NOTICE from; the district court of the United states

[JFRogers01]

Give this a look over.
If you never open some doors, you wont go anywhere.


notice of constitutional crises
http://county-notary_highest-office-... Ol9BG_SblxKk


Barfly removal:
http://county-notary_highest-office-...GE3n1J5BsJM g

[joseph sugarman]

Quick everyone, read and then download the two pieces of paper from the above post. They are the silver bullet everyone has been searching and/or waiting for. They must be real because they are printed in blue ink, and have a real seal on them, and say what must be important, even though unintelligable, stuff.

[JFRogers01]

You said it Mr. Sugerman unintelligible, and it's spelled with an I not an A.

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

Quick everyone, read and then download the two pieces of paper from the above post. They are the silver bullet everyone has been searching and/or waiting for. They must be real because they are printed in blue ink, and have a real seal on them, and say what must be important, even though unintelligable, stuff.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by JFRogers01

Give this a look over.
If you never open some doors, you wont go anywhere.


notice of constitutional crises
http://county-notary_highest-office-... Ol9BG_SblxKk


Barfly removal:
http://county-notary_highest-office-...GE3n1J5BsJM g

Thank you for that. Good work!

Let us know what issues. From your court anyway. A lot of people think it important what issues from CIT but you can just show us evidence of service.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Notorial dissent]

What an immense collection of utter and complete legalistic gibberish, outright silliness, and complete uselessness . It isn’t even good fiction. Aside from counterfeit of judicial process, which is a felony both in the state of Pennsylvania, and Federally, the document is nonsense from beginning to end. In the first place, there never has been or was anything called “Confederation united States of America”, so appealing to a federal circuit thereof is pointless, nor, had there ever been can they just be magically resurrected. In the Second, the Court of International Trade does not sit in the District of Columbia or Harrisburg, and never has, and further has no authority to hear any such matter regardless of where it does sit, it is a court of very limited and special jurisdiction, established under the Constitution of 1789. Third, the Articles of Confederation ceased to exist as of 1789 so any appeal to them is moot. So other than being a waste of bandwidth whoopee.

[joseph sugarman]

After taking a quick look at the garbage posted by you, JFROGERS, I determined only a stream of consciousness reponse was required, which obviates the necessity of an editorial read on my part: typographical errors often result.

[rentiap]

FYI;
You guys are just shootin the messenger here.
If you truly want to look into what JFRogers01 is posting here you should go directly to the source of those documents and try speaking to the author.
Go here.
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...d=15212&cmd=tc

[Sharing Lights]

My Version of the substance of 2nd link.

http://county-notary_highest-office-...GE3n1J5BsJM g

I try to cover all the angles, leaving a path
for greater protection of Rights and
less harsh confrontation with the Authorities,
cutting off their angle of finding a possible violation,
as they hold the law and interpretation of it.

I do not like cutting off ties completely here,
when a lawyer may be useful in criminal cases.

Unless one rises to a level of being able to
defend his/her Rights vs. criminal charges,
it is beyond reason leaving no path
to the official version of law and its representatives.

My venue is not to alienate ourselves from
the Government and/or sever the ties
but a deeper approach and long-run approach:

Not only that may be wiser
but also, we may impact the Government more
since it has to recognize us, while
it may not even acknowledge those who
renounced their Citizenship.

Yes, instead of blunt - head to head confrontation
with Goliath, I maneuver my "army" to his rear
to gain most advantage, considering his size.


I prefer not gallant and colorful efforts,
as justified as they may be but
a Remedy that can work with least amount
of loses and maximum Rights re-gained,
while direct confrontation without
angles of wisdom and long-run approach left
may defeat the purpose prematurely.

I use an Esoteric approach of nourishing
the seed till it becomes a powerful Oak
as opposed to loudly screaming,
"look what a beautiful seed is growing,"
while it is barely off the soil and
all pigs can trample it with ease.

May be amended and polished...

To the State's BAR and its MEMBERS:

for educational and entertainment purposes

is the clause
to help lawyers * swallow and improve their digestion,
eventually, leading to their, excretory bodily functions.


The real issue may be
how to help the, Supreme Land to excrete attorn-eye-yee
of its soil, as scent implies toxicity and need for enema?

Buena appetite, minions of the State Bar,
we want you to *swallow well.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by JFRogers01

Give this a look over.
If you never open some doors, you wont go anywhere.


notice of constitutional crises
http://county-notary_highest-office-... Ol9BG_SblxKk


Barfly removal:
http://county-notary_highest-office-...GE3n1J5BsJM g

Can anyone see what is wrong with this picture?? (See attachment)

Hint: The CIT avoided testimony. Notice how the clerk is telling us that the Chief Judge reviewed the papers yet the clerk is returning the filing fee? It was made quite clear at the time, by returning the filing with the filing fee, along with a copy of the laws saying the clerk was obligated to file the papers and allow us to get a ruling like the clerk was giving, that a judge's ruling on jurisdiction - even against hearing the matter was worth the $250 filing fee.

The clerk sent it back a second time.

The clerk's judgment was in error. The clerk should not be signing the judgment - especially if it had been ruled on by the chief judge there at the CIT. We did not send it for a clerk's judgment. The clerk testified for the judge - twice. The clerk telling us what the judge said is hearsay - inadmissible considering the chief judge is presumed to be fully capable of forming and signing that opinion.

So you are probably correct that CIT has jurisdiction. They just do not want to admit it and will pull something like this...

But if you know what you are doing; that will be the judgment in itself. - That the clerk makes a judicial judgment for the magistrate pretending to be a judicial "chief judge". You must form assize:

http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-6238.pdf
assize

On appeal, Mr. Smith cites no other statutory basis for removal. Creatively, but frivolously, he does argue that the case should now be removed from this court to a court of his own making, the “one supreme Court,” apparently established by Mr. Smith and his associates on September 4, 2006 (after the district court remanded his case to the state court). There is no legal basis for that request.

On September 4, 2006 a jury of peers convened and formed the Instruction for the Tenth Circuit.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision. Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

And like with the CIT we get a very clever obfuscation from the justices. They made slur comments on the people forming a jury, but in the last sentence adjudicate that they never even heard the matter.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Notorial dissent]

Merrill, is there some part of the clerk telling you that the the Chief Judge said it wasn’t an acceptable filing and telling the clerk to return it that you missed? There is no order or anything else there other than the court telling you that they do not have jurisdiction to hear that type of suit. The CIT is not an appeals court, and cannot hear anything from a lower court, your idiot is wasting his time and money, but then the appeals court has already told them that haven’t they?