I was hoping for immediate debate from Shoonra and Brian Rookard. Just as well they take the attorney
approach (
appearance) of acquiescence. On the other hand they may be preparing what they think is an insultinator approach. [And that is some fodder for them to cast right there; my speculation that the "appr" in approach is the same etymology as appearance - which cures all defects in jurisdiction. A full unconditional (unrestricted) appearance is an arraignment. If I am correct about these two Quatloos advocates being attornies, they understand that already.] On the other hand they may be casting about and spinning my wild speculations and half-concocted theories already on the Internet record into a string of insults for me to try explaining away. Having a near-firsthand record available to me tends to cause the presumption you all know better than to consider the Internet a primary source for facts. Therefore I have said a lot of things covered by an amusing bumper-sticker I saw, "Do not believe everything you think."
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ryBasement.wmv
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...lligenceID.jpg
Readers be well-warned I will stay on point. The argument attorning has nothing to do with attornies is way too substantial an anchor for explaining banking history. I will not entertain the slurs. My objective is to lay down some of the more frail substantive arguments that outline the banking infrastructure like with the email from the couple above first and then to back up those observations with substantial history from Public Law and Congressional Records. Therefore there is another distinct possibility that Shoonra and B.Rookard are just interested. They have been trying to get me to do this on their terms for a bit now:
Brian Rookard said on Quatloos:
Quote:
|
Translation For The Unitiated: David Merrill (Van Pelt) has no proof. He is used to having his assertions accepted without question in the safety of the tax protestor forums he haunts. However, here he is asked to actually prove or support his claims. Needless to say, he's finding that to be a little difficult here.
|
[One of the favorites on Quatloos is the rumor that George Washington was shot through-and-through in an early battle of the Revolution and that Adam Weishaupt dawned his bloody uniform and returned from the battle to save the cause. Well this rumor actually finds support in the two distinct facial structures found in the Mason library.
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...-Weishaupt.jpg I found that interesting enough to speculate about. A fuller account of the rumor can be found among many other fictional tidbits in
The Illuminatus Trilogy by Robert Anton WILSON and Robert SHEA.]
The composition here may be pretty monologue. But the Views column tells me there are enough Readers to make it worthwhile. I will move to an issue at the heart of attorneys in America - the
de jure Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
In Colorado at the State Archives several of the first Sessions Laws for the territory have survived. In 1861 is found the Constitution prefacing the law book and in it the Bill of Rights (Amendments) ends with the
de jure Thirteenth Amendment. [
De jure v.
de facto is the same as saying
by law v.
in fact.] I have filed a certified copy of this bill with my local clerk at (719) 520-6200 at Book 6744; Page 969. So many people order it up nowadays that it is the only document taped to the cubicle wall for easy finding. I suppose a lot of Readers were calling without the reception number. In 1865 or so there is a curious revision to the Amendments. The Slavery Amendments, now the
de facto Thirteenth Amendment appears after the
Title of Nobility Amendment as the Fourteenth Amendment! Then by about 1869 the Civil Rights Fourteenth Amendment has replaced the Slavery Amendment in the Fourteenth Amendment slot and the Slavery Amendment sits in the Thirteenth Amendment slot. Someday soon I may document the decade of peculiar events and make that as available. Problem is I am already convinced that such a slew of clerical errors could never have happened nearly four decades after the Amendment was never properly ratified in 1819.
This all is supported by so much more historical documentation. I am reading
Our Country by LOSSING (about 8" of history book published in 1874) sequentially but may jump ahead if I need more support. But the fact is that in August of 1814 the Library of Congress was destroyed by the enemy in during the War of 1812. The Title of Nobility Amendment was first seriously proposed at the end of 1811. And a careful look about the War of 1812 is that
it was never decided.
In debating the ratification of the de jure Thirteenth Amendment on Quatloos some folks link Readers to convincing arguments; all written by attornies and substantiated by citations by yet other attorneys.
Well isn't that
interesting!
Regards,
David Merrill.