pleas to the jurisdiction. They differ at common law from pleas in abatement in several respects, as, for example, in that they must be pleaded in person and not by attorney, and in that they must conclude, not with a prayer for judgement of the writ or declaration, or of the writ and declaration, and that the same be quashed, but whether the court will or ought to take further cognizance of the action or suit. They are, however, dilatory pleas, as distinguished from pleas to the merits, in that their effect is to defeat the present suit and not to deny or bar the cause of action, and therefore they are in modern practice treated for most purposes like other dilatory pleas as pleas in abatement, and are subject to most of the rules governing such pleas.

Source:

[David Merrill]

Thanks!!


That is very interesting that the man or woman must be there to plead jurisdiction. It makes sense that if you have an attorney speaking for you, then the jurisdiction is already settled.

[Darkcrusade]

Yes, public money = lawful money, public offerings.

1 Timothy 5:21
I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

Partiality means of " private interests ". so by deconstruction here we could actually say: "doing nothing by private interests", do not let EGO control you and come against your neighbor.
Let God be the judge of all things even if your neighbor does not. Your neighbor will dig their own hole if they use their free will of choice to be ignorant an be judged by the one most high.

Romans 8:33
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

You may not be ready for it yet, but I would go as far as to say: " why should we need any money at all if everything were publicly shared?"
What is private is the relationship between you and your creator, let the conscious spirit be your guide NOT the rule of law in someone else's relationship.
Whom do you TRUST?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkyMYKoSG7o

All these opinions treat only the question as to what would happen to people if all were put to the necessity of fulfilling the law of non-resistance; but, in the first place, it is quite impossible to compel all men to accept the law of non-resistance, and, in the second, if this were possible, it would be a most glaring negation of the very principle which is being established. To compel all men not to practise violence against others! Who is going to compel men?



In the third place, and above all else, the question, as put by Christ, does not consist in this, whether non-resistance may become a universal law for all humanity, but what each man must do in order to fulfill his destiny, to save his soul, and do God's work, which reduces itself to the same.



The Christian teaching does not prescribe any laws for all men; it does not say, "follow such and such rules under fear of punishment, and you will all be happy," but explains to each separate man his position in the world and shows him what for him personally results from this position. The Christian teaching says to each individual man that his life, if he recognizes his life to be his, and its aim, the worldly good of his personality or of the personalities of other men, can have no rational meaning, because this good, posited as the end of life, can never be attained, because, in the first place, all beings strive after the goods of the worldly life, and these goods are always attained by one set of beings to the detriment of others, so that every separate man cannot receive the desired good, but, in all probability, must even endure many unnecessary sufferings in his struggle for these unattained goods; in the second place, because if a man even attains the worldly goods, these, the more of them he attains, satisfy him less and less, and he wishes for more and more new ones; in the third place, mainly because the longer a man lives, the more inevitably do old age , diseases, and finally death, which destroys the possibility of any worldly good, come to him.



Thus, if a man considers his life to be his, and its end to be the worldly good, for himself or for other men, this life can have for him no rational meaning. Life receives a rational meaning only when a man understands that the recognition of his life as his own, and the good of personality, of his own or of that of others, as its end, is an error, and that the human life does not belong to him, who has received this life from some one, but to Him who produced this life, and so its end must not consist in the attainment of his own good or of the good of others, but only in the fulfilment of the will of Him who produced it. Only with such a comprehension of life does it receive a rational meaning, and its end, which consists in the fulfilment of God's will, become attainable, and, above all, only with such a comprehension does man's activity become clearly defined, and he no longer is subject to despair and suffering, which were inevitable with his former comprehension.



"The world and I in it," such a man says to himself, "exist by the will of God. I cannot know the whole world and my relation to it, but I can know what is wanted of me by God, who sent men into this world, endless in time and space, and therefore inaccessible to my understanding, because this is revealed to me in the tradition, that is, in the aggregate reason of the best people in the world, who lived before me, and in my reason, and in my heart, that is, in the striving of my whole being.



"In the tradition, the aggregate of the wisdom of all the best men, who lived before me, I am told that I must act toward others as I wish that others would act toward me; my reason tells me that the greatest good of men is possible only when all men will act likewise.



"My heart is at peace and joyful only when I abandon myself to the feeling of love for men, which demands the same. And then I can not only know what I must do, but also the cause for which my activity is necessary and defined.

http://community.beliefnet.com/oscarbrown/blog/2008/04/29/leo_tolstoy__a_letter_to_ernest_howard_crosby

Continued at the above link! Not to be missed!!!

The co-mmunity was voluntary, The husband/wife were judged for their false presentation and deception.
Still reading this thread seems great so far.

http://www.kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html

[xparte]

the infant being a Decedent legally dead been charged your resurrection within 72 hrs has a King james funk to it a if the body shows up for salvage after 72hrs the Name OR NAMED is living I enjoy the less is more telling the truth is a lot less to remember,jack