Indiana Supreme Court Nullifies 4th Amendment in Favor of Public Policy :

[motla68]

Yes, please go find where I put " 12 USC 411 Refuse for Cause " on an instrument? I would like to see that myself, That line seems to be quite an oxymoron to me.

It appears your using mis-direction to try and shift the focus off of you and put it on me when your not addressing the fact that you said I asked people to pay me, why are you not answering? Are you so conceited that you cannot be humbled by admitting mistake?

Amateur NLP, where did that come from? How does anyone know that you might be using such a thing in here if you figure yourself such a professional at this? So far it has worked for you, correct?
Can you show any scientific evidence showing bona fide proof of claim to that?

[Trust Guy]

[Trust Guy]

David,

I admit my thread title is a bit overblown. However, the article itself, as a piece for Public Opinion shaping, is also a slanted presentation. The apparent objective is to foment consternation among the populace. This is part and parcel with American Media’s current position in social engineering.

[David Merrill]

Yes, please go find where I put " 12 USC 411 Refuse for Cause " on an instrument? I would like to see that myself, That line seems to be quite an oxymoron to me.

It appears your using mis-direction to try and shift the focus off of you and put it on me when your not addressing the fact that you said I asked people to pay me, why are you not answering? Are you so conceited that you cannot be humbled by admitting mistake?

Amateur NLP, where did that come from? How does anyone know that you might be using such a thing in here if you figure yourself such a professional at this? So far it has worked for you, correct?
Can you show any scientific evidence showing bona fide proof of claim to that?

The mistake is yours.


Exchanged for [Lawful Money] by any other name is the plain English expression of the Code.

You know this to be true - as admitted by excluding it when you were called to the mat to tell us the verbiage utilized in your "success stories".


The very fact that Title 4 is under the execution of the President [EISENHOWER] is quite telling about the heraldry. Therefore any flag is an expression of martial rule. The gold fringes mean nothing except that the flag is mainly for indoor use - as it will not see the excitement of the wind or battle. The protocol is found in military manuals but they pretty much describe everything in that style of detail.





I agree.

I call it conditioning. I actually believe that BRICS is a retaliatory SDR financial regime caused by my pioneering publication of remedy. We see on the TV how cops are justified at breaking in a door all the time. Sometimes they will just ask the other cop - Did you hear a woman screaming?

[Michael Joseph]

MJ,

Thanks for the listen. If this is Ones introduction to AIB, it would be difficult to consider in whole, lacking ongoing background. You have passed your judgment. Be at peace.

The UNITED STATES flag has been a Naval Ensign since inception. The Gold Fringe is found in relation to Military Jurisdictions, particularly Courts Martial. One may be excused for presuming this flag, in a State Court setting, is Prima Facie of its Heraldic Appearance, given the emphasis in such environs to the importance of Procedure, Decorum, Demarcation of Adversarial Bounds, Seals of State and such.

For my part, lacking the actual dimensions and Loft / Fly ratio of the Flag itself, to show any accordance to set rules, I can only claim the flag is a representation, being no actual Herald of Jurisdiction. In fact, I think it would have to be outside prescribed dimensions to forestall a proper challenge to jurisdiction, in these regards. This is all very esotoric at best anyway, pragmatic at worst, and does little to further practical understanding or application in seeking remedy or redress.

There is also the subtitle difference between “Martial Law” and “Military Rule”. I hope to touch upon this in a thread on the subject.

Respectfully, TG

Rod and I had breakfast last week and we spoke at length about the stuff that appeared on the 5/10 show. Said meeting was accepted, as for my part, because a friend of mine insisted that I meet with him.

Rod is an educated man. I hope he obtains that what he seeks. My teeth were set on edge in regard to the conversation. I should not allow my emotions to cloud my judgement.

As such, I withdraw my previous statement. I find that he is working in the field to help other people and to that endeavor, i applaud him. I just wish that people would learn to not follow the leader.

shalom,
mj

[Trust Guy]

MJ,

Thank You for additional clarification regarding your familiarity with Rod's efforts.

All the Best, TG

[Trust Guy]

CROWN POINT, Ind.

[David Merrill]

CROWN POINT, Ind.

From the article:


I am hoping to coin:

The essence of the political religion, Consitutional Republic is that the oath of office is a fungible fidelity bond.

The new ruling, as briefly as I have glanced at it does not allow for random house-to-house searches. All it allows for is what it can allow for under the constitutions. - That a police officer should not be gunned down for being inside somebody's private home.

Whoever the homeowner is, is still assured that short of a warrant or specific Affidavit of Exigent Circumstances or better known Affidavit of Probable Cause, the principality behind the officer is still just as subject to a law suit and having to award exemplary and punitive damages to the homeowner.

In other words, I still have confidence in my $20M lien albeit I do not speak of specifics until they are past tense.

Notice of Lien to Retaliatory Financial Regime - BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This is the prime example in motion.

The sheriff sure hopes there will be no legal repurcussions but the Court cannot aborgate their own oaths. When sworn in officials can pass rulings against the constitutional protections built into government, then the oaths will become a thing of the past.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[shikamaru]

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Sweet! Don't even need to write a writ of assistance any more !!

[motla68]

From the article:




I am hoping to coin:

The essence of the political religion, Consitutional Republic is that the oath of office is a fungible fidelity bond.

The new ruling, as briefly as I have glanced at it does not allow for random house-to-house searches. All it allows for is what it can allow for under the constitutions. - That a police officer should not be gunned down for being inside somebody's private home.

Whoever the homeowner is, is still assured that short of a warrant or specific Affidavit of Exigent Circumstances or better known Affidavit of Probable Cause, the principality behind the officer is still just as subject to a law suit and having to award exemplary and punitive damages to the homeowner.

In other words, I still have confidence in my $20M lien albeit I do not speak of specifics until they are past tense.

Notice of Lien to Retaliatory Financial Regime - BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This is the prime example in motion.

The sheriff sure hopes there will be no legal repurcussions but the Court cannot aborgate their own oaths. When sworn in officials can pass rulings against the constitutional protections built into government, then the oaths will become a thing of the past.



Regards,

David Merrill.

We have noticed through our groups that once everyone has been put on notice that said property has already been deposited into the state usufructuary trust via seal and signature on deed and that they cannot take what has already been given which no longer encourages your action they usually 9 out of 10 occurrences will back away and go home. Others just need a little reverse encouragement to settle the matter honorably.

Another thing is at best the lien is being held in value for the estate, you lien'd on the corporate trust that operates the estate. I would be very surprised if you do get it, but if you do it is on the backs of everyone that you lien'd, some of which might even be in this very group, uknowing innocent by standards would then get their taxes raised because of it.