No pleading.

[Frederick Burrell]

Ok let me know when you do. Frederick Burrell

[motla68]

I started a thread on GLP about 6 month ago. Someone posted a link to batmans talkshoe. I like what I heard. I think I listened to 4 shows. I understand the basic premise of what you are saying, but it would seem that there is going to be a transition period, unless like the one fellow batman refers to that ran into the Man who proceeded to take care of his needs. At least until thing get straightened out. In the mean time I still need to buy groceries.

I am also not clear on the aspect of how we came to be seen as enemy combatants, by whom and when. It would seem to be that the line of thinking that you embrace would suggest that some of our past presidents set up certain protections for us, from whom, the bankers, what is the occupying force and when did we become the enemy. It would seem to all relate back to the civil war period. But I have not quite grasped the big picture. Any help would be appreciated. Frederick Burrell

I think it would be best if I started a new thread on this to answer your question, that way everything is in one thread instead of scattered about

[Frederick Burrell]

Your getting there, accept that the goal we are getting at through Coresource is to leave the Lawful Money/paper in the treasury due to being military concurred and just direct all billing to the treasury for the balancing of accounts. The state gets what they want, the paper, you get possession and use of what was created from the resources God gifted to all of us. Everything becomes balanced when you acknowledge the Usufruct that is in place.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]188[/ATTACH]

I started a thread on GLP about 6 month ago. Someone posted a link to batmans talkshoe. I like what I heard. I think I listened to 4 shows. I understand the basic premise of what you are saying, but it would seem that there is going to be a transition period, unless like the one fellow batman refers to that ran into the Man who proceeded to take care of his needs. At least until thing get straightened out. In the mean time I still need to buy groceries.

I am also not clear on the aspect of how we came to be seen as enemy combatants, by whom and when. It would seem to be that the line of thinking that you embrace would suggest that some of our past presidents set up certain protections for us, from whom, the bankers, what is the occupying force and when did we become the enemy. It would seem to all relate back to the civil war period. But I have not quite grasped the big picture. Any help would be appreciated. Frederick Burrell

[motla68]

Molta

It would seem to be the contracts that you enter into with them. Using FRN's would seem to be one of the primary contracts. Put redeeming lawful money together with your approach and I think you will have a winning combo, not to mention be right with yourself and God, what ever you perceive that to be.

Your getting there, accept that the goal we are getting at through Coresource is to leave the Lawful Money/paper in the treasury due to being military concurred and just direct all billing to the treasury for the balancing of accounts. The state gets what they want, the paper, you get possession and use of what was created from the resources God gifted to all of us. Everything becomes balanced when you acknowledge the Usufruct that is in place.

[motla68]

Last Registered Owner.


States have uniformly passed legislation that all a party is required to do in a seizure or forfeiture of property is notify the Last Registered Owner. Recall the suitor who got his car back 14 months later? The Last Registered Owner was a trust called the Commonwealth of Israel or something of the same sort. His friend, the trustee for the Last Registered Owner called him up one day to go get his car back.

Can you extrapolate on this story more or provide a link to it, it is hard to tell what happened with such little information?

[David Merrill]

Molta

It would seem to be the contracts that you enter into with them. Using FRN's would seem to be one of the primary contracts. Put redeeming lawful money together with your approach and I think you will have a winning combo, not to mention be right with yourself and God, what ever you perceive that to be.

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

[Frederick Burrell]

Molta

It would seem to be the contracts that you enter into with them. Using FRN's would seem to be one of the primary contracts. Put redeeming lawful money together with your approach and I think you will have a winning combo, not to mention be right with yourself and God, what ever you perceive that to be.

[David Merrill]

David, I feel your starting to have a little bit of a breakpoint here. Lets see if we can keep it going. I hope that my little matching game with the Libel in Review was helpful?

The plate on the car has the state seal upon it, The certificate of title has a state seal on it, the inspection sticker has a state seal on it, the drivers license has a state seal on it, the ticket you receive has a state seal on it. The cop flying the U.S. Flag on his sleeve of his paramilitary uniform is their to enforce the power of the state from a car that has some kind of seal on it depending on what force he is on, most courthouses have the state seal embedded in their building before you even walk in it, most courts an image of a state seal is on the wall behind a judge. The BC/COLB has some kind of state seal on it. Point is are you seeing a bias here yet? What else can you do but call a duck a duck and walk away? why do you want to argue with all this that you think it is a goose?

Finally, is there a state seal on your body? If not then what obligates you to use their law?

Last Registered Owner.


States have uniformly passed legislation that all a party is required to do in a seizure or forfeiture of property is notify the Last Registered Owner. Recall the suitor who got his car back 14 months later? The Last Registered Owner was a trust called the Commonwealth of Israel or something of the same sort. His friend, the trustee for the Last Registered Owner called him up one day to go get his car back.

[motla68]

David, I feel your starting to have a little bit of a breakpoint here. Lets see if we can keep it going. I hope that my little matching game with the Libel in Review was helpful?

The plate on the car has the state seal upon it, The certificate of title has a state seal on it, the inspection sticker has a state seal on it, the drivers license has a state seal on it, the ticket you receive has a state seal on it. The cop flying the U.S. Flag on his sleeve of his paramilitary uniform is their to enforce the power of the state from a car that has some kind of seal on it depending on what force he is on, most courthouses have the state seal embedded in their building before you even walk in it, most courts an image of a state seal is on the wall behind a judge. The BC/COLB has some kind of state seal on it. Point is are you seeing a bias here yet? What else can you do but call a duck a duck and walk away? why do you want to argue with all this that you think it is a goose?

Finally, is there a state seal on your body? If not then what obligates you to use their law?

[David Merrill]

You cannot form a state within a state - not in America. It is against the Constitution.

Your identity depends on the truth, and how you identified yourself. If the court is proceeding in misnomer, that is a fatal flaw to be taken advantage of with an abatement for misnomer.

I should correct that, If you have the consent of the State and Congress you can form a new state within that State. It's just that there cannot be any territorial overlapping of boundaries. Treaties can regulate policy on extraterritorial rights. Panama is not called Little China, but it might as well be.

Within the lesson plan though:

Officer: What is your name?
David Merrill: David Merrill.

If somebody provides hearsay that my name is David VAN PELT then I have not been heard. Somebody else, supposedly more an expert that me about my name has been heard and must be proven to be correct for it to stand in court. I can by right abate for misnomer and then it comes down to the question; Am I competent to state my name?

The primary artifacts indicate that my name is indeed David Merrill so everything indicates that I am indeed competent to know my name. Therefore I Refuse for Cause the Presentment (bail bond) and publish it at the county clerk and recorder with an abatement for misnomer. The abatement requests that the clerk of court corrects the name on the case to "David Merrill" which translates to "DAVID MERRILL" - the constructive trust. I can presume that on the facts, this will be done - the true judgment has already been adjudicated since my being named as an infant. I give the clerk ten days to correct the name and he decides on the record to hold on to the hearsay testimony instead of the finding of fact. So I default the court, publish that judgment too, and walk away.

There is something Motla68 keeps bringing up about CoreSource Methods but I will stick to what is described in the law. The pleadings (arraignment) founded upon misnomer are faulty. The prosecutor and prosecutor/judge in (Bar) association can team up on me and try making me forget that state (of error) so they can proceed. I can even let them railroad me in a hearing or two and then mention, I don't feel like I have been arraigned.

Back to Square One. Arraignment. But sadly I came back at the next hearing date correcting him so that he had to keep calling me Mr. Merrill. Sadly for the prosecution - that was not the name on the Case - and that kept pointing out the fatal flaw.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. It gets interesting when you turn the tables. This prosecutor/judge was formerly chief prosecutor and thought he had me pegged. He had me profiled. This is another point in the case where he threw the whole case! All I did was ask, May I have your name please?

Is there some reason I could not become holder in due course of the David A. GILBERT?

He, a trained active attorney sure seemed to think so! He sounds as though he was not about to allow me to capture his court.

This addresses the state within a state theories too. I have a right to think whatever I want to. My state of mind is not a territorial state. If I want to fly flags and make up laws on my own property - cool! It is nothing more than my state of mind manifest in my dominions. I cannot manifest the state of David Merrill (PLANET MERRILL) territorially without consent of Congress and the State of Colorado.

[motla68]

You cannot form a state within a state - not in America. It is against the Constitution.

Your identity depends on the truth, and how you identified yourself. If the court is proceeding in misnomer, that is a fatal flaw to be taken advantage of with an abatement for misnomer.

How about when one makes declaration of their own right to self determination of status, thus creating a State of mind? Would this be inside the state or outside the state?

' God is photon

[Michael Joseph]

You cannot form a state within a state - not in America. It is against the Constitution.

Your identity depends on the truth, and how you identified yourself. If the court is proceeding in misnomer, that is a fatal flaw to be taken advantage of with an abatement for misnomer.

Constitution is Law within a particular State that says you cannot form another State within the Borders and Boundaries of that State. Another Survey may be made and Claim may be made on the very same Land and a new State is formed INDEPENDENT of the State you reference. So in reality you are defending your claim within a particular surveyed Property. And Property is never the object or idea it is the Right of Use.

Also I do not understand the term America. The Organization of American States

Misnomer is a path, agreed - "I have no trust in you" is another. I love to tell attorney's I have no trust in you. The look is priceless.

Yet, I digress, as I now realize that this thread is about misnomer. So then, I agree, you form your identity. You may even decide to change your name it is really just up to you. But if you want relationships that other men and women can trust, there needs to be consistency.

[David Merrill]

You cannot form a state within a state - not in America. It is against the Constitution.

Your identity depends on the truth, and how you identified yourself. If the court is proceeding in misnomer, that is a fatal flaw to be taken advantage of with an abatement for misnomer.

[Michael Joseph]

Exactly the point. you chose a particular path that worked for you. Some might even go as far to create a new State. Another path all together. And others find that repugnant and not necessary. To each his own. Therefor we must discuss construct regarding venue and jurisdiction. Why did this work for you?

The foregoing goes to survey - residency, citizenry, etc.

[David Merrill]

It never got to trial.