Coresource Solution - attempts to disclose from man on the land since 1968

[motla68]

Sweet! The state is just a repository for registration. After two years they throw away the Bill of Lading. That same function can be exercised by operation of law through the district courts of the US too.

Well look at that, we finally agree on something and the world did not come to an end, no FBI, CIA, USA breaking down me door.

Do you think this is just ONE of the reasons why I can call the shots when dealing with traffic tickets? It is not to be sarcastic, it is simply stating the obvious to me anyway. An expression, so if you want to hold that against me so be it.

[David Merrill]

Here is the original post, do you see the words David Merrill in it as you so conveniently edited in, or does anybody?



Also Check out where it first mentions Privy Purse, it says LIKE the idea of Privy Purse.

The evidence on fraud speaks for itself, here much like what happened in court you constructed an argument to create controversy.

This is refreshing then that some of the other members consider you a fake and fraud, and brought this up first. Here is the post Motla is speaking of:

I apologize to any of you if you interpreted that in the same light as Motla has chosen to. The brackets and red font indicate, in my opinion that Motla was directing the comment about not wrapping my mind around something to me.

By focusing on the [David Merrill] insertion Motla is in my opinion trying to misdirect you away from the fraudulent assertion he made. It reads plainly that the Coresource Solution offers to pay for a roof by treating the Treasury under the definition of privy purse.

[Anthony Joseph]

Well look at that, we finally agree on something and the world did not come to an end, no FBI, CIA, USA breaking down me door.

Do you think this is just ONE of the reasons why I can call the shots when dealing with traffic tickets? It is not to be sarcastic, it is simply stating the obvious to me anyway. An expression, so if you want to hold that against me so be it.

It is not that we question your right and ability to "call the shots" when dealing with traffic tickets, it's that you will not FULLY disclose the claimed successful manner/method in which you do this. The R4C method and proper recordation of a court of competent jurisdiction has been FULLY disclosed here with nothing remaining private or secret other than sensitive "personal information" (sanitized copies).

[David Merrill]

Well look at that, we finally agree on something and the world did not come to an end, no FBI, CIA, USA breaking down me door.

Do you think this is just ONE of the reasons why I can call the shots when dealing with traffic tickets? It is not to be sarcastic, it is simply stating the obvious to me anyway. An expression, so if you want to hold that against me so be it.

You have turned on Coresource Solution then. The same thing, said about birth certificates keeps stifling your theories, as I understand them. And if I misunderstand them, that is most certainly your fault, not mine. I am most certainly smart enough to learn from a teacher who is in the very least concerned about teaching.

It is not that we question your right and ability to "call the shots" when dealing with traffic tickets, it's that you will not FULLY disclose the claimed successful manner/method in which you do this. The R4C method and proper recordation of a court of competent jurisdiction has been FULLY disclosed here with nothing remaining private or secret other than sensitive "personal information" (sanitized copies).

Maybe he does that so he can turn on his own assertions?

He has a difficult time wrapping his head around the fact he has no successes in traffic court. It is insulting to my/our/suitors competence that he expects us to believe him and then run off and do our own due diligence, when he could just have said more than he has in 200 posts in about 8 by using the graphic attachment capabilities provided by StSC and the Internet.

He sent me the Sheriff Agreement template along in secret through a suitor who knows us both and expects that I agreed to keep it secret? Wrong. It is nothing to me because it is a secret and we are all trying to learn here. He is insulting, to consider us so incompetent that we would think he has any traffic successes just because he says so!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Frederick Burrell]

Funny in their return letter they did not mention the Federal lien held on the vehicle. Does that mean there is none or are they just not talking about it.

For clarification. Referring to lien placed on the vehicle, that some have talked about when the car was purchase with FRN's or the lien the IRS notifies you of when they want to posses your car. The lien as surety for the national debt. fB

[David Merrill]

Funny in their return letter they did not mention the Federal lien held on the vehicle. Does that mean there is none or are they just not talking about it.

For clarification. Referring to lien placed on the vehicle, that some have talked about when the car was purchase with FRN's or the lien the IRS notifies you of when they want to posses your car. The lien as surety for the national debt. fB

That is probably because the State would not be making a claim for the Treasury/IRS anyway. The first lien would only be brought up after the taxpayer loses a dispute because it is an Agreed by the endorsement signatures on the paychecks. Therefore if the taxpayer already knows about the first lien by the Treasury through the endorsement, it is unlikely to be brought up by the state - or even the Treasury until the Notice of Lien. On the notice of lien, there is obviously an already perfected lien.

[motla68]

Funny in their return letter they did not mention the Federal lien held on the vehicle. Does that mean there is none or are they just not talking about it.

For clarification. Referring to lien placed on the vehicle, that some have talked about when the car was purchase with FRN's or the lien the IRS notifies you of when they want to posses your car. The lien as surety for the national debt. fB

What part of " free of ANY lien" do you not understand? Anything tried to discredit my work, is that your intent? Why so vindictive?

[Frederick Burrell]

What part of " free of ANY lien" do you not understand? Anything tried to discredit my work, is that your intent? Why so vindictive?

Note trying to discredit your work. Just a question that comes up in regard to IRS tax liens.

When the IRS liens something. The lien is already in place. For instance the IRS when placing a lien or so we call it on a property because of unpaid taxes. They do not go to court to get a lien. They just notify of the lien. It was already in place and all they did was notify you of the existing lien. They can do the same with your car. So their must be an unspoken lien already in place because they do not take you to court to get a lien. It already existed. You now receive notice of the lien and they ten confiscate your property. Sorry if you thought this was trying to discredit your work.

It was not my intention. Only trying to receive an honest answer to an honest question. fB

[motla68]

Note trying to discredit your work. Just a question that comes up in regard to IRS tax liens.

When the IRS liens something. The lien is already in place. For instance the IRS when placing a lien or so we call it on a property because of unpaid taxes. They do not go to court to get a lien. They just notify of the lien. It was already in place and all they did was notify you of the existing lien. They can do the same with your car. So their must be an unspoken lien already in place because they do not take you to court to get a lien. It already existed. You now receive notice of the lien and they ten confiscate your property. Sorry if you thought this was trying to discredit your work.

It was not my intention. Only trying to receive an honest answer to an honest question. fB

I am not saying your wrong here about a Federal Lien which may exist somewhere that I have not been notified as of yet, but how could I prove it if it is uknown at this time?

Another reason to consider why not confiscated yet is because I returned the receipt back to the owner of the money that I used to get the vehicle in the first place.

[Frederick Burrell]

I was not directing the question at your particular case. It was meant to be a general question, although it was based on the info on the letter from the DMV. I was not asking you to prove or disprove the existence of the lien. Sorry if it sounded that way.

I was just trying to figure out.

1. perhaps the existence of a lien is a myth or

2. they don't want to mention it or don't know about it...... at least the people that sent you the letter.

The evidence for #2 is the fact that when seizing a car or property they do not take you to court to get the lien, which could imply that the lien already existed or there some law in place that doesn't require the IRS to take you to court. Just trying to do this jig saw puzzle before it rains anymore. fB

[motla68]

Below attached is image taken of the container used and the cargo wrapped in robin-egg blue paper that was returned to me at the courthouse when it was presented to them.

[David Merrill]

I was not directing the question at your particular case. It was meant to be a general question, although it was based on the info on the letter from the DMV. I was not asking you to prove or disprove the existence of the lien. Sorry if it sounded that way.

I was just trying to figure out.

1. perhaps the existence of a lien is a myth or

2. they don't want to mention it or don't know about it...... at least the people that sent you the letter.

The evidence for #2 is the fact that when seizing a car or property they do not take you to court to get the lien, which could imply that the lien already existed or there some law in place that doesn't require the IRS to take you to court. Just trying to do this jig saw puzzle before it rains anymore. fB

The State would not know unless there was a Notice of Lien with the Secretary of State or any County clerk and recorder. Look here. Even the IRS will not tell you about the lien in so many words because you are the one forming it by endorsement.

[Richard Earl]

If I reading that link correctly (for Illinois) and tying together the 12 USC 411... so... the IRS can just publish a Notice of Lien with the county and then seize the property "for obligations payable to the United States".

[Michael Joseph]

If I reading that link correctly (for Illinois) and tying together the 12 USC 411... so... the IRS can just publish a Notice of Lien with the county and then seize the property "for obligations payable to the United States".

property = Right of Use. The Use of the Intangible Money leads to Resulting Trust and First Lien of all PROPERTY. So, then Yes, the IRS can sieze Property because the IRS would be with the Highest Claim due to operation of Trust Law.

[David Merrill]

property = Right of Use. The Use of the Intangible Money leads to Resulting Trust and First Lien of all PROPERTY. So, then Yes, the IRS can sieze Property because the IRS would be with the Highest Claim due to operation of Trust Law.