View Single Post
  #120  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:22 AM
David Merrill's Avatar
David Merrill David Merrill is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Colorado.
Posts: 6,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
Yes, EZ, unlike you (and MRG and DiM), I don't pretend to be omniscient.
So, if you can point to a bona fide court decision that goes the other way, you'd have proven me wrong!
I'm waiting. . . . .


Thank you for thinking I am omniscient Shoonra!

I took another look and see Shoonra's point. What happens is saving face - the judge never dismissed the case and that is because there was no jurisdiction to begin with.

Now Randy Lee could have sat there in the gallery for a couple hours and likely the judge would have perceived his confusion about jurisdiction and called him back to the podium - probably pointed and silently waved him to come back up; then said:

Mr. Lee is back, standing at the podium. What can I do for you?

As Randy accepted the benefit of discussion, the IRS would have cured jurisdiction in that lower courtroom. Good thing Randy Lee and John Joseph understood their jural society in common law.

Importantly the reader must not think the issue was upper case v. lower case lettering. "Randy Lee" was just a much different spelling than the colorable artifice on the summons. If Randy Lee would have been using that artifice with the IRS and Fed (private credit) then the transcript would have been much different. The attorney in the black robe would have seen no issue of misnomer.

As it was, Shoonra is right - the IRS could have changed the name on the summons. However it is only thinking he is the artifice, that would cause Randy Lee the man to appear. And the IRS has to deal in artificial names associated the artificial currency (elastic fiat).


Regards,

David Merrill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/magframe.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/john1a.html
Reply With Quote