Dear Readers;
Mostly about an issue I perceived about people insisting I have a legal name, Social Security Number and Date of Birth (which I believe are ownable at my option and pleasure) I began prodding the debunkers at Quatloos. This was exclusively to acquire an accurate profile of a certain mentality I call
protectionism; a venomous
insultinator (Heidi Guedel's term) designed to protect the risk management of the Bank and Fund.
Sometimes I regret the two argumentative characters I attracted here - B(rian) Rookard and Shoonra. But only because of my strict organizational standards. I would rather have them exclusively contained somehow to Quatloos. Maybe that is selfish. I am speculating it is because the suijuris crowd should also have the benefit of seeing this particular mentality profile at work. A mentality I find busy obfuscating the facts and truth about American history.
I suppose that the federal repository over on the Colorado College campus and the
Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt found both there and on my bookshelf, in addition to other wealth of information could be fabricated by certain pressure inside my head caused by a malignant brain tumor. [I just got a phone call from someone concerned I think I have a brain tumor. Not to my knowledge. I am saying that in light of Quatloos insutinators frequently insulting my sanity. The reality I perceive is based on fairly high standards of research. However it is venomously debunked by many articulate people. That is all I meant by the tumor remark***. But if you are concerned about my health, mental or otherwise, relax. I am headed for a long happy life.] For now however since I feel fine and my thoughts, at least to me seem regular and consistent with the facts around me, I will presume my reality is a very real one. Maybe the reader should check and make sure I have been having a rather stupid argument with these two "attorneys" (I think they are because of the slick forked tongues).
http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread...1&page=9&pp=10 If you find that I have actually been arguing with them about
attorn being in the root etymology of
attorney and that these guys are saying attorn has nothing to do with attorneys and their function as officers of the court, click the
Back arrow and continue on here. I have not lost my mind as of yet.
B. Rookard said:
Quote:
Just because "attorn" had a particular meaning IN FEUDAL TIMES does not mean that the word "attorney" would carry a meaning anywhere close to that. As your earlier citation showed, an attorney was one who was appointed.
Nowadays, attornment carries a meaning similar to its old meaning. It is a tenant's agreement to hold the land as the tenant of a new landlord. When a person buys a home from someone that is being rented out, and that person wishes to keep the current tenant over, you get a letter of attornment, which is an agreement of the current tenant to stay on as the new owner's tenant. That's all it means nowadays.
|
I in return said:
I have heard somewhere that the most insideous doctrine comes from a slave who actually believes he is free. I know that quote just got miserably butchered but I hope you get my drift. The most agitating thing (the most revealing thing to my profiling project) is that this attorney type sounds convincing to say, a bunch of of ignorant vassals. Like maybe a jury pool of 14th Amendment residents. What convinces me these two are attorneys is that I can sense they are just playing 'devils advocate' to sharpen up their ability to litigate in front of this artful obfuscation of American History*. And it bothers me a bit that I may be honing that craft.
It was out of context and taking up a bit too much posting space over there on the other Thread about the WTP case. To nurture the profiling project I would not prove my "wacked-out" theories on Quatloos. American history is well documented and the onset of federal common law since 1938
Erie Doctrine as well. But simply clobbering their delusions on Quatloos was not my objective. Anyway, there is a certain denial there and I am fairly convinced I would need to talk to these rude people face-to-face, giving tours of libraries etc. Not a pretty thought.
I got two phone calls from suitors yesterday. Both of them were concerned because I had not been broadcasting snippets for a couple days. They all look forward to my
Dear Suitors broadcasts and updates.** I suppose since pausing my visits to Quatloos some of them may have not intuited that I was over there testing the
obfuscation waters. And also I was arguing with B. Rookard and Shoonra about the etymology of ATTORNEY around here. I think it is appropriate to argue here on this Topic thread. I argue that America in general - the citizens of the United States - of which status I presume you must be to pass a BAR exam, are all vassals in a modern banking feudal system. That the simple fact of mandatory income taxation on gain and profit; but extended to a full scope of wages and compensation, in itself-proves. (Thank you Ice for getting that argument back on topic.
http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?threadid=3631 .)
I can however prove it many other ways and with very convincing resources. So long as I am willing to be tolerant of this dummy ignorance generated by these two Quatloos advocates. Which may get a little difficult considering I believe it to be an act. If not, they are both dissociated from reality. At least the one I find in libraries and other repositories.
So I will start by framing some contextual boundaries. There was an encroachment of bankruptcy upon the general common law in 1938. Since 1938 followed 1933 when a bankruptcy was declared in the States and United States, this brought about an era in which the federal common law began looking like competent common law (out in the States). Therefore be wary of these attorney types misguiding you Readers into thinking that rulings and opinions "in the courts" need to be cited to prove out the truth. Rulings and opinions in the courts since 1938 only prove the United States is in receivership. They are published in private copyrighted annotations to code.
So be wary:
Quote:
"BANKRUPTCY. The state or condition of a bankrupt.
2. Bankrupt laws are an encroachment upon the common law. The first in England was …" Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856.
|
I think as the argument develops we will all be able to keep cool. It will reveal both the obfuscating escapism and denial of the Quatloos mentality and many interesting and soundly provable resources to make the argument we live in a feudal banking system, predominated by Notice of Tenancy today. That the action of hiring an
attorney is in fact, transfer of homage and tribute from one lord to another.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Note that I can step into any dreg Topic on Quatloos and easily double the View rate; sometimes quadruple it.
** I was napping and got a call. This new suitor misdialed and thought she was talking to the referring suitor. She began thanking me for the referral to David Merrill and when I asked her who she was told me her Internet handle (these two know each other by the handles). Well I about figured I must still be dreaming about then. So I asked her husband's name and quickly got it all figured out. Point being that I keep getting validation about my reality from what seem to be very wise people all over the country. Funny that people like Rookard and Shoonra are very articulate but cannot seem to grasp the Libel of Review as fluff wrapped around something much more substantial - the right to say, "No. Thank you." to contract presentments by Refusal for Cause. They seem to promote that like having the SSN and a DOB, there are private corporate fictions that can impose contracts upon men and women. Funny also that none of their judges will actually come out and say it that way. Once established appearance is restricted under Rule E(8) they all seem quite happy to allow the voluntary nature of contract obligations; at least that you can consider whether to sign up.
*** That notion was from a long time researcher, I will not mention his name. He did a lot of great research on jural societies, common law and non-statutory abatements at the UCLA and other law libraries a decade ago. Yesterday I heard he is recovering nicely from surgical removal of a brain tumor and has just made significant progress with a suit in State court about fictions not mixing with men and women. This morning I pondered if the brain tumor might have had anything to do with this fellows unusual understanding of law.