No pleading.

[David Merrill]

This is a very lively topic indeed.

Let's just start with the idea that misnomer is cause for no arraignment. If one handles identifying himself correctly then, the clerk must correct the name on the court case or the defendant avoids arraignment indefinitely.

[Michael Joseph]

Exploring the nature of 72 hours acceptance or reject the offer made from the FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS ("FRD's"). What then is judge? Is he just upholding a Contract? in Banc The New Deal - FDR making banking available to the Public - it is just they are mostly unregulated banks. Most are endorsing the Federal Reserve, yes? I mean if they were not then the debt would not be spinning wildly out of control.

the de-jure re-venue officer in the FRD's wants to make merchandise from you. Will you remain silent and agree to be charged? I have heard many a judge say "we try John Doe all the time". I even saw a judge attempt to try DAVID MERRILL when DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT failed. Fact is any judge has complete authority to hear any matter around cestui que vie trust (CQVT). Will you appear for it and grant putative jurisdiction? Will you agree to be fiduciary to settle the account - why not let the Trustee settle the affair?

This is where I get a real kick out of those who claim dejure vs. defacto officers. If that sort of claim is made, then one must go to venue and jurisdiction and even to agreement via silence. If an officer begins to act and not a peep in opposition is heard well then even thought he is defacto in nature his actions stand because the citizens agreed by silence.

Motla68 - where are you?

Many times at chattel court, the attorner knows he is dealing with ignorant men and women so they form a line outside of the court room for each man and woman to "sign in" - that is "sign their name" just after they "Understand" they have been given a right to have an attorney or they agree to be representing themselves. Plus they sign their name in acceptance and consent to be given a benefit. No, you don't want an attorney - just sign this waiver - and agree to the benefit.

You did come for judgment, yes. I mean you did fall silent and accept the offer. What have you done to set yourself apart? Nothing? Well there you go.

[motla68]

Motla68 - where are you?

Answering a bunch of questions and providing assistance privately, very busy sometimes. It seems to be more productive then try to prove out my beliefs here.

I could provide argument here, but what would be the point if not everyone cares to study and test out the concepts in which I speak of publicly here. The best one could do is start looking up the terms and de-constructing them to see where they come from to find out for themselves.

"Plead in bar" or one of my favorites " Law of Mistake". Break it down in more simple terms, stop making it so complicated with their private statutes corporate government used for themselves, not you. We have acquiesced into these rules from another term called Tacit, there is verbal tacit and silent tacit.

What came first man or government? Did Adam have knowledge of government the moment he come into this world or did it come after in the "form" of an offer?
Whom has the higher law, man or government upon this earth?

I am hearing more successes in confidence privately so I cannot mention names, today I got word a foreclosure was handled with information put together in Coresource Solution and it was done so simply I almost cannot believe it myself. Much the same way the traffic tickets were handled recently spoke of in other posts, only that they were actually in court and the attorney asked to speak to the man who was there to help settle the matter, after he did the paper slide and she looked at the paperwork she was so pissed she was shaking, after consulting with the judge she just left the courthouse without telling anyone he eventually found out and when checked with the clerk of court the case had been dismissed.

Why do we make things so complicated when it can be handled so simply by just calling things what they are for better lack of words which MJ is attempting to do here.

Peace to all and a good day until we experience a new day.

[David Merrill]

That may be way too complicated for most folks. I say you give the clerk of court ten days to correct the name on the case and if he fails to do so, default him.

I have a true judgment in my favor to the day. It is beyond me to think that the chief judge could not see it right there in the case jacket! The only reason to try a John DOE would be if the defendant would not give his true name.

Keep it Simple.

[Michael Joseph]

Sometimes they try Mickey Mouse

but why let it get to trial. Handle your affairs - you chose the path. But whatever path you chose you are expressing your trust or distrust.

I like this one: by Paul Simon


"The problem is all inside your head
She said to me
The answer is easy if you
Take it logically
I'd like to help you in your struggle
To be free
There must be fifty ways
To leave your lover


She said it grieves me so
To see you in such pain
I wish there was something I could do
To make you smile again
I said I appreciate that
And would you please explain
About the fifty ways"

[David Merrill]

It never got to trial.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.