Quote:
|
Originally Posted by freebeme
No he does not and is not capable of producing one. If he actually explained the "logic" behind it, one would see right away that it is based on numerous presumption, none of which are provable.
You would be better off studying what Weis. has mentioned and other sources of real law studies and, as you asked for, well thought out "treatises or in-depth studies". If someone cannot produce a written treatises or in-depth study then you should immediately find the person suspect of trying to trick you.
I will say only that D. Merrill charges $500 for a refusal for cause and it has failed for people. Simply ask who here out of the thousands that have read his posts, have actually worked an R4C successfully and have had a few years time pass to let the Government catch them. The only member that I know of that has used David Merrill to draft a remedy for their foreclosure, lost their house. Oh, wait, I forgot about David himself. He drafted a remedy, got it thrown out of court, lost his "scooter" to the impound yard and could not recover it either. David owns no car that he drives, I assume because he knows that if he did not register it he would have NO way of preventing its loss as well, and by registering it it would prove that he has no confidence in his own theories. David rides public transportation and is very dependent on Government provided transportation. In my mind David and people he drafts remedies for lose big, and lose more than the average member on this site.David is probably the "least free" poster on this board.
Wish you all the best, Hope you demand accountability from researchers who make a living off your believing.
|
Law and equity were blended in 1938. Therefore the Libel of Review and subsequent default are all about becoming a court of competent jurisdiction for yourself; learning the ins and outs of forming a competent record of facts in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States. [Check out the first citation in the LoR itself.]
I do not recall if I have interviewed with Freebeme or not. But people who come quickly to odds with me are usually attorneys. At any rate, Freebeme presumes to know a lot about R4C.
It is good to find a skeptic. I admit that it was a bit lazy of me to just pass it off that there is no treatise on Refusal for Cause.
I recall buying an expensive vacuum cleaner from a pushy salesman. I wanted out of the contract. The salesman even talked me into giving him our old cleaner. He even made a ceremony of cutting the power cord like, "This is final; there is no going back." I called and they pawned me off on the company's attorney. The attorney kept stalling and four days later explained to me that I had lost my Right of Refusal because it had been more than three days...
So if you like that kind of sad short story, go for it. As for me supporting my own theories, that is absolute. I know from the experiences of hundreds of intelligent Americans that R4C is valid and works.
While reading the Libel of Review pay particular attention to the clerk instruction - remember that
judges instruct clerks. People who would deprive you of that right are usually attorneys.
The truth is that it is very difficult to become a suitor from Suijuris, at least through my walking you through true judgment. I mostly work on referral from already established suitors who tell jealous friends and family. Even so, I never advertise. I figure if the referrals stop, then I need to either improve the 1789 remedy (supplemented by §16 of the Federal Reserve Act) or go find a more regular job.
Regards,
David Merrill.