Libel of review poll?

[David Merrill]

Post deleted as being responsive.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

...

Like one member here just today; he is broke. He wanted help for free and we went over his options - but not many for $0? We discussed the $39 miscellaneous filing but he couldn't afford that...

That is typical around here. The perfect suitor is a little more proactive and oriented toward learning about remedy for the future and remainder of his life.

...


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I think maybe the answer about your poll is that suitors are more intelligent than to discuss things with the likes of Cody.

That is all that has postponed my filing of the LoR, I just don't have 450.00 or even the (79.00 or 39.00?)... that, and I haven't had any thing to Refuse for Cause.

My intimate knowledge of higher Law tends to abate most problems unless I allow them, which I don't normally do. And the Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law Notice (attached) seems to have some desired effects as well - Simply, being left in peace.



Anyways,

I have looked at many different "processes" -- the different tools anyone can make use of if they want -- over the years. I think learning how to "Refuse for Cause" is a prerequisite to learning the principles involved in "Accepting for Value", from what I have gleaned.

Why "Accept for Value" any presentments from the foreign agents of these non-constitutional organizations if you don't want to contract with them (or anyone else for that matter)?

So learning how to abate the nuisance suits before they even get started is very important from my point of view.

One of the main things that I didn't like about Winston is that he didn't teach the unalienable right NOT to contract, and in some of his seminars implied that you must contract (I refused that for cause as well, at least in my mind as I was not present at the live seminar to do it verbally).

Fomr my point of view, teaching people to Accept all presentments for Value is not wise nor a solution to the larger problems -- like non-constitutional organizations pretending to be some kind of Authority -- but there are times I could see it being of value to know some of the things Winston and others are teaching, so I keep my options open.

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

P.S.

David;

From my point of view, Cody seems to be just another disgruntaled employee suffering from a mild psychosis... like so many.


Cody;

How's the weather in the "imaginary bubble" you call California?

Have you dicided who you are going to elect as your new ruler yet?!?!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by aksis

My intimate knowledge of higher Law tends to abate most problems unless I allow them, which I don't normally do. And the Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law Notice (attached) seems to have some desired effects as well - Simply, being left in peace.



Anyways,

I have looked at many different "processes" -- the different tools anyone can make use of if they want -- over the years. I think learning how to "Refuse for Cause" is a prerequisite to learning the principles involved in "Accepting for Value", from what I have gleaned.

Indeed that explains why many suitors quit using the US clerk of court for cognizance after a few years. There seems to be a powerful metaphysics in the simple confidence in the right not to contract.

You have brought something to light here that may be very important. Many of the suitors come to me from the Acceptance for Value camp and maybe they should be going back there once they have mastered R4C? At any rate, there seems to be something there that like you imply, helps one to understand the R4C process. But you have me wondering more now about Winston's videos and I might look for them and give them a go.

From the ThinkFreeForums (Canada) I am getting the impression that Canada is about six years behind in realizing that the Strawman Redemption and that A4V process has not evidence of success. And I suppose that is what this Poll is about and what Cody is busy ranting ZERO about too. People want to see the evidence of success before spending a big chunk of change. The evidence of success is right there in your post:

My intimate knowledge of higher Law tends to abate most problems unless I allow them, which I don't normally do.

That intimate knowledge of higher law certainly includes something I have taught every suitor over the years; As important to your property rights as the ability to contract, is the ability to avoid unwanted contracts.

I am not in the habit of quoting PM very often so the supporting PMs are appreciated. They assure me that you all consider my material useful and that I am for the most part lucid and sane about presenting it. Like I said, no competent analyst would base any opinion on Internet posts alone and so even people fully supporting my sanity are saying so incompetently. But thanks anyway!




Regards,

David Merrill.

[phreeman2003]

David and other knowledge sharers, we that come here to this information further removed from the earlier frontlines owe a sincere appreciation for the mental gymnasict (gymnastics) leading to free thinking investigation for thruth. This commerce game in play, as evidenced by multiple public record accounts of emergency crisis, is not what most believe to be true or the bill of goods we thought we were buying into).

These restrictive heading times seem quite reflective of the last bankers self-inflicted crash.

[phreeman2003]

Might the terminologies human being and person be construed to confer entities under jurisdiction of that orinigial court proceeding having no right/standing to state a claim? Might a man claim offenses against my person seperating himself from the juristic persona.

[David Merrill]

It is not that none of you see it; more that I just don't hear that you understand my point. Which I agree, at times makes me feel that I must think differently than all you folks who seem to prefer to rage against the System (the Fed) without being armed in the truth and the armor provided by the Fed Act (remedy):

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."


– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin (1802)

This "issuing power" was never taken away from the people! It has always been in the hands of the US government and Shoonra has been spelling it out for us exactly how we have been conditioned to accept legal tender as lawful money. I have been explaining it to you all as clearly as I can from Shoonra's citations.

Look at the attachment below. Before 1933 you could redeem your elastic Fed notes in gold or lawful money - inelastic US notes, which have been around since after the Civil War (Legal Tender Cases). That remedy was revised in 1933-34 to accomodate FDR's gold seizure but the ability to extract one's self from private reserve banking is still there.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...000-notes.html

In 1971 the Treasury made the move (not Congress) to stop printing any more US notes under that form because so few people want to handle them instead of private credit from the Fed - the conditioning had set in that deeply. By 1984 Congress agreed, nobody wanted to handle US notes (lawful money) so they discontinued the inelastic currency in that form and replaced it with US currency notes. - Which is of course just so much political sophistry because they have not put the new United States Currency Notes into print as of yet... the people are not exercising that right to issue them, Jefferson's "right of issuance" out of the terrible conditioning that has set upon this nation.

The law still protects our right to issue this inelastic currency - right Shoonra? Only suitors and occasionally like one non-suitor member here was actually was forced by the hand-to-mouth-paycheck to paycheck hidden taxes and inflation to strikethrough her non-endorsements. It seems the small bank manager saw she could only hold out a few days before she needed the cash to feed her single-mom family.

So I pointed out the law to her. All she needed to do was demand lawful money. She has lawful money - inelastic currency in hand and therefore she owns whatever she buys with her paychecks in allodium. The banker cannot deny her that right and she is keeping evidence of her "restricted endorsement" and the bank's dishonor of it compounds every paycheck. Eventually, if Americans will open their eyes and apply the remedy given, Congress will start issuing these US Currency Notes Shoonra speaks of.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

Might the terminologies human being and person be construed to confer entities under jurisdiction of that orinigial court proceeding having no right/standing to state a claim? Might a man claim offenses against my person seperating himself from the juristic persona.

That distinction between true name and legal name that renders the Libel of Review a class action suit for all humanity. When you strip away the Titles, the second names (legal or full name) then we all become one in the same as far as our needs to eat, drink and stay warm - class action. Over the years, several of you have bought Joseph Vining's Legal Identity - The Coming of Age of Public Law (attached).

[aksis]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

You have brought something to light here that may be very important. Many of the suitors come to me from the Acceptance for Value camp and maybe they should be going back there once they have mastered R4C?

People will have to decide that for themselves.

My point is that getting rooked into a contract and then discharging the debt (by what ever means) is enabling and empowering people involved in a pretty underhanded life-style. Why credit their accounts so that they can keep providing the particular kind of unwanted "services" they provide? (you already have Sheriffs and Deputies - you don't need police)

Thus, learning to Refuse for Cause baseless presentments/claims, rather then Accept for Value should be the first step.

And I suppose that is what this Poll is about and what Cody is busy ranting ZERO about too. People want to see the evidence of success before spending a big chunk of change.

I don't blame them. In fact, all the people that have ever shared anything I found to be worth knowing didn't charge me for the knowledge or were doing it for donations and were willing to give it even if no donation was made.

I can see the value of the "evidence repository" tho. That is self evident.

And among the "other rights retained by the People":

34. The writ which is called praecipe (The name of [a] written instructions given by an attorney or plaintiff to the clerk or prothonotary (a chief clerk in the Court of King's Bench and in the Court of Common Pleas) of a; court, whose duty it is to make out the writ, for the making of the same) shall not for the future be issued to anyone, regarding any tenement* whereby a freeman may lose his court.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/magframe.htm

... The right to hold court, to judge both law and fact.

I comprehend this to a degree and I like the idea of exercising it.

That the People delegated ALL their sovereign powers and duties to the Officers of the united States and United States is a baseless presumption that will always fail to be proven because it is a baseless presumption.

The evidence of success is right there in your post:

I don't think Cody can comprehend that. For years he has been enamored in code and judicial opinions and not law. He reminds me of someone demanding proof the sun is shining while they are getting sun burned.

That intimate knowledge of higher law certainly includes something I have taught every suitor over the years; As important to your property rights as the ability to contract, is the ability to avoid unwanted contracts.

No doubt.

I am not in the habit of quoting PM very often so the supporting PMs are appreciated. They assure me that you all consider my material useful and that I am for the most part lucid and sane about presenting it.

Like I said, no competent analyst would base any opinion on Internet posts alone and so even people fully supporting my sanity are saying so incompetently. But thanks anyway!


Regards,

David Merrill.

I didn't see you questioning your sanity. If you are like me in this, I wonder some times if what I was hoping to share, was being received as it was intended. So that was more the reason I posted the feed back.

I don't disregard what people are writing and posting on the Internet in the formulation of an opinion... but the point about competent analysis is noted.

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

*TENEMENT, estates. In its most extensive signification tenement comprehends
every thing which may be holden, provided it be of a permanent nature; and
not only lands and inheritances which are holden, but also rents and profits
a prendre of which a man has any frank tenement, and of which he may be
seised ut de libero tenemento, are included under this term. Co. Litt. 6 a;
1 Tho. Co. Litt. 219; Pork. s. 114; 2 Bl. Com. 17. But the word tenements
simply, without other circumstances, has never been construed to pass a fee.
10 Wheat. 204. In its more confined and vulgar acceptation, it means a house
or building. Ibid. an 1 Prest. on Est. 8. Vide 4 Bing. 293; S C. l1 Eng. C.
L. Rep. 207; 1 T. R. 358; 3 T. R. 772; 3 East, R. 113; 5 East, R. 239;
Burn's Just. Poor, 525 to 541; 1 B. & Adolph. 161; S. C. 20 Eng. C. L. Rep.
36 8; Com. Dig. Grant, E 2; Trespass, A 2; Wood's Inst. 120; Babington on
Auctions, 211, 212.

[David Merrill]

I didn't see you questioning your sanity. If you are like me in this, I wonder some times if what I was hoping to share, was being received as it was intended. So that was more the reason I posted the feed back.

I have been bouncing back-and-forth between threads and tend to presume that Readers are clicking the New Posts button like I do. I may be in error. There are several ways to get around Suijuris.

I am really enjoying your comment about not needing police, and that Acceptance for Value just pays them off all the more...

That is an aspect of A4V that I had not considered. It is like an easy-to-pay hidden tax. - Presuming it has ever worked for anybody.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

Well now,

Aksis, one of the ultimate losers on this site with nothing but his completely debunked "office of citizen" thread, has chimed in defense of David... however has still not said that he has used a LOR technique.

So... STILL ZERO

ZERO

ZERO

ZERO

At least Cody's posts are short and easy to read.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

So another "no"?

that brings the total to... lets see here... Ah! ZERO

Pretty clever, huh?

If you don't get a little more interesting I will put you on my Ignore List.