Randy Lee Rebuts IRS

[psholtz]

So I had pretty much written off the whole "nom de guerre" thing, but then I read this:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/irs.html

Is this stuff for real, or is this just more patriot mythology?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by psholtz

So I had pretty much written off the whole "nom de guerre" thing, but then I read this:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/irs.html

Is this stuff for real, or is this just more patriot mythology?

That is for real and I have R4C'd so many causes it is silly to count. Being that I am David Merrill, no cause gets started under a legal identity since I have no legal identity. I have helped people learn how to do it too. That is the purpose in the Comes Now introduction of the Libel of Review - to introduce a class action suit for humanity. That is to say the man on the land is above the jurisdiction and that is recognized by Rule E(8) Restricted Appearance. (Attached)

E(8) Restricted Appearance.

An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.

For a while I was abating for misnomer in the same context as Randy Lee. Randy Lee also came forward in jural society - "superior court" - with a ten page abatement process that breaks down to the one sentence: Therefore your Papers are Returned to You timely Refused for Cause without Dishonor...

http://www.hiscovenantministries.org...re/matters.htm

Our theory of the case has not changed, only grown more precise as research continues.

The Non-statutory abatements have been revised and are still consistent with our previously published experience of their use. If anything, as the evidence continues to mount with further research, the abatements continue to become more potent.

And that is what the counterclaim does. It sets up an evidence repository according to the 'saving to suitors' clause acquiring the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US.

"...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.

The R4C is such a concise abatement I think it qualifies more as avoidance since we have long given up trying to teach Crown attorneys about law.





Regards,

David Merrill.

[Akira-]

Personam jurisdiction challenge 101

It works great..

This is old news... where've you been? lol

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/27383-post1.html

[Slavic38]

The difference being that “saving to suitors” is based on a remedy provided within US and what Randy Lee is doing can not work if You accept the PERSON they assigned You or have/are a res identified in their state, like have an address or registration or anything else that would designate You a resident of US, right?

You're using remedy (“saving to suitors”) in their law, the “statutory jurisdiction***” of “this state” (UNITED STATES, a DC corp.), to access common law and refuse to contract / refuse their draft*** (charge) against Your PERSON, which (Your PERSON) You still accept and use as You see fit*, and Randy is bringing God's law with him and rebutting the presumption that he has/is a res (PERSON) identified in “this state” and that he is a part of their public charitable trust** and saying that he is part of Jesus's charitable trust and has pledged allegiance to him exclusively.

You are still accepting Your PERSON but controlling it as a secured party/first lien holder and accepting benefits conditionally as You see fit, while Randy Lee rejects the person they assigned him and uses US offered benefits, such as limited debt liability through the use of FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, involuntarily, under protest and for survival only (because they won't coin any money for him to use and will jail him if he were to use anything else as currency). Your's is a partial severance and Randy's is complete. You are in their public trust, Randy is out of it. You're filling the government created office of PERSON and are assumed to have an oath of office because that's the only way You can sign anything under the penalty of perjury. Randy is not.

Am I right?

* For example You might have a driver's license signed David Merrill dba DAVID MERRILL or By: David Merrill, auth. Sig. or David Merrill, without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207 or some such. Basically accepting Your PERSON, but controlling it as a secured party while Randy rejects the person they assigned him entirely.

**http://usa-the-republic.com/Lee%20Brobst/usa.html
“It is presumed that everyone born into this country since 1933 has wanted to be a part of the public policy of the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia. This is because the public trust was established by public policy when the gold was removed as a standard in payment of debt. Up until the gold was removed, less than 51% of the population was involved as beneficiaries of the 14th Amendment trust. The moment the gold standard was removed, more than 51% of the population automatically became members of the trust. This meant the private municipal trust could be moved into the public sector to become public policy because the amount of the population volunteering for the benefits indicated a public desire. In addition, the trust was confirmed by the U.S. (S)upreme (C)ourt decision of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins in 1938 saying "there is no general federal common law." In other words, it is now presumed that everyone is a 14th Amendment "person" as implied by law and so silence on the part of the citizen is his consent to be treated as a "constructive trustee" and as primarily being a United States citizen. “

*** See: Keating Seminar commercial law -- bonds and things... from http://freedom-school.com/ to understand statutory jurisdiction works and how they securitize and trade “inmate's” bonds.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Slavic38

David Merrill dba DAVID MERRILL

It is the error there that causes your post to almost make sense - but not quite.

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

By legal convention, Merrill is my Middle Name. When I put my First and Middle names together, that is my given or Christian name. And when I follow that by my family name it is a legal or full name.

Here is the suggested trust:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...tification.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ification2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ification3.jpg

Suitor after suitor testifies to this truth. Mom and Dad told them their true names alright, but then conditioning says their names are legal and full names instead. So take a look again at the Comes Now... at the beginning of the Libel of Review. Also take a look at the Law of the Flag.

The only relevant difference is that suitors use the US govennment for what it is created for in the first place - to protect property rights.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Slavic38

The difference being that “saving to suitors” is based on a remedy provided within US and what Randy Lee is doing can not work if You accept the PERSON they assigned You or have/are a res identified in their state, like have an address or registration or anything else that would designate You a resident of US, right?

But any address, registration or property you might have in the state would still be in the name of the PERSON, right? Not in your "true name"?

So why wouldn't what Randy Lee is doing work?

[Slavic38]

Right, I meant David Merrill dba DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. I was aware David Merrill is what Your given name is called, I red many of Your posts here and at ecclesia.org, and seen the birth certificate. It was an honest mistake.

Relevant in what sense?

For the record, I think the saving to suitors/counterclaim process is a valuable tool for those who do not care to completely sever the ties to the system or just aren't quite there Yet. I am not dismissing it or claiming it doesn't work, nor am I claiming what Randy Lee is doing doesn't work. If what Randy Lee is doing doesn't work it's because the powers that be are choosing to oppress him because of Jesus, not because it's invalid. Matthew 5:11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I'm just pointing out the difference, which, from My point of view is critical if one is to enter the Kingdom.

The bottom line, and what I was trying to emphasize is that with a non-statutory abaitment ( http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/assembly.html )or response (not appearance) as described in the IRS link You can not accept the person they assigned You. You can not avail Yourself of gov benefits except for survival under protest, You can not call upon any authority/law outside the Bible such as UCC. You must be entirely outside of their system or it won't work.

With saving to suitors/counterclaim, on the other hand, It appears to me that You can get away with accepting the person they assigned You, conditionally, reserving rights through means other than the Bible, such as UCC as long as You arrange it appropriately.

On the second look it seems that in saving to suitors/counterclaim process One is acting as a national/Citizen of the uSA, but not 14th amendment citizen/subject of US or could 14th amendment citizens use it too?




Also, You said above: “I have no legal identity.” would You care to elaborate?

You also said:

“1) get a new Driver License but sign it truthfully. Say it is a digitizing box about 1" x 2". Sign your true name in the top half followed by DBA (doing business as) then in the bottom half write it out exactly as the computer prints the all upper case letters. Now you are set up for refusals for cause on tickets because it is the man or woman speaking. You show you have recovered from the identity crisis.”

Wouldn't that be Your legal identity, or rather that of Your person? If You accept the person to avail Yourself of gov benefits, albeit conditionally, reserving all rights etc; while it's not You being legally identified on the DL, is it not still Your legal identity if You accept and use Your person? You have no legal identity, but You do business as a person who does have a legal identity?

Thanks, I appreciate You taking the time to respond.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Slavic38

Right, I meant David Merrill dba DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. I was aware David Merrill is what Your given name is called, I red many of Your posts here and at ecclesia.org, and seen the birth certificate. It was an honest mistake.

Relevant in what sense?

For the record, I think the saving to suitors/counterclaim process is a valuable tool for those who do not care to completely sever the ties to the system or just aren't quite there Yet. I am not dismissing it or claiming it doesn't work, nor am I claiming what Randy Lee is doing doesn't work. If what Randy Lee is doing doesn't work it's because the powers that be are choosing to oppress him because of Jesus, not because it's invalid. Matthew 5:11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I'm just pointing out the difference, which, from My point of view is critical if one is to enter the Kingdom.

The bottom line, and what I was trying to emphasize is that with a non-statutory abaitment ( http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/assembly.html )or response (not appearance) as described in the IRS link You can not accept the person they assigned You. You can not avail Yourself of gov benefits except for survival under protest, You can not call upon any authority/law outside the Bible such as UCC. You must be entirely outside of their system or it won't work.

With saving to suitors/counterclaim, on the other hand, It appears to me that You can get away with accepting the person they assigned You, conditionally, reserving rights through means other than the Bible, such as UCC as long as You arrange it appropriately.

On the second look it seems that in saving to suitors/counterclaim process One is acting as a national/Citizen of the uSA, but not 14th amendment citizen/subject of US or could 14th amendment citizens use it too?




Also, You said above: “I have no legal identity.” would You care to elaborate?

You also said:

“1) get a new Driver License but sign it truthfully. Say it is a digitizing box about 1" x 2". Sign your true name in the top half followed by DBA (doing business as) then in the bottom half write it out exactly as the computer prints the all upper case letters. Now you are set up for refusals for cause on tickets because it is the man or woman speaking. You show you have recovered from the identity crisis.”

Wouldn't that be Your legal identity, or rather that of Your person? If You accept the person to avail Yourself of gov benefits, albeit conditionally, reserving all rights etc; while it's not You being legally identified on the DL, is it not still Your legal identity if You accept and use Your person? You have no legal identity, but You do business as a person who does have a legal identity?

Thanks, I appreciate You taking the time to respond.

An example is when the Attorney Regulation Counsel of the State of Colorado Supreme Court tried some nonsense about me Practicing Law without a License. The action was in the name DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT a/k/a DAVID MERRILL.

Nowhere in the evidence was there any indication that I was using the legal artifice - David Merrill Van Pelt. If there would have been, then I would have not abated for misnomer.

In other words, Randy Lee never used a legal artifice that related to the action. At least not that the prosecutor could rebut his true identity with.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[rottweiler]

If you are forced to do something, it is not yours, it is their will. Their jail is a slave ship, if you use their stuff without force being applied you owe them. Since there is no money they sell you.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

If you are forced to do something, it is not yours, it is their will. Their jail is a slave ship, if you use their stuff without force being applied you owe them. Since there is no money they sell you.

And no law of Jubilee to set you free either!!!