[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Many people who post here do not seem to understand what the common law actually is. Simply put, it is this: judge made law. Also known as case law or precedent.

And that is where we gotcha Lawdog. In 1938 the common law was reset. It became a blend of equity and law - which is no longer competent common law.

A good example is the typical foreclosure of a home. Supposing the original note is demanded by statute - by "law" so to speak. Right there in the hearing the "judge" will promise that the statute will prevail and then in the same breath rule in equity - foreclose anyway, even if the mortgage company has made no effort to comply with the law. In this transcript for instance, the mortgage company just makes a false promise to provide the Note (attached). Judge Roy Bean explained that he simply looked for evidence of payments, and that the payments stopped.

Good thing this is coming to an abrupt end with Richard Boyko and other rulings that the plaintiff has to show the mortgage on that particular property. Sadly not fast enough and for many, too late.

And as far as Lawdog's assertions about admiralty, all debt arises in admiralty - bottomry. I usually just request the attorney please explain how Joe O'hare in the Mile High City would be so plainly in the admiralty signing a very typical warrant...

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant2.gif

But Lawdog's attorney stance is too routine for me to even bother reading. Any smart attorney I have shown this to knows better than to try responding but the ones who have tell me that it is a routine in rem action that takes on the form of the admiralty rules - it is not actually admiralty. - What a crock!

The warrant swept at least 20 accounts in rural Oregon alone - all under the care of one trustee. In the event of the one suitor, he fired the trustee and tried to convince the trustee to have me handle it - in admiralty. The suitor had all his money back in about a week with penalties and letters of apology for bounced checks. The other people who went through the trustee and attorney representation had to come beg, let the IRS and anybody else get a piece of their life savings, and maybe get some of their funds returned.

So you understand the sleezy nature of Lawdog's assertions. And you understand why he gets so upset whenever I show common law assize from the superior venue of Credit River township. Falsity is much more difficult to defend than truth.

Like I pointed out, the State of Minnesota never had any authority to rescind Credit River Township's right to assemble in juries. And Farmer says something quite insightful:

Originally Posted by Farmer

This all comes down to whether there various states-corporation are sovereign over the respective territories.

Ultimately a jural society counts if its decisions are respected.

It's a question of political power. Time establishes the answer there, things get ratified by convention.

This is where it is important to remind Madeline that Jerome Daly lived in his home for many years following the Order and Decree. I believe it was 1992 when he finally moved to California. All that "overturning" and disbarring was an ongoing dog and pony show.

Here is a great example. Bruce Clyde SMITH is free from harassment about these charges. However even though the Instruction was treated as an In Forma Pauperis motion, that was rejected, the Tenth Circuit could not help but take a jab at the assize that presided and removed the cause from the state and federal court systems.


http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-6238.pdf

Creatively, but frivolously, he does argue that the case should now be removed from this court to a court of his own making, the “one supreme Court,” apparently established by Mr. Smith and his associates on September 4, 2006 (after the district court remanded his case to the state court). There is no legal basis for that request.

and ending with:

Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

It was an Instruction for Removal to the higher court. Either way, since the Tenth Circuit justices were treating it as a motion to go forward with no filing fee - they had absolutely no business commenting on the case if they were denying it could get into their court on that denial.


Any attorney understands:

COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES … 136. When a seizure has been voluntarily abandoned, it loses its validity, and no jurisdiction attaches to any court, unless there be a new seizure. 10 Wheat. 325; 1 Mason, 361. First Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789. Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856.

So Jerome Daly had no recourse about them saying they overturned the case. He was left to live in peace. He was not involved once they disbarred him. He went silent to the Crown Attorners no matter what he said. When he moved to California he left a letter in the jacket so that people could discuss this with him. But he is dead now.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. DiMwitted attorneys are quite useful around here. I forgot that Title 28 U.S.C. §1333 in the notations confirms what I have been saying about the common law post 1938 being incompetent by blending law and equity.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...000-notes.html


The “saving to suitors” clause in sections 41 (3) and 371 (3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words “any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled” for the words “the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” The substituted language is simpler and more expressive of the original intent of Congress and is in conformity with Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing the distinction between law and equity.

But take a close look. The Congress even recently amended the wording to get rid of "common law" altogether! - But just as important, the Congress admits it could not stray from the intent of the original intent of Congress. Think about that for a moment. That means the corporate State of Minnesota had no authority pass legislation degrading the Credit River Township's right to assemble in common law.