My eye opening experience.....

[netwrkranger]

That is most interesting. That is what I desire from PPL, to release to me the original records or delete them.

I know there is some wrinkle of "law" they are using to their benefit, presumptions I am not aware of, or they could just simply not be playing by the "rules" and I would need to call them out on it.

That is another interesting point. In regards to the UCC interactions are either merchant to merchant or merchant to consumer.

Now would be the time for Shoonra, Lawdog, Notorial Dissent, and those of that ilk to chime in with their knowledge and perspective =D.

- netwrkranger

[moishanb]

fellow posters, what those federal employees construe, and what we consent to being, can either be completely different, or can be the same.

The posts seem to combine facts with presumptions, or is it presumptions with facts?

I am in commerce when I say I'm in commerce. No federal/state definition will change this.

If a federal or state definition of commerce includes deficating anywhere, does this mean I'm in commerce when I deficate, or is it when my person deficates?

I believe all definitions and constructions for commerce begin and include person. I am not a legal 'person', the 'person' created by paper is an account, that I can accept as me, I can use for commercial activities, or in the alternative, I can be in my private capacity, doing private things that would be commercial if the person(account) I have permission to re-present is said to be doing those activities.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by moishanb

fellow posters, what those federal employees construe, and what we consent to being, can either be completely different, or can be the same.

The posts seem to combine facts with presumptions, or is it presumptions with facts?

I am in commerce when I say I'm in commerce. No federal/state definition will change this.

If a federal or state definition of commerce includes deficating anywhere, does this mean I'm in commerce when I deficate, or is it when my person deficates?

I believe all definitions and constructions for commerce begin and include person. I am not a legal 'person', the 'person' created by paper is an account, that I can accept as me, I can use for commercial activities, or in the alternative, I can be in my private capacity, doing private things that would be commercial if the person(account) I have permission to re-present is said to be doing those activities.

The author/suitor of an internationally bestselling book on macroeconomics told me; "The artificial names are to accomodate artificial money." There was a video camera on our interview. The first report, "He is not mentally ill." was to people unseen across the hall as the door closed behind the psychiatrist. There were people she was reporting to in that room across the hall watching the interview. They processed it all for about fifteen minutes and evidently came to the conclusion that the exact same bills $14 were to be returned and all record of the visit purged.

I stopped at the plexiglass armored cashier window and they gave me the entire record back on my way out the door. (Except maybe any video recording.)

The important point in relation to some of the conclusions and yes Moishanb, presumptions being made is that the commercial trail - the FRNs elastic currency were not tied to the man before them. There was no person - no legal identity to be had, to be attached to bonding justification of the elasticism in the currency (counterfeiting through fractional lending). So they purged in order not to have to keep a lawful money record of the transaction.

Likewise a suitor redeemed a rubber paycheck when he deposited it at his bank. In the course of the dishonor the bank was required to return the instrument. The attorneys purged his non-endorsement.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I was exploring the possibility of traditional employment before Lawdog, Shoonra and Judge Roy Bean were so kind as to provide a steady stream of referrals.

This is more proof of DiM's delusions. Shoonra, Judge Roy Bean and I are all fully aware that DiM is mentally ill and that his methods do not work (which is why he has a criminal record). None of us would "refer" him to anyone, both because we'd be dooming their chances of prevailing on a legal issue, and because we cannot assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

In some ways, the most shocking thing is how few of you have realized that DiM is not playing with a full deck.

It makes me wonder about the mental stability of the rest of you as well.

[Sapiens]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

P.S. The definition attached is from Black's Fourth Ed.

Thanks DM,

Now I know what to call that feeling of fair play with others.

P.S. "Debt Virus" by Dr. Jacques S. Jaikaran is a great book.

[netwrkranger]

If you have nothing to contribute to the thread, then keep your comments to yourself.

If, however, you have something substantial to contribute, then by all means, do so.

Why will a company not purge its records of "your data" after the cancellation of an account upon request of the customer?

Regards,
netwrkranger

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Why will a company not purge its records of "your data" after the cancellation of an account upon request of the customer?

Regards,
netwrkranger

Ranger... IMHO... the reasoning behind their maintaining even a trace (copy of your records), is based on the fact that once you cancel an account with them, they are still obligated to the US in respect to 'accounting' principals. Should they destroy all of your records (give you the originals and delete any and all account information regarding the persona identified as 'you', then they would not be able to give an accurate accounting to the feds and they would be in deep trouble.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[netwrkranger]

That very well could be.

My primary question is if the information I furnish to a corporation or government is "my information"? Do I have any rights in regard to that information?

If it is not "my information" upon furnishing it to others, why claim as such? Do I have a right, in this current system, to command a company to purge my information from their systems? If not, what are the statutes, acts, rules, by-laws, and regulations concerning the lack of power I have in instructing a corporation to delete my info?

If their administrative errors causes me injury, what recourse do I have "to be made whole again".

Why wasn't this information furnished to me during the negotiation phase of the contract? If I had known this ab initio, I would not have entered into the agreement in the first place.

- netwrkranger

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

This is more proof of DiM's delusions. Shoonra, Judge Roy Bean and I are all fully aware that DiM is mentally ill and that his methods do not work (which is why he has a criminal record). None of us would "refer" him to anyone, both because we'd be dooming their chances of prevailing on a legal issue, and because we cannot assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

In some ways, the most shocking thing is how few of you have realized that DiM is not playing with a full deck.

It makes me wonder about the mental stability of the rest of you as well.

Why not move on to another forum with more sane people then?

The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Isn't this what you, LAWDOG, are doing? Expecting us to drink from your Kook-aid jug, and start thinking and doing like you? Perhaps if you could only say the magic line, present the magic subject, that could pull us all into your 'case-law' thinking. You are insane for trying such a thing. Ain't gonna happen.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by moishanb

Why not move on to another forum with more sane people then?

The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Isn't this what you, LAWDOG, are doing? Expecting us to drink from your Kook-aid jug, and start thinking and doing like you? Perhaps if you could only say the magic line, present the magic subject, that could pull us all into your 'case-law' thinking. You are insane for trying such a thing. Ain't gonna happen.

LawClown's insanity is that he does not realize that by being what he is, that is referral to remedy in law (as opposed to at law).

That very well could be.

My primary question is if the information I furnish to a corporation or government is "my information"? Do I have any rights in regard to that information?

This brings to mind the campus medical nurse who showed me into the exam room and hung "my" medical record on the door. I pulled it down and in the ten minutes before the doctor came in removed all the pages but the top cover information sheet, folded them up and put them in my pocket. I noticed some time later during a subsequent visit they had changed the practice and the doctor entered carrying the clipboard.

Also this reminds me of the first doctrine of the Strawman Redemption. I mean the guys who invented it too; just after they had gotten out of prison they were sharing all the stuff they had learned in the prison law library. Basically the doctrine has been lost I believe - that is the simplicity of giving somebody your name. They advocated becoming a secured party of the "judge" name.

"May I have your name?"

If you give somebody your name, you do not have the right to ungive it to them. Unless of course they are willing to give it up.

I carry a camera as many of you might guess by the extensive image library I have. I have not dropped a dime into a copier for quite some time. So when I pay up at the dentist or optometrist I simply grab an updated copy of my file. Sometimes I point out the R4C on the Notice and remind them they cannot share this doctor/patient privileged information. When I am getting x-rays I tell the tech to make an extra print for me.

Some administrative types get upset with me like I have no right to keep current copies of the record - but like pointed out here - it is not my file; it is not their file - it is our file. The information, because I gave it to them is now our information.



Regards,

David Merrill.