Presentment handled without cash, check, money order or credit card,

[motla68]

For one if you made attempt to identify the other stamp of the same which is clearer, it would have been easier to see what is said:


I cannot teach curiosity in a forum post, if there is a way to teach that I am not aware of it.
In your mind I was hiding it, in my mind I was not. To me even showing the actual instrument is going through great lengths for change on my part, it does not seem appreciated by you so far.

About the rest of your post, I ask why would I even do that when you have made the choice for everyone it seems of how it worked? Any attempt for anyone to think otherwise of your claim is completely dismissed, crapped on, spit on, locked away and key thrown out. So take some liability for your claim, if your claim is what you believe then do not ask for my interpretation even if the request is masked in the name of benefit for everyone else. If others want to know they will ask, you do not have to complete their thoughts for them, how can they learn self sufficiency if all this is done for them?

I have asked you to leave the past in the past and start out anew, but you keep bringing it up which is the whole point of this posting. You have noted a mistake, i believe It was corrected with the new attachment, if i could not have done it then would have attempted to explain why it could not be corrected, now live with it.

[David Merrill]

For one if you made attempt to identify the other stamp of the same which is clearer, it would have been easier to see what is said:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]358[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]358[/ATTACH]

I cannot teach curiosity in a forum post, if there is a way to teach that I am not aware of it.
In your mind I was hiding it, in my mind I was not. To me even showing the actual instrument is going through great lengths for change on my part, it does not seem appreciated by you so far.

About the rest of your post, I ask why would I even do that when you have made the choice for everyone it seems of how it worked? Any attempt for anyone to think otherwise of your claim is completely dismissed, crapped on, spit on, locked away and key thrown out. So take some liability for your claim, if your claim is what you believe then do not ask for my interpretation even if the request is masked in the name of benefit for everyone else. If others want to know they will ask, you do not have to complete their thoughts for them, how can they learn self sufficiency if all this is done for them?

I have asked you to leave the past in the past and start out anew, but you keep bringing it up which is the whole point of this posting. You have noted a mistake, i believe It was corrected with the new attachment, if i could not have done it then would have attempted to explain why it could not be corrected, now live with it.

You show a Setoff but do not explain the cause? Then you think it is up to others to ask?

I asked.

Why not make it clear about the verbiage? This is great! Now you have narrowed it down to simple non-endorsement redemption of a coupon without any of the vestigial Strawman Redemption, birth certificate fund-Treasury Direct allusion.

What more could I ask for?

I think people are here because they are curious. So you should give them a little more credit. I do. You completely excluded the non-endorsement verbiage a couple weeks ago and it was clearly intentional. In your opening post on this thread your misdirection was a little less obvious, so I want to know what it is you promote here - if not the remedy? Too bad for you the only success stories are from non-endorsements.

Then you tell us about another success story but have nothing to show us.

There has been some new developments lately that I heard of where the only thing put on the presentment was the name type written in capital letters was put on the presentment followed by a colon and then just put " Property of the State". This was allegedly done on hospital bills, I will spare any details until we can get a sanitized version of the presentment and results.

Also I am waiting on replies my self from a couple state registrars of some direct questions pertaining to the name held in trust and the usufructuary that appears to be in place.

The only thing you have to show is validates nothing about robin egg-blue wrapping paper and such. But it certainly shows the remedy written into the law, if one is willing to claw through your obfuscation of that for everybody's benefit. Which I am.

Hopefully you can come up with something...

[David Merrill]

I chatted with her today on skype about it and here is how it went (login ID name changed only to protect her privacy by request)

====================================
Tuesday, April 19, 2011

[10:44:40 AM EDT] jeagas68: anything ever come back at you with that medical lab billing, did it get sold off to another collector?
[2:45:25 PM EDT] friend: no, it was perfectly offset and if I need services again they invited me back :-)
[3:36:57 PM EDT] jeagas68l: kewl! There has been some situations when People tried to use AFV methods the debt was just resold to another collector, just making sure this was not the case. We must be doing something right then. cheers! (d)
[3:38:47 PM EDT] friend: why do u think I keep hangin around u guys? coresource is the best! I might have differnt views in other areas but the key is that u guys have been open and have a way to help us see what we are doing and why and how it works and ABOVE ALL IT IS FAR MORE SIMPLE!!! The treasury rocks! Why go thru the fed???
[3:40:04 PM EDT] friend: I am seriously considering flying out there to meet you... We will see. I have to go to chicago then from there today I was asked to go to Arizona and then to europe. So on our trails maybe we can make a trip to see you and enjoy some sunshine and good food :-)
============================================

This woman is an exception to the fact on a learning curve though, very brilliant lady who use to be a Nun for nearly 14 years and was booted out of a convent for asking the wrong questions I guess about Catholicism. Also told me she had been threatened several times if she ever went public about some things she knows. She did mention about robin-egg blue paper and about the canon law, says she can find references in the old canons but nothing in the newly revised from 1983 so is not sure if this had any role with recent successes we had.

There is another great example of what I am talking about.

You show a transcript that agrees that her non-endorsement verbiage is what affected Setoff. Great! That is wonderful. But the parts about robin egg-blue wrappers, canon law and such are just your narrative. Nothing more.

Why not post the transcript where she spoke of that?

Do you even understand why I am getting frustrated with you? You keep promoting that canon law and Lieber Code etc. is an effective remedy, but you apparently believe so based in nothing! You will not show usexclude it from an example that utilized both hypothesis in hopes your preference would be believed.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[motla68]

You show a Setoff but do not explain the cause? Then you think it is up to others to ask?

I asked.

Why not make it clear about the verbiage? This is great! Now you have narrowed it down to simple non-endorsement redemption of a coupon without any of the vestigial Strawman Redemption, birth certificate fund-Treasury Direct allusion.

What more could I ask for?

I think people are here because they are curious. So you should give them a little more credit. I do. You completely excluded the non-endorsement verbiage a couple weeks ago and it was clearly intentional. In your opening post on this thread your misdirection was a little less obvious, so I want to know what it is you promote here - if not the remedy? Too bad for you the only success stories are from non-endorsements.

Then you tell us about another success story but have nothing to show us.



The only thing you have to show is validates nothing about robin egg-blue wrapping paper and such. But it certainly shows the remedy written into the law, if one is willing to claw through your obfuscation of that for everybody's benefit. Which I am.

Hopefully you can come up with something...

Yes, let them I ask.. let them ask. This is what I am saying, I would like to hear from others who have questions. You say you ask, but you have already made up your mind how it worked, so why ask?

Now your saying Canon law is not Right on? Have you changed your mind now? Keep in mind the following post is not from the past, it is from tonight
where you said this was right on:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?216-Banishment-on-Motla68-Lifted.&p=2021&viewfull=1#post2021

For me I could not give a rats backend what Quatlosers has to say about anything, but I see you like to post there too and take great stock in what they think of you. This is an example of the difference in our thinking. You like to have the last word, I get it now.

[motla68]

There is another great example of what I am talking about.

You show a transcript that agrees that her non-endorsement verbiage is what affected Setoff. Great! That is wonderful. But the parts about robin egg-blue wrappers, canon law and such are just your narrative. Nothing more.

Why not post the transcript where she spoke of that?

Do you even understand why I am getting frustrated with you? You keep promoting that canon law and Lieber Code etc. is an effective remedy, but you apparently believe so based in nothing! You will not show usexclude it from an example that utilized both hypothesis in hopes your preference would be believed.



Regards,

David Merrill.

If you want to love you must die to the law.
Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Romans 13:10 says Love is the fulfilment of the law.

Paul warns of misuse of the law
1 timothy 1-3
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope; Unto Timothy, [my] own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

1 timothy 5 says to love from a pure heart. Was John Lennon right when he said: " all you need is love"?

The rest of the book of Timothy is a good read on the rest of this, I would suggest go checking it out because I really cannot tell you what to believe about it.

[Anthony Joseph]

There was "a carbon copy of a birth certificate" and a submitted coupon with incomplete verbiage (according to Coresource Method) sent in to Quest: please explain which part of this process, what operation of law or what verbiage included you find to be the main reason setoff was accomplished here, in your opinion.

[David Merrill]

Yes, let them I ask.. let them ask. This is what I am saying, I would like to hear from others who have questions. You say you ask, but you have already made up your mind how it worked, so why ask?

Now your saying Canon law is not Right on? Have you changed your mind now? Keep in mind the following post is not from the past, it is from tonight
where you said this was right on:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?216-Banishment-on-Motla68-Lifted.&p=2021&viewfull=1#post2021

For me I could not give a rats backend what Quatlosers has to say about anything, but I see you like to post there too and take great stock in what they think of you. This is an example of the difference in our thinking. You like to have the last word, I get it now.

You act like I am preventing anybody from asking questions. All they have to do is jockey their mouse to the Quote button.

You say you ask, but you have already made up your mind how it worked, so why ask?

The only examples you have, show us what worked.

Deposited for Credit on Account or Exchanged for Non-Redeemable/Negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of Equal/Face Value.

That was the verbiage for several years. It works great!! You seem to be trying to convince me that it was something else about sending the obligation to the Treasury. I don't buy it! You have not sold me on it. That is why I say so. If you showed me an example that only had that verbiage on it - accompanied by a Setoff - then I might really give your theories that you can apply the canon law's blue wrapper some thought.

I am simply holding you to some rules of evidence. You can try convincing everybody of anything you like and if I am not convinced, as you see already, then I say so. When you became dishonest about it, I banished you. That had the effect of making me explain exactly why, clearly for everybody.

Maybe nobody ever explained the scientific process to you. You have to have Controls. If you try two or three things at once, you never have Control. You never know which one of the things worked if you get the results you were after. Not until you try the things individually and Prove them.

I have attached a couple poignant snippets from a great movie called Proof. A mentally questionable mathematician (Gwenneth PALTROW) is accused of stealing her famous father's (Anthony HOPKINS) Theories when it was actually that she was pulling him along while he was going too senile to do the work. So you might see how it becomes questionable who is actually formulating the theories - even in the daughter-mathematician's mind.

[motla68]

There was "a carbon copy of a birth certificate" and a submitted coupon with incomplete verbiage (according to Coresource Method) sent in to Quest: please explain which part of this process, what operation of law or what verbiage included you find to be the main reason setoff was accomplished here, in your opinion.

I do not recall initially saying anything about the name Coresource, perhaps I am mistaken if you can show me on the original post?

Just keep in mind if I could say, it would be an opinion not a fact because I was not there when it happened. The new results people are having lately from what I hear, I could not tell you if it was the Lawful Money statement or how it was signed or the fact that a Carbon Copy of a Birth Certificate was included. Let me try to lay some thoughts out here for you:

- This event took place last year when we were not using the robin-egg blue paper so it was definitely not that.

- Putting the Lawful Money statement on it initially was just to make a statement that the intent was to protest their payment requirements for the want of Lawful Money. Recently though the successes people have had this stamp was NOT used. So was it that? I cannot say for sure, was not there when it was processed. Even a transcript from my friend would be just hearsay speculation without a letter from the processor saying " this is what made this work ________ " fill in the blank.

- We have looked into special ways of signing, such as using " Authorized Signatory " which was shown some time ago on this forum for vehicle taxes on a Buick that had been put through.
Recently though the presentments put through people have had, the presentment was not even signed. So nope, that was probably not it

- The only thing that was never changed is the Copy of the Birth certificate.

More on recent presentments put through, now we just write on the presentment the Birth Name in caps, a colon after that and then " property of the state ". We did however include a copy of the authentication letter for the certificate of live birth which has the same verbiage on it as the Federal Reserve Notes in the context of " Full Faith and Credit ", sometimes they come back " Full faith and credence" which is basically the same thing.


Some people in our group seem to think that this represents the Lawful Money being held in Treasury, but this is why I wrote directly to 2 registrars to get some answers and still waiting a reply. Maybe some day we will get it down to just showing the Authenticated COLB without any need to write ANYTHING on the presentment. Would it be great if I could show you all that
letter from the registrar clarifying all this?

So for right now if your looking for at least an opinion I do not have one until I get a reply back from one of those registrars. I sincerely want to believe that you are with me on this in spirit though that we are trying to get some direct answers on all this instead of it just being an opinion.

Also we keep striving to make things simpler for people, so we continue to see how simple we can make it for others to do as well, this is why some people are just amazed of how easy it was and they stick around for more.

[motla68]

You act like I am preventing anybody from asking questions. All they have to do is jockey their mouse to the Quote button.

The only examples you have, show us what worked.

Deposited for Credit on Account or Exchanged for Non-Redeemable/Negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of Equal/Face Value.

That was the verbiage for several years. It works great!! You seem to be trying to convince me that it was something else about sending the obligation to the Treasury. I don't buy it! You have not sold me on it. That is why I say so. If you showed me an example that only had that verbiage on it - accompanied by a Setoff - then I might really give your theories that you can apply the canon law's blue wrapper some thought.

I am simply holding you to some rules of evidence. You can try convincing everybody of anything you like and if I am not convinced, as you see already, then I say so. When you became dishonest about it, I banished you. That had the effect of making me explain exactly why, clearly for everybody.

Maybe nobody ever explained the scientific process to you. You have to have Controls. If you try two or three things at once, you never have Control. You never know which one of the things worked if you get the results you were after. Not until you try the things individually and Prove them.

I have attached a couple poignant snippets from a great movie called Proof. A mentally questionable mathematician (Gwenneth PALTROW) is accused of stealing her famous father's (Anthony HOPKINS) Theories when it was actually that she was pulling him along while he was going too senile to do the work. So you might see how it becomes questionable who is actually formulating the theories - even in the daughter-mathematician's mind.

Your claim of " not showing something " = being dishonest. This is not my conscience. Now if I specifically told you that I did NOT have something when I really did, the this would be dishonest in my book.

Too much control is what limits the brain from other possibilities in most cases, I do not live by those rules. Do you not understand by our constant changing of how we do this, removing things to make it more simpler is a pioneering effort to find out exactly what makes it work? ... Exorcism of the demons. Or in techie lingo, daemons.

Ah yes, the theories. Most of the time a proven theory is just one's interpretation/belief, he then gets others to believe the same thing and then that something becomes the law. I know about this, attorneys stake their livelihoods on this. The 12 magical people in a box with their beliefs if you can sway them in your favor. BUT was the attorney or any of those 12 people there at the actual event? usually not so it is unproven unless there was a witness there at the time it happened. Now what does this even say about the validity of the Bible?

[David Merrill]

I think you are intentionally evasive and elusive as it would cost you fifty cents for two pages.

Hey, if you or anybody else in this forum wants to pay for it I will be more then happy to go down to the courthouse and get a copy of the 2 case files that says " dismissed " on the 2 tickets worked out this year. This is just not worth my investment of anything right now, there is bigger things I am working on to even worry about that.

You might have thought on your own to take a digital camera which of course would cost you the time and nothing more.

Your claim of " not showing something " = being dishonest. This is not my conscience. Now if I specifically told you that I did NOT have something when I really did, the this would be dishonest in my book.

Too much control is what limits the brain from other possibilities in most cases, I do not live by those rules. Do you not understand by our constant changing of how we do this, removing things to make it more simpler is a pioneering effort to find out exactly what makes it work? ... Exorcism of the demons. Or in techie lingo, daemons.

Ah yes, the theories. Most of the time a proven theory is just one's interpretation/belief, he then gets others to believe the same thing and then that something becomes the law. I know about this, attorneys stake their livelihoods on this. The 12 magical people in a box with their beliefs if you can sway them in your favor. BUT was the attorney or any of those 12 people there at the actual event? usually not so it is unproven unless there was a witness there at the time it happened. Now what does this even say about the validity of the Bible?

Looking at this example - the second ticket:

It is obvious that you have expressed remedy that is found in the law in the first expression. You have remitted the charges as a financial instrument (ordered in FRNs private credit) to the Treasury - demanding redemption in lawful money.

Now all you need is a (free) photo of the Dismissed stamp, or however the clerk there marks the docket report in Wake county on or around March 1, 2011. Then you repeat that process while you have your camera in the courthouse for the first ticket, marked USA instead of State of NC. Now you are on your way to convincing me of what I already know and drive home every day of this Website:


Exchanged for non-negotiable/non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes of Equal/Face value.

That has been redacted to:

Redeemed Lawful Money.

In your argumentative manner, you have said something about that my remedy is not the only remedy. My remedy is the same remedy found in the Fed Act. It is our remedy. And you are using it too! It is Demand to bring the ticket, the Charges, before the Treasury for Redemption in lawful money.


They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

So as unpleasant as it sounds to the readers, you have certainly been worth raking across the grater for information - especially this example:

There you have a woman who acquired the Setoff with just the remedy and none of the unscientific frills. And yet we seem to be at odds with each other, when you are busy bolstering the same remedy found in the Fed Act, and calling it my remedy - and demonstrating some weird science where you try four different things, and then deduce - I am not sure which one caused Setoff?

If you are that illogical, then you best not be teaching at all!

I have experience in electrical engineering. Quite a bit of high-pressure technical troubleshooting in there - that career history. If you keep it up you will be exactly in the same place of intellectual development about remedy two years from now.

Thank you for coming back Motla68. You have made a lot of headway toward validating we have a remedy that is recognized in law. It is not some esoteric hiding Roman law and disguising the Lieber Code - albeit I really would like to show everybody this alleged First Executive Order prolonging Emergency Conditions that OBAMA allegedly signed when he took Office; I have heard that rumor several times. If you would please complete your evidence packages? Take your camera if you are busy saving quarters.

You mention that I am concerned about my reputation on Quatloos? I gather that was sarcasm as anybody knows it by definition. I think where you are going with that is thwarted by my links for people to go explore that mentality of denial and protectionism for themselves. Basically I am warning you that you going there here will quickly group you among attorneys and infantile trolls who rant and attack me on any assertion other than the merit of the truth, history and law. You probably best leave that to the Quatlosers, who will be here eventually as they are easily bored should I get too busy with new suitors - bringing a viable remedy to individuals - to keep them entertained for a week or so. Speaking for myself, I understand you are a much different animal than the Quatlosers; but as I might be vitiating their style of trolling along with your un-science, the readers will have difficulty differentiating you from the typical Quatloser.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Even though it gets unpleasant, the remedy comes through all the rubbish and experience has taught me that people read it; even though most people would prefer not to. I opened the Website speculating that the Quatlosers, when they get bored enough with their kind of fun, finally get here - that will be a major growth spurt phase for StSC.

[David Merrill]

What the Dismissal actually consists of is an arrest warrant. You go to the courthouse, identify yourself and get a copy of the Dismissal now. That is when I will believe otherwise.

[David Merrill]

We have a local suitor like this too. One day I was at the courthouse and he got curious enough to request I pay the $5 to acquire a Register of Action third party. I had to supply the full legal name and DoB.

The clerk carefully redacted all phone numbers, SSN and addresses from the RoA. The disposition of the felony case was Warrant Issued for Arrest - Failure to Appear was the Charge. Well, the police came to the fellow's business some years before looking for First Middle Last and the suitor responded, There is nobody here by that name. True enough. He had never given anybody that name - the alleged victim had in spite. (Hearsay.)

Now however, if First Middle ever identifies himself to be First Middle Last for the constructive trust FIRST MIDDLE LAST he is off to jail for Failure to Appear and if the DA thinks there is enough evidence on the original felony - that too. The suitor has not provided information where to find him, so that could still hold up.* Even though the police officer who came by was looking at a mug shot of the suitor as she asked for him by full legal name! So you can see the power of misnomer. No pleading - no arraignment.

Until this fellow identifies himself as fiduciary for the cestui que vie trust indenture, he is fine. The DA obviously knows and instructed the police officer. Meanwhile the fellow just operates under other trust names - even one ABCD Inc. where he is regularly paid in cash lawful money, it "owns" one of his homes that he lives in and he manages pretty well for himself even hiring a cheauffer to drive him around every day.

He does not get the privilege of utilizing the trust name relegated to him through the birth certificate registration system. He will be held responsible to settle the charges.

So Motla68, do not tell us you would go to the courthouse and get a copy of the Dismissal when you are actually afraid to. Rather send you pal to do it and bring us the Register of Action. My bet is that there is an arrest warrant on you in your legal name.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* Speaking for my felony persecution I provided a 24/7 cell phone number for the judge to call me and a promise to report to the jail upon demand in the Abatement for Misnomer. Therefore when the DA tried to resume the prosecution 4.5 years later I liened the state $20M for violating my speedy trial right.

[motla68]

Again I dismiss your accusation as comical personally, the state definitely knows where to come get me if they wanted to, I do not hide behind no trusts. The people at DOT know my wife as well and that I am her husband. You have made it quite clear in your posts that you also are missing the fact that I am not the legal name. MJ also tells me that they told him not to come back to the courthouse unless invited. So when I get time to go do it then I will, no I am not scared to go down there and I have said this several times. Your throwing in little comments here an there about this warrant thing without proof yourself is not helping matters anyway, your manifesting a reality which does not exist and no science to prove it otherwise. I know the type of special warrant you speak of and know of others who have received this in other study groups then our own, so far there has been no such notice anywhere of it as they had received. I am not saying the name because I cannot think of the name of the warrant right now, but it has to do with inquiring for more information, this is where they try to trip you up on consenting to being the name.

[motla68]

" I am ineligible for those benefits ".

http://youtu.be/sS3_JyQmShM

I now do not ever claim to be a trustee for the name. Always return the paper back to source and say no thank you to the offer.

[John Booth]

Thank you David for the link to the "shock testing in canada thread" with the Bank of Canada Act regarding the Cdn equivalent of lawful money redemption