Filing fees and money of substance.

[phreeman2003]

First off, I should probably note I've ajudged it possible to file the full blown LOR, at a later date. I shall rely on the established facts of the previously issued default judgment from my common law court of competent jurisdiction. I shall be putting the initial matter to rest, with a handful of recently acquired judge's oaths, whom have been trespassing on the case, which I will accept to bond their constitutional duties, in their inferior tribunal, by filing them of record with my clerk and issuing jurisdictional orders to release the body and make restitution from the one superior sovereign court, as established pursuant to the savings to suitor clause.

It might be wise to inform my court recording clerk about this obligation:

SECTION 12. RIGHT TO REMEDY AND JUSTICE
Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person, privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by law, freely, completely, and promptly.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm

David, I'm aware of the latest video. It's a fine, shall we say, compressed file of all your dutiful research into proper remedy. And, yes, I've verified the savings to suitor process, but like you've previously mentioned there is no guaruntee these highwaymen will suddenly decide to change their colors and follow proper procedure or law. It is, in fact, my responsibility, under 10th admendment of the constitution, to utilize my sovereign authority, as one of the people, to demand these wayward civil servants fulfill their minsterial duties.

The redcoats of Shoonra and Notorial Undecent have not blinded me to remedy, however, as I previously mentioned aquiring the 21 dollars of lawful silver, even with the present exchange rate, seems less costly than $350 of redeemed lawful money, which I have been doing for sometime now. Although, of late, because of the constant nipping of the hounds at my heels I have not been acquiring and funny money to reedem lawfully.

P.S. a recent trip to my state library involved the right to travel, Amtrack claims TSA requires govt identification; acquiring judge's oath, the guy who forclosed on me didn't file his, until three years after that judgment; I verfied two of the Illinois revised stautes printings relating to the "lost Thirtenth Admenment", and I picked up a brand new looking Black's Law 5th ed. at a used book store. Quite a productive day.

Those from the Illinois Rebpublic take note the index department of the Secrtary of State retains the oath documents.http://cyberdriveillinois.com/depart...directory.html

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

She then will be expecting for the rest of her life as the court has already honored the papers that she tendered.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying the court "honored" the papers. She submitted them. Without the requisite bond. It's not always up to the clerk to refuse to accept an unpaid appeal. Frequently the papers go up to the judge who might waive the bond .... or dismiss the appeal for lack of a bond.

And if I owed this woman any money, I'd send her a slip of paper covered with $$$ and see how she likes it.

[ThomPaine]

as you know, Bernie, when the court accepted the papers and said they were sending it to District Court, that appeal bond was paid in full..

RE: govt ID for travel:

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/view...p?storyid=7040

havent tried it yet, but may do it next time I fly, having the requisite statutes, docs and regs with me of course.

Can you post the printings related to the lost 13th??

thanks

Thom

[phreeman2003]

I inadvertently didn't acknowledge the $968 post, as I took it to be exercising the public policy of H.R. 192, which in my mind evidences the limitted liability use of private credit. And, I wanted to be assured of securing the sovereign common law court with lawfully redeemed money. Then again, the mere filing of the LOR via the savings to suitor clause accomplishes that.

Shoonra raises a valid point, however, I think he forgets in essecne that's exactly what the banks do under the legal tender holdings, thus, David's remedy of redeeming lawful money trumps the issues, once again.

I'm, now, under the impression Shoonra seems to be supporting lawful money, when he previously seemed to favor legal tender. Which way does the wind blow?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

as you know, Bernie, when the court accepted the papers and said they were sending it to District Court, that appeal bond was paid in full..

I know nothing of the kind.

Often, on the internet, I find people bragging about their harebrained arguments somehow having been "accepted" when what they mean is that the court's clerk didn't read through their papers and reduce them to confetti on the spot -- their arguments were later read and resoundingly rejected by the judge.

Same here, the woman pushes the paper at the clerk, the clerk sends it on to the judge, who (I have no doubt) will decide that writing dollar signs across a sheet of paper doesn't constitute payment.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Same here, the woman pushes the paper at the clerk, the clerk sends it on to the judge, who (I have no doubt) will decide that writing dollar signs across a sheet of paper doesn't constitute payment.

Ya think? LOL

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

In common law, clerks are not qualified to give legal advice. And check into this Judicial Act clause:

"...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.


What exactly do you suppose Lawdog means by "exclusive original cognizance" if not a place to form a record? Think over the attachment carefully.

DiM's fascination with the version of the Judiciary Act that Congress passed over 200 years ago notwithstanding, this verbiage does not exist in the current U.S. Code.

A simple computer search of the U.S. Code reveals only two instances where the word "suitors" appears. Here they are, in their entirety:

28 USC § 1333. Admiralty, maritime and prize cases
PART IV - JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:

(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, Sec. 79, 63 Stat. 101.)

And:

33 USC § 2751. Savings provision
SUBCHAPTER III - MISCELLANEOUS

(a) Cross-references

A reference to a law replaced by this Act, including a reference in a regulation, order, or other law, is deemed to refer to the corresponding provision of this Act.

(b) Continuation of regulations

An order, rule, or regulation in effect under a law replaced by this Act continues in effect under the corresponding provision of this Act until repealed, amended, or superseded.

(c) Rule of construction

An inference of legislative construction shall not be drawn by reason of the caption or catch line of a provision enacted by this Act.

(d) Actions and rights

Nothing in this Act shall apply to any rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before August 18, 1990, except as provided by this section, and shall be adjudicated pursuant to the law applicable on the date prior to August 18, 1990.

(e) Admiralty and maritime law

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act does not affect -

(1) admiralty and maritime law; or

(2) the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States with respect to civil actions under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

(Pub. L. 101-380, title VI, Sec. 6001, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 554.)

As you can see, DiM's precious language regarding "exclusive original cognizance" appears in neither statute. Apparently it never occurred to him that laws can change in 200 years.

And yet some of you insist on taking advice from someone whose research skills are this poor. Go figure.

[phreeman2003]

The “saving to suitors” clause in sections 41 (3) and 371 (3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words “any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled” for the words “the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.”

I'm sure I've seen this mentioned before, probably by David Merrill himself, however, I recollect that there are some people's public filings that give notice to acceptance of earlier versions of certain government documents. The constitution being one that comes to mind. And, that specific wording is most likely why David prefers that version. It is the sovereign's perogative to declare the law.

[Lawdog]

And the government is the sovereign, not you personally.

It matters not one whit what version you prefer, I prefer, or DiM prefers. The law is what Congress has enacted.

[phreeman2003]

who are the superior sovereign people. Yes, that would be the "We the People" of most constitutions. Aren't there enough of your holy case law opinions proving such to be the one truth that hangs by a constitutional thread you fidgetting lawyer types have been pulling at for years. You have no authority without consent.

Illinois constitution:
“All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”