Van Pelt is Finished!

[David Merrill]

I enjoyed doing that while writing over on Quatloos; kick off a thread with a title that would get people curious. Judge Roy Bean and Lawyerdude like calling me by my family's name, "Van Pelt". I have explained the heck out of that even using documented fact that the US was replaced by a municipal corporation in 1871, that the enemy of the Trading with the Enemy Act (1917) was replaced with citizens of the US in 1933, that the birth certificate tells of its contemplated purpose being formed by "American Bank Note Company" etc. But the simplicity of the misnomer and the power of its use should be revealed before I finally stop using JRB and Lawyerdude to make this interesting point.

We all are deemed to be who we appear to be.

What these two Quatlosers have been getting a kick out of; both being lawyers, is that I respond to the name "Van Pelt". That is all. By measuring my response to Van Pelt they feel they have made my name Van Pelt.

On the virtual reality of Internet cyberspace, it is completely inconsequential so I have been playing it to make the point. But even in real life I would suppose even my parents as a quorum lost the power to change my name from David Merrill when I turned 18 years of age.

My assertion that responding for the purpose of teaching you Readers how misnomer is condoned and all you need to do is respond to it to be it in the collections process of corporate international banking, is coming to an end. I have been beating the point to death. Hopefully you understand the notion of abating a cause of the Bank and Fund for misnomer successfully because I am about through paying any attention to misnomer. I believe it is giving JRB and Lawyerdude disgusting cheap thrills.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Sometimes, David Merrill, it is best politically correct public policy practice, to place certain INDIVIDUALS on your "pay them no mind" list. This causes them to recognize that they are not being responded to and consequently, after a period of time, they get disgusted and leave. Just a thought.

Jerry.

[idknow]

Regards,
David Merrill.

david, david, david, didn't your mommy tell you not to surf in the raw!? lol

lol

[David Merrill]

Yes. I appreciate that; it might be easier than ignoring them. Over on Quatloos they felt I was highlighting the misnomer in bold because it bothered me. Silly; that they might have been hoping I would quit posting over it only to follow me over here with the same misnomer. It got boring over there fast I suppose. At least I hear they are still cut-and-pasting my posts here over there for amusement. [Kind of like buying one of those life-size cardboard cutouts of me for your living room.]

About surfing in the raw. Good pun, not to go out into the virtual park of cyberspace without the coverture of a legal/full name - commercial handle so nobody knows how to find me like Judge Roy Bean?

How about this one?

Send a two-part clerk instruction registered mail 1) to my clerk (or your local clerk and recorder and mine) for certified copies of:

A) your default judgment, already on file there
B) BOE #201099293 cured 9/11, 2001 and
C) proof of service #201101604 7/19/01

[(719) 520-6200.]

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif

The Second Part of the instructions will be for the receiving US clerk where you have the Libel of Review on file completed. Instruct the clerk and recorder to mail the certified copies to the US courthouse including pre-paid postage filled out envelopes - for the US clerk to file the papers by Case # into your LoR jacket. After the certified copies arrive at the US courthouse acquire certified copies of the judgment, and the two pages of the BOE. [I am only suggesting you do this by hand because a paper request, even paid will likely yield no results. You will be lucky to acquire the papers over the counter by hand after a trained federal magistrate figures out what you are doing. So if you have troubles at this point hire a professional process server/private investigator who will file a full report of any clerk shenanigans with your clerk and the US Marshal or nearest Provost Marshal. (Is not denying access to the courts tantamount to inciting a riot?)]

D) file them with your local clerk and recorder under a cover explaining the fidelity (insurance) bonding on your ownership in allodium of your home [include geophysical coordinates, plat description and a photo] and if anyone cares to refute that within thirty days they will have to produce the original note or bill of sale to the contrary.

That original note is even required to be brought to any foreclosure hearings. They never do that; they only bring copies and that requires by statute they produce evidence or an affidavit the original note has been stolen or lost. They very seldom bother with that. Contrary to statute, the clerk sitting as judge in the foreclosure hearing just accepts the copy as though it verifies the original note!

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...te-check_1.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...te-check_2.jpg

The reason they will not produce the note is that it is actually a check with which to produce from nothing but the borrowers credit, Federal Reserve Notes. That is what they mean by credit currency; no FRN comes into existence until somebody borrows it. But the real hitch to honest business is making the lender look like the debtor - fraud!

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg

See Torrens System:

http://www.nils.com/rupps/torrens-system.htm

Enjoy! Supposing I like to surf in the buff; why do it in front of an empty beach?



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Before you go threating anybody JRB, remember that if the papers are without substance, there is no point in refuting them... Oh, and you should tell us who you really are too. There is a maxim about that somewhere. So if you expect us to take heed you are an attorney of some sort who sits at a valid bench, give us your bond. Put your money where your mouth is.


On the attached LoR:

3) default judgment. After 21 days the issue is ripe for default judgment. There is a bill of exchange on file with Richard Grasso NYSE since August 13, 2001 for all the money in the world to back your judgment by fidelity bond (secured confidence.)

[charlesa6]

Hehehehheheaaaaaa! Just a thought.

[squirrel]

I agree with jerry, I will no longer read what these treasonous traitors have to say and we should ALL do the same.

Who knows, maybe they'll just go away.

Just a thought.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by squirrel

I agree with jerry, I will no longer read what these treasonous traitors have to say and we should ALL do the same.

Who knows, maybe they'll just go away.

Just a thought.

Yeah. But every time I get serious about ignoring these types, one of them blurts:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/office....html?posted=1

and I just cannot leave a setup like that alone!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I enjoyed doing that while writing over on Quatloos; kick off a thread with a title that would get people curious. Judge Roy Bean and Lawyerdude like calling me by my family's name, "Van Pelt".

So David freely admits that his family's name is "Van Pelt."

Heck, he admitted it here: http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?...0&whichpage=11

He says that his birth certificate says David Merrill Van Pelt! Van Pelt is his father's last name.

What these two Quatlosers have been getting a kick out of; both being lawyers, is that I respond to the name "Van Pelt". That is all. By measuring my response to Van Pelt they feel they have made my name Van Pelt.

David, there is no reason to make your name "Van Pelt" ... you admit that it's your family name.

Now, whether you want to go into some tax protesting, sovereign citizen, UCC redemption, bullcrap ... well, that's your prerogative ... but the simple fact is that your last name is Van Pelt ... which you have admitted above.

If you want to try to deny it now ... and say its your "family's" last name ... but not "your" last name ... well, nobody with any sense is fooled by your silliness.

We know you don't want to admit ... that guy named David Merrill Van Pelt has pulled some shady crap ... but not that David Merrill [My Last Name Aint Van Pelt] guy ... ohhhhh nooooo ... not him.

Could this be David?

"David Van Pelt, 38, of Divide and Robert J. Glaser, 51, of Colorado Springs, were arrested in mid-September for proffering Freemen-signed bogus checks in El Paso and Teller Counties." http://www.citizensproject.org/watch/fw1096.htm

[logos]

More SOP assumption/presumption baloney on their part.

Could it be the photocopy of the alleged note stands because its authenticity isn't challenged? Besides the other reasons for producing an original, isn't there also a "best evidence" rule that states as much?

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That original note is even required to be brought to any foreclosure hearings. They never do that; they only bring copies and that requires by statute they produce evidence or an affidavit the original note has been stolen or lost. They very seldom bother with that. Contrary to statute, the clerk sitting as judge in the foreclosure hearing just accepts the copy as though it verifies the original note!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

So David freely admits that his family's name is "Van Pelt."

Heck, he admitted it here: http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?...0&whichpage=11

He says that his birth certificate says David Merrill Van Pelt! Van Pelt is his father's last name.



David, there is no reason to make your name "Van Pelt" ... you admit that it's your family name.

Now, whether you want to go into some tax protesting, sovereign citizen, UCC redemption, bullcrap ... well, that's your prerogative ... but the simple fact is that your last name is Van Pelt ... which you have admitted above.

If you want to try to deny it now ... and say its your "family's" last name ... but not "your" last name ... well, nobody with any sense is fooled by your silliness.

We know you don't want to admit ... that guy named David Merrill Van Pelt has pulled some shady crap ... but not that David Merrill [My Last Name Aint Van Pelt] guy ... ohhhhh nooooo ... not him.

Could this be David?

Thanks again for being such a fool Brian. I will just let you keep your foot halfway down your throat; you seem to like it that way. You made a very important point about property rights.

I am in charge of what I have and what I do not have. I have no birth certificate. I have no Date of Birth. I have no last name.

Live with it you silly sophist. I don't have a Social Security Number either. Just keep up the good work; anyone reading through your post sees the substitution you made. That sophistry is fraudulent.

Originally Posted by B. Rookard

So David freely admits that his family's name is "Van Pelt."

Originally Posted by B. Rookard

but the simple fact is that your last name is Van Pelt

Names are property and if you give me property, then I have the right to refuse. In the case of Van Pelt, that is communal property; even you are sharing in that property if you are part of the Van Pelt family. I cannot exclusively own that property, "Van Pelt". So you might as well be talking to my brother or father or a football player on the Denver Broncos if you choose to call me Van Pelt. In any case if you think you can give me property called a last name and over the internet, and that I am somehow obligated to accept that property especially to my prejudice with the Bank and Fund, you are on dog food.

The legal or full name is clearly a composite between my name and the family name.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Definition.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Name_legal,jpg

In the common law, the legal name suggested on a birth certificate (that is not mine) is my name David Merrill and Van Pelt put together. I have no legal or full name. My name is David Merrill.

I know it is a silly article and you should have seen the two ladies that wrote that article! Enough on that organization though. The prosecutor's office was vacant for about eight years then anyway; so nothing came of any of that. Just silly and blank aspersions like yours.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Logos says it eloquently:

More SOP assumption/presumption baloney on their part.

And I still get a kick out of sending you Quatlosers around cyberspace on search engines just to come back shooting your own points in the foot while it is stuffed halfway down your throats.