Question About Your True Legal Name

[David Merrill]

TheIntelCritic;


I believe you that you have copyrighted your legal or full name. You have probably followed the convention of copyrighting the all upper case version of it. Shoonra believes you too. And you have kept record of copyrighting it too - I am sure and we understand you not displaying that record in cyberspace. Don't let Shoonra make you argue the wrong argument.

The only reason somebody will use your legal name in any (upper or lower) case is because you gave it to them. I remember the first papers about the Strawman Redemption - it was about the defendant asking for the judge's name.

May I have your name please?

So the point that you must consider carefully - that Shoonra is making is that if you bill somebody for using the name you gave them to use, even after copyrighting it, that bill is completely voluntary on their part. If you try enforcing a lien against them, you will lose in court and be instructed to pay whatever bill they prepare for you - for the inconvenience of having to fight the bogus lien. And this misconception about artifices has grown in nuisance to the public to the point where if you try it against a judge, he will just tag years onto your sentence.

The UCC and all this looks great in theory. But the rubber met the road with the "UCC People" who meet on Wednesday afternoons at a quasi-chuch/community center. A couple suitors got curious enough to watch the above scenario go down - in reality. Somewhere the idea of giving somebody your name got lost from the original doctrine of the Strawman Redemption. That was interesting reading but so insideous that I vividly recall throwing it away in a greasy wastebasket at KFC. My pal wanted to fish it out, "Just for the cites." and I told him to leave it in the basket.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Whatever you say, boy.

The TRUTH, which is easily verifiable in the public record, is that DiM has spent time in jail, including at least one occasion when he was convicted by a jury of his peers. On another occasion, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit he filed exactly one day after he filed it with the memorable comment that it was a "rambling, nonsensical, incoherent blotch on this court's docket."

See this link:http://www.trial.com/Blogger/2001_08...logarchive.htm

Have I won all my cases? Of course not, no lawyer wins them all. But has a judge ever called me nuts, as Judge Nottingham did when he tossed DiM's suit? No.

You follow DiM's theories at your severe peril. I just hope you don't end up serving time like he did.

Good luck, son. Something tells me you're going to need it.

Your opening sentence, above, is consent to the information provided by the post of mine that you quoted. The remainder of your post is propaganda, designed to amateurishly attract unsuspecting men and women to follow you and your high priest(s) of the attorner persuasion.

Have a nice day.

Jerry Carlos

[trooper2ls]

So now according to the almighty Lawpuppy the "Truth" and "Public Record" is provided by a blog called the "Lighter Side"?

What ever happened to the official transcripts and dockets filed at the courthouse? Do you believe everything you see on FOX TV? Or maybe, Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer is the new source of officlal public record perhaps?

I pity LP. My God have mercy on his soul.

..J

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

So now according to the almighty Lawpuppy the "Truth" and "Public Record" is provided by a blog called the "Lighter Side"?

What ever happened to the official transcripts and dockets filed at the courthouse? Do you believe everything you see on FOX TV? Or maybe, Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer is the new source of officlal public record perhaps?

I pity LP. My God have mercy on his soul.

..J

Don't bother pitying me. YOU'RE the one drinking the Kool-Aid of the "sovrun citzun" movement, boy.

The Rocky Mountain News is an actual newspaper. Given that the article makes DiM look exactly as crazy as he is, I imagine he would have sued for defamation if it were false.

If you want to pay someone to go to the federal courthouse in Denver and make copies of the file where the judge tossed out DiMs suit, complete with his pithy comment implicating DiMs mental stability (or lack thereof), I am sure that can be arranged. Check the phonebook for that area under "private investigators".

At least you had the guts to click on the link and read the story, I'll give you that. It's more than can be said for Jerry Pit-head.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

So now according to the almighty Lawpuppy the "Truth" and "Public Record" is provided by a blog called the "Lighter Side"?

What ever happened to the official transcripts and dockets filed at the courthouse? Do you believe everything you see on FOX TV? Or maybe, Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer is the new source of officlal public record perhaps?

I pity LP. My God have mercy on his soul.

..J

Great Catch trooper. I didn't even bother clicking the link he provided due to the fact that it contained the word "Blogger" in its' matrix. Added to the FACT that tons of mis-information have been provided by persons participating in such locations, I had no desire to even bother with it.

Jerry Carlos

[Lawdog]

Accidental double post deleted; see below.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by TheIntelCritic

I also have another tidbit to throw into the fray:

My name is copyrighted.

I have debated putting the credit reporting agencies on notice not to use my copy righted name.

If I put them on notice, I wonder what the ramifications will be? Will ALL of my credit history go up in smoke? The good and the bad?

I wonder.

This theory goes over like a stone kite in the real world.

A few years back, a black supremacist cult called the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors moved into this area. When their leader, Dwight "Malachi" York, got into legal trouble with both state and federal authorities, he tried the "I've copyrighted my name, and if you use it without permission it will cost you" nonsense. Here's an excerpt (from the Macon Telegraph, Jan. 18, 2003):

As the hearing Friday was nearing an end, York - who wore a red fez with a black tassle - stood up and repeated a statement he made Thursday in court that he is "secured" and does not give permission to use his name.

"If you proceed it will cost you $500,000," York said.

He also said "all deals are off" if Prior continues to use his name.

Though York's attorney Ed Garland said he had nothing to say regarding York's statement, York was referring to "common law" practices the Nuwaubians have used in the past. Common law courts are not legally binding and are typically associated with anti-government militias in the Midwest.

During the hearing, Nuwaubians gave members of the media a "copyright notice" that purports to provide notice that York has copyrighted his name and aliases and the document threatens certain financial penalties for "unauthorized" use of his name. The documents were stamped: "Received, Jan. 08, 2003" by the "Clerk of Federal Moorish Cherokee Consular Court, USA."

See http://www.rickross.com/reference/nu...aubians55.html

for the whole story.

York is now serving 135 years in a federal penitentiary for various crimes, including sexual abuse of children. It's safe to say that his purported copyright on his name did not deter the judge or prosecutor in his case.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I just wanted to ask the rhetorical question for the benefit of any readers who haven't yet figured out that DiM is a loon with no verifiable court victories.

More so are you, apparently.

You demand credentials, but will produce none yourself?

I see nothing but a pathetic, pitiable, cheap impostor acting out his silly fantasy of being an actual "lawyer."

Where on this site is valid proof positive verifying any actual "legal" experience of your own, Perry Mason?

David is quite honest about who he is where he is, what he does, and I am certain one would be able to locate him and personally test the efficacy of his procedures with an issue that involves little risk.

This distinction is, thus-far quite foreign in to your own habitual practice of, at best, the empty hollow pettifoggery, of an effete and fraudulent dilettante, in fact, my boy.

You made claims, son.

I called you on them, little man.

Twice now, hoss.

Why not just prove up or shut up, BOY?

Or you can just continue to:


and...

[Lawdog]

Did mrg (short for mindlessly repeating gibberish) address me directly, again?

Nah, I must be imagining things.

After all, while refuting his nonsense for about the twentieth time a few weeks back, I did include this statement:

Since this is the last time I plan to address you directly, mrg, you being not worthy of serious attention, let me make some things clear.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...tml#post134198

Yeah. Must be imagining things.

Again.

[Shoonra]

Lawdog,

Don't let mrg trouble you. I'll bet back at the Home they don't even let him handle the TV remote. You and I have both cited reports from real judges and real courts, which (in my case at least) should be considerably more impressive than my own credentials as a member of the bar.

I don't think mrg has ever cited a bona fide court case to back up his bilge.