There are several components essential to finding remedy from what seems like an oppressive Income Tax system brought to America by central banking the Federal Reserve System and its elastic currency. In its simplicity remedy is guaranteed us in the Judiciary Act; when Congress formed Americas judiciary in 1789:
Quote:
"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.
Without a fundamental understanding of the common law and how to perform process competently, remedy eludes many and this creates an illusion that government is corrupt symptomatic paranoia. All the while, approaching the perfection of remedy properly reveals that an equity system of contract agreement is at the root of things. And contracts are voluntary.
I appreciate GIM for showing an article that struck home with me as an important stepping stone about lawful money:
And I mean stepping stone in a more literal sense because of the date 1984. The Treasury decided to stop issuing US Notes because Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) functioned in every way for US Notes, in 1971. So US Notes are now rare to find in that form. However they are wherever you imagine them because they are essential to finding remedy. Congress defines US Notes to still be in circulation and to be lawful money. While Congress defines FRNs to only be redeemable in lawful money. So according to Congress and by the Constition that power to define money US Notes are still available today just in the form of FRNs. The 1984 article is a good stepping stone to understanding this because apparently in 1984, there were still enough US Notes floating about in circulation to give the author the impression they still circulated in the original form. Whereas today, if you redeem your FRNs at any bank, you will just get change in more FRNs and that is essentially the only form of US Notes today.
It is also fundamental to understand that all debt arises out of admiralty jurisdiction. This is fundamental to debt itself because of credit. Credit is awaiting claim and that is the fundamental definition of insurance and all insurance arises from an ancient bonding of gold shipped by sea called bottomry. An island off the coast of France named Oleron formed a record of shipping cases (stare decisis = case law) and upon the return from the Crusades, Richard Lionheart and his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine needed to adopt a body of law to justify the influx of wealth from Israel. Jettison, floatsam and forfeiture all fit the bill. All one had to pretend was that all this stuff was just lying around and in thirty days, if nobody had come forward with a Verified Statement of Right and Interest, it was now owned by the founder party by quiet title
Heres a great example of presumed forfeiture:
See how that works? Simply grab it and pretend you did not steal it. But publish a notice that you have found it and if nobody claims it, it is yours. If somebody does claim it, find out how much tax is owed by that party, deduct it, and return what is left over.
A very enlightening case from 1815 explains all this in detail:
Therefore I will simply open by attaching remedy in its modern form as perfected by some 250 Americans that I am aware of. One should be aware that a perspective is essential; which is that due to the evolution of Supplemental Rules of Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims in the US district courts, one only enters the admiralty briefly and in a restricted appearance to get out into competent common law. As you might gather because of abuse of jettison, floatsam and forfeiture concepts, like in the warrant linked it is plain to you and I, that admiralty is not a competent forum for one to perfect remedy.
In subsequent posts, I intend to field questions and fully explain the many components to making remedy function to protect property rights in America today.
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).
I know that its a lot of work, but I have an idea. On another forum I read (automobile related) there is a HUGE and i mean HUGE (FAQ) section. It is well organised and well moderated and it stays locked. If something comes up that is missing, new tech, etc., mods will add it in, or you can petition to have something added. So for majour topics like rebuilding an engine or doing a tune up or lifting or lowering a vehicle etc., everything contained therein doesnt apply to every situation but the principles are the same. So the thread doesnt get cluttered with I did this on my car and I dont have that bolt, etc. the info stays pretty much organised and accessible.
So, what if we did something similar here, maybe consolidating info, kind of like what you are doing in your post above and tying it all together so to speak so people can just go to one place and say here is a bunch of info on SMJ or administrative remedy or whatever. Another option is to have a page of links to existing threads by subject, an index or TOC of sorts.
Thanks to (al)most everyone who contributes to this community. It is a great place to educate oneself if one is willing to spend some time reading.
Thom
(feel free to move or delete if needed)
__________________
Blowing down the house of cards, one puff at a time.
We may be on the same page here. I have been thinking about a post I read on another thread that referred to jurisdictions like planes. In some ways the planes overlap but it is always formed around the party...
It is funny that wearing a CIA hat seems to invite people to share. I was walking through a rural neighborhood and at about the same speed a white car was going to every home distributing something. It turned out to be the Homeowner's Association Newsletter. The fellow stopped and handed me one.
I began to be aware of METRO as a positive law jural society over a decade ago and many think of that plane (jurisdiction) as the one attached to the soil. However, we have an article, probably written by an attorney, that speaks of the homeowners in a section of town to be governed by a higher law within a smaller territorial boundary. A different plane (jurisdiction). There are townships, parishes, hundreds, Frank pledges etc. METRO is a novel idea built upon UN style combinatorial mathematics and based in unifying municipal policy between all cities worldwide. City of Denver METRO may have Denver city limits; but there is no distinctive boundary between City of Singapore METRO as far as METRO goes.
It has taken me a couple days to get started and thanks for the prompt. I do not really intend to build on any component of remedy; more like to move on to the next component. This jurisdiction-as-planes - fictional overlays on the land - that seems to be a good first component for the Readers to ponder.
The conditioning I would like to dispell first is that METRO, or the City of XXXXXX jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction. Not only that; but that one forms any jurisdiction through agreement, compact, contract etc...
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).
The jurisdiction you choose to be a defendant in is formed around your answer to a summons or charges - called arraignment. I have written about this here and one member who listened applied remedy in that form:
Quote:
be
David Merrill,
I am volunteering for to be an example for the rest of the class. I still haven't plead to any charges and the matter of if I am represented, have stand-by counsel, or representing myself still hasn't been settled. If My situation can be used to help the new thread you started pls let me know or post this. Otherwise thanks for posting!!
Scott Robert
Most folks with that family or surname are in the form "Roberts"; not Robert. Scott Robert is the Christian or given name by definition - by convention the first and middle names.
Note that in a popular law dictionary - "Name" is the exact same technical definition as Legal name. The key word being and. There is a very judicious use of quotation marks and italics around using the word being defined within the definition by convention and applying that, one notes that for attorneys using a law dictionary the "Name" they are defining is not really Name. - But Legal Name is the same thing as Name for attorneys - not "Name".
When somebody recalls that their true name is one thing, and the trust suggested by society is another, they are on their way to applying remedy; much like Scott Robert and James Roland. The beauty of it is that one quickly learns that they can own up to the legal artifice only when the contract is of benefit. Apparently paying fines, taxes and serving time in jail do not suit men like James and Scott... (attached) Just about anybody who touches on the subject hears about how Congress corrected the clerk of court and quickly replaced him - read about that in the LoR - for falsifying court documents. Notice the dates:
Looking into this phenomenon closely through Professor Joseph Vining's book Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law, one quickly discovers that James Roland and Scott Robert have no standing in the district and other corporate subdivisions of the US because as men (and women) we are bringing no distinctive needs to before the bench. (attachment) For any one man to have a cause, he must have a cause of action that sets him apart from the men around him. If not, he becomes a class action suit in nature and therefore the court is having difficulty allowing Scott Robert to have his day in court.
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).
Please accept my apologies but I have been preparing as best I can the components in the best understood order on another thread. I know that generally the members here are more educated about remedy here than there so if I can work out a good explanation there, it will be even better presented here.
Thanks for being patient.
__________________
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).
Without a fundamental understanding of the common law and how to perform process competently, remedy eludes many and this creates an illusion that government is corrupt symptomatic paranoia. All the while, approaching the perfection of remedy properly reveals that an equity system of contract agreement is at the root of things. And contracts are voluntary.
Would it be sufficient to simply return a copy of any
presentment to the court with the question "what is
my remedy?" Knowing that there is no remedy,
wouldn't they have to discard that contract?
Curious what you think.
like a turtle, you have to stick your neck out to
get anywhere.
I have been thinking about a post I read on another thread that referred to jurisdictions like planes. In some ways the planes overlap but it is always formed around the party...
... be aware of METRO as a positive law jural society ... many think of that plane (jurisdiction) as the one attached to the soil. However, we have an article, probably written by an attorney, that speaks of the homeowners in a section of town to be governed by a higher law within a smaller territorial boundary. A different plane (jurisdiction). There are townships, parishes, hundreds, Frank pledges etc. METRO is a novel idea built upon UN style combinatorial mathematics and based in unifying municipal policy between all cities worldwide. City of Denver METRO may have Denver city limits; but there is no distinctive boundary between City of Singapore METRO as far as METRO goes.
This jurisdiction-as-planes - fictional overlays on the land - that seems to be a good first component for the Readers to ponder.
Like the legal fiction of METRO attempts to mimic, the state of nature has no boundaries. It needs no document to prove it's existence. It is presumed that it always was, is, and shall be (if the universe did begin and will eventualy end, it won't be happening anytime soon so it matters very little - that it exists now is not in dispute). It includes all land and, in reality, is the only 'plane (jurisdiction) attached to the soil' as the soil is an inherent attribute of the state of nature.
The state of nature is, de jure and de facto, the original "jurisdiction".
Without proper perspective grounded in reality, as one contemplates the abstract fictinal states and their relations to one another, and the relation of the members of these State to one another, there is a danger of mild to severe psychosis manifesting.
One must keep in mind that a Nation or a State, by definition, is a corporation, not a bubble or a plane.
Thus, it would be improper to imagine a Nation State like one observes the atmosphere of Earth (which is a "bubble"), and all within it (i.e. the planet), "Earth" - a natural state.
We had a fun discussion (fun for me anyways) over at Quatloos (a forum with a team of attorneys who maintain, what they call, "a cyber museum of scams and frauds") regarding the fascinating topic "Reality vs. Fiction", unfortunately the "Political Issues" section at Quatloos has an auto delete function engaged for threads that are more then 5 days old (I think it is 5?!), and that thread has already been deleted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vattel
§ 4. In what light nations or states are to be considered.
Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil societies, lived together in the state of nature, — Nations, or sovereign states, are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature. It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent.
--The Law of Nations
While Vattel or Hobbs may have intended that the state of nature is the atmosphere of Earth and all within it (specifically the planet it self), the reality is that the Universe, a natural state, that all is within and nothing is without is properly the state of nature. Granted, the atmosphere of Earth and all within it, "Earth", is obviously a natural state.
I had fun discerning between natural states and fictional states as I zoomed in from macrocosm to the microcosm.
As it would be reasonable to describe each naturally occurring sub-state within the Universe as a natural state (i.e. a star, a planet, a moon, a continent, a lake, an orange or an apple, etc..), this is what I used to make the distinction. The Milky Way is a type of fiction, and so are the constellations like "Orion" and "Taurus". The stats are real, the name for a group of them is fiction.
According to the model on that site (Cosmos), the electron would be the smallest example of a natural state.
For first hand observation and eye witness testimony one can simply do some star gazing.
While looking, make note that you are, in fact, in the Universe, on Earth (which goes without saying and why I keep saying it).
I have yet to see any proof I am in some "bubble" called the "United States" because I happen to be standing on a particular part of Earth... a few deluded people at Quatloos persist otherwise... like I was saying, danger of psychosis, but being "in the United States" or being "in METRO CITY OF PHOENIX" is to say that one is an Officer or an employee of the corporation. For example, the statement "I am in the Navy" has never meant one was in some imaginary bubble.
Citizen is the title of an Office created by the Constitution (at Article 1, Section 2.), and so if one is appearing in persona of Citizen, or in other words, one is an Office holder in the political corporation United States of America, then one would be correct to say they are in the United States and a member of the public body or body politic.
I think some good questions to get clear on are:
When one is doing anything, are they doing it, or are they doing it in persona of Citizen?
A State ID card identifies one as a Citizen, which is an Officer in the United States of America.
If asked by an Officer for identification, are you identifying your self as you, or the Office of Citizen?
When a traffic ticket is written out, who is it being written out to, you or the Office of Citizen you may hold?
When a summons shows up, who/what is being summoned, you or the Citizen?
Sincerely,
Christopher Theodore: Rhodes
__________________ Note: It is a custom recognized by many People to use a ":" (colon) between one's name and their FAMILY name, and is used to segregate the name pertaining to the natural sovereign man, "Christopher Theodore," from the FAMILY name, "RHODES" (an implied trust), and further, both from the name of the implied constructive trust resulting from the workings of the New Deal, "CHRISTOPHER THEODORE RHODES."
Without a fundamental understanding of the common law and how to perform process competently, remedy eludes many and this creates an illusion that government is corrupt symptomatic paranoia. All the while, approaching the perfection of remedy properly reveals that an equity system of contract agreement is at the root of things. And contracts are voluntary.
Would it be sufficient to simply return a copy of any
presentment to the court with the question "what is
my remedy?" Knowing that there is no remedy,
wouldn't they have to discard that contract?
Curious what you think.
like a turtle, you have to stick your neck out to
get anywhere.
bodhi d
You might be a genius.
However it seems any attorney would counter with, "I cannot give you any legal advice." and send you to find an attorney.
But the simplicity of your approach is admirable.
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).
David - Have you perfected a remedy for property taxes?
That form of fealty is so deeply rooted in American society it is a little mind-boggling to consider the alternative. Mostly though, my experience is summed up in an apology for lack of experience...
About all I really know about getting off the property tax registry is there in a couple posts. As far as I know though, the remedy from improper seizure is that same as it ever was since 1789. So in that regard I know a lot; I just do not have any real anecdotes or directly related success stories.
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).
Remedy?
