Would you happen to have any treatises or indepth studies on ''Refusal for Cause"?
Regards,
netwrkranger
I think it is called Right of Refusal among attorneys. In the UCC it is about Presentments. It is not supposed be common knowledge among laypeople - non-attorneys. So it is discouraged by the Shoonras of the world; if there is a flaw in the simple procedure, like not being timely, they will slap you down pretty hard to set an example.
One learns about it by doing more than studying about it. I know people who get tired of R4C and some who have been fighting the IRS for a decade who still have their homes and jobs etc. They have to deal with a new Notice of Federal Tax Lien the moment they release an old one, but just the same they never lose anything - just have to keep R4C.
One suitor developed an inexpensive R4C attached.
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).
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.
__________________
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).
Interesting that on 3/21 Freebeme edited out a large chunk of that insulting post. Me discovering that this morning when getting back to more comment.
I believe that I may have given Freebeme a contact number through PM or something like that. He or she sounded interested in the Libel of Review and even asked how often I drive my car... then never got back. That happens a lot. [Incidently, I think it wise to consider an ebike conversion and 31 day bus pass. You can get around much more efficiently and even comfortably - considering you will probably be sitting in your desk chair or pounding framing nails for 10-15 hours a week just to spin those wheels you like to think you "own" anyway. Sadly Americans will allow that car and operating it to drive them into foreclosure on their homes without ever calculating the overall household budget picture.]
What bothers me is that the common law right to refuse is under attack. It has been established over the years and I am sure Shoonra would produce many cases for us, that when one pushes somebody into a contract agreement, there is allowed a reasonable time to change mind about it and rescind. People have the right to consider and discuss with spouse, or other counsel before a salespitch accepted, becomes a binding contract.
It may have been a mood, or something I missed in our "interview" that caused Freebeme to lash out. It would seem he or she has rethought it and decided boiling over my next to nothing local transportaion strategy was not really basis for insult.
However it is a good lesson for me to stick to referrals from current suitors. Once people understand how to exercise the right of R4C, and to plant evidence in a proper repository they tend to get enough more control over pushy contract offers and their friends and relatives call me ready to go. My experience with drafting remedy for Internet acqaintances is that there is just too much convincing - this request for treatises on Refusal for Cause is a good case in point.
I admit it is a little lazy not to find cases in courts recognizing that somebody can change their mind in a reasonable amount of time. I recall reading about it in depth around Presentments about the UCC in the adoption here in Colorado.
But that was a long time ago and the General Assembly bless thier attorner hearts has a way of weeding out terms that help liberate people from the assumption and color of law. Try looking for "refuse" "right to refuse" "three days" "72 hours" as last time I looked more recently, I could only find vague implication that presentments are voluntary and may be refused at all. Whereas originally it was very clear by statute that one has 72 hours to consider Presentments.
Since Freebeme has reconsidered taking a phone call's information and publishing it in a way that deteriorates Suijuris members' understanding of right of refusal, I may reconsider my stance about never giving out contact numbers here in the future.
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).
You never gave me a contact number. Why would I ask for one?
I have never not been able to pay and I am more than eager to show up for court.
Your entire system is alleged by me to be fraud and nothing more.
Simple fact is you cannot provide an essay or any rational thought laid to paper. You can only fool people into believing your scheme by maintaining a banter dialog rather than some real writing on the subject.
Your refusal is faulty in and out.
The system you call "my system" is the American system of law.
It is based on the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its 'saving to suitors' clause. The remedy written into the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (attached) has been supplementing the avoidance of Refusal for Cause for several years now. Some suitors began doing that as early as 2003.
Since you did not get any information you post by interview with me, I am left assuming you are a Quatloser. Good luck around here with that.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S.
Quote:
Your refusal is faulty in and out.
Refused for Cause.
__________________
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).
I don't know DM personally, but from what I do know and have read here.. he is not ignorant.
It seems that many people stumble upon this forum because they have a "big" problem and they are looking for a quick free answer to their prayers. The problem is that everyone should do their own due diligence. Each state has different laws and procedures. Each court has slight variations in process and procedure. So that being said... it is unreasonable to expect someone you don't know from Adam to do all your work for you and come up with a solution to your problem free of charge.
I think it is admirable that DM and the other senior members here dedicate as much time and effort as they do, at no cost, to help educate newcomers to the truth about the world we are stuck in.
R4C is not a "magic bullet" that will cure any and all legal issues in a single shot. To represent yourself Pro Se you need to learn as much as you can and be sharp as a tack before you take on a battle with the system.
I personally without the help of this forum have successfully used R4C as an asset on a few occasions. I have also sucessfully used conditional acceptance. Depending on the situation and the laws of your jurisdiction different approches to defense are necessary in different situations. For instance the defense for a traffic ticket would be quite different than an IRS lien.
Additionally there are members here who represent the side of the attorners and they have been frequently accused of dis-information/mis-information, but in reality they provide a good idea of what you would expect from an attorner or judge so you have better be prepared for these types of arguements in your defense stratagy. Attorners are educated and conditoned to have a particular mindset and have a duty to uphold their system and peers. It is a private club.. and if you don't want to play by their rules.. your career will be very short.
Bottom line is this system revolves around contracts.. so you need to know your word definitions and your contract law and procedures to have any measure of success.
This forum provides a good medium to discuss and argue points about many issues that we face in today's society. It should never be used as a "cut and paste" answer site for curing your woes.
I have attached a number of relevant documents that outline contracts and the courts. The case law document is sort of a big cheat sheet that has case cites for various situations.
For those who are new to all of this.. don't be afraid to ask questions and seek answers. I have been seeking the truth for about 15 years and I have only begun to scratch the surface...and I have resources that are not available to most .. so don't feel bad about not knowing all the answers. Don't get frustrated, just keep digging. The truth is hidden in plain view you just have to understand what you are looking at.
..J
__________________ Déjà vu in the iconography of our world is a warning of danger, a glitch in the Matrix. Something has changed.
The one that you forgot that I think especially applies to Freebeme's post is Institutionalized Tyranny by Dan Meador with a Search for municipal.
The States are subcorporations under the US in municipal structure. They have been since 1871.
What I really think is that a Master Mason has migrated here after consulting with Demosthenes of Quatloos. That is what I believe is going on here. If any moderators are curious enough, find out if Freebeme's IP is located in Springfield, Massachusetts.
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).
Linear Mode
