Libel of review poll?

[phreeman2003]

As just a matter of curiousity, would the members like to chime in on their having filed one? If the members feel this issue is a privacy concern (onslaught of pm/or prying eyes), maybe the site administrator could setup a blind poll and each member would be on his honor to be counted truthfully.

[weishaupt1776]

start anw thread and check the add poll function



it is anonymous

you can ask multiple questions, so think it out

[phreeman2003]

Sorry, major oversight on my part. Some of the technical snafus here have made me lazy to thread features. I can't even get forums list.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

Sorry, major oversight on my part. Some of the technical snafus here have made me lazy to thread features. I can't even get forums list.

Indeed some of the security features, my impression is that Cody's multiple identities have disabled some of the higher search functions. Also, my impression is that family and friends make much better suitors; as by the time they contact me, they are worried that I may be too busy with other suitors. So as people come to me from Suijuris by PM, seldom do I draft remedy for them.

I have posted the template around here often enough. The only thing removed is a contact number near the end. Whenever I send this to a referral, I stress understanding the sample clerk instruction around Page 5. Reading how to acquire the Instruction's exclusive original cognizance of the US government is the key to understanding the value of the initial fluff action. The first paragraph near the end is also important. The product is only this exclusive original cognizance promised by 1789 law.

What I am explaining is that only a few people/suitors have the time and inclination to register and post here on Suijuris. Once they grasp the objective, to prove a timely R4C in the cognizance of the US government, they have much greater control of the contracts (express and implied agreements) that develop around their household. I often get thankful and encouraging emails back from the suitors I broadcast to; usually with macroeconomic information like:

http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2008-76a.pdf

Over the years, it would seem that privacy concerns keep suitors from broadcasting. If they describe an interesting anecdote about remedy; successful or not, they have become to expect I will sanitize their private information and Forward it with commentary as I am in the middle of many, learning application in today's world. I do not know why so few Suitors broadcast, even to the other suitors. It is just an observation. Some get involved in Commercial Redemption stuff and I debunk all that so this may be one reason - they do not like to argue with me.



Regards,

David Merrill.


Example Crosstalk; This is fairly old but it seems to be a suitor who was conversing with a non-suitor Suijuris member here. Or at least reading and quoting.

Thanks David! I'm reading through some of this now.

David Merrill <sanitized> wrote:

[phreeman2003]

I may be mistaken, but, when I look into information on protecting oneself from the government beast the strategies, if you will, to me, seem to run along similar lines/converge. While you support your materials via attachements, like the "savings to suitor" clause, painstakenly researched, at your local repository, I can't say that I remember seeing any black and white government documents supporting the theory behind redemption, unless it's house resolution 192. I greatly apprecitate the research skills you exhibit, which makes it easier for others, like myself, to verify the facts to how this system cycles throughout the existence of mankind.

David, by debunking, do you mean the idea of capturing the strawman via UCC filings? If memory serves me correctly, the earliest redemption materials I saw involved securing all mistaken (invisible/adhesion)goverment contracts via ucc filings with security agreement or, in my words, creating a paper trail evidencing who the true creditor was. The same contracts the sovereign state nationals revoke one's signatures from.

Another example being your letter of credit, doesn't that have similar characteristics as the accepted for value practice? I gather each originates from house resolution 192. And, seem to utilize notice to the treasury.

I surmize, by debunking, you mean that the trust name is established for one to use in commerce per their free will, when it suits one's needs, as the trust was established by the state via the birth certificate and its relationship to the SS#. As you say, the social security adviser told you to stop using it. No need to secure what's not yours in the first place. Some might call that theft.

I don't imagine I'll pursue the initial thought of a LOR poll, as it would be just like money, a yardstick for tabulation purposes, with no substance backing it.

Alas, it, again, boils down to the site credo "Know thyself."

Reminds me of when I believed there was justice for a person in the judicial system, one could argue failure of consideration the words of art had to be
couched in attorner terminology otherwise the pro se was labelled a crank making frivilous claims.

[phreeman2003]

BTW, you have no right to castle alleged esquire. I believe your elk only retain privileges the sovereign you stand under bestow upon you. Get back yee employee.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

I may be mistaken, but, when I look into information on protecting oneself from the government beast the strategies, if you will, to me, seem to run along similar lines/converge. While you support your materials via attachements, like the "savings to suitor" clause, painstakenly researched, at your local repository, I can't say that I remember seeing any black and white government documents supporting the theory behind redemption, unless it's house resolution 192. I greatly apprecitate the research skills you exhibit, which makes it easier for others, like myself, to verify the facts to how this system cycles throughout the existence of mankind.

David, by debunking, do you mean the idea of capturing the strawman via UCC filings? If memory serves me correctly, the earliest redemption materials I saw involved securing all mistaken (invisible/adhesion)goverment contracts via ucc filings with security agreement or, in my words, creating a paper trail evidencing who the true creditor was. The same contracts the sovereign state nationals revoke one's signatures from.

Another example being your letter of credit, doesn't that have similar characteristics as the accepted for value practice? I gather each originates from house resolution 192. And, seem to utilize notice to the treasury.

I surmize, by debunking, you mean that the trust name is established for one to use in commerce per their free will, when it suits one's needs, as the trust was established by the state via the birth certificate and its relationship to the SS#. As you say, the social security adviser told you to stop using it. No need to secure what's not yours in the first place. Some might call that theft.

I don't imagine I'll pursue the initial thought of a LOR poll, as it would be just like money, a yardstick for tabulation purposes, with no substance backing it.

Alas, it, again, boils down to the site credo "Know thyself."

Reminds me of when I believed there was justice for a person in the judicial system, one could argue failure of consideration the words of art had to be
couched in attorner terminology otherwise the pro se was labelled a crank making frivilous claims.

Right to the Castle is making an erroneous presumption. Just because nobody is responding to a "poll" - and by and large because of you, Cody. If my suspicions are correct that your constantly hacking back into Suijuris under different handles has caused some of the screen delays and search engine mishaps... You are the main reason the author of this thread could not set up a proper poll anyway.

Phreeman;


You are probably correct on many of the same philosophies applying to UCC, Strawman Redemption and the general right of refusal (for cause). One suitor is not very clerical, so he pays well instead - for a few minutes work with my Pocket PC. He needed help with a R4C today and so Castle/Cody will have his work cut out for me if he thinks he can bring me down with the illusion that because there are not a lot of suitors on Suijuris, the Libel of Review and Refusal for Cause are garbage.

I think maybe I am a purist with my exposure to the Strawman Redemption. I got hold of the early treatises about 1996 when the original authors had just gotten out of prison. I read it through and discarded it.

One of the main mistakes is to believe there is alchemy between the legal name and LEGAL NAME. There is none. And then the concept of copyrighting the legal name is kind of absurd, considering you gave it to the police officer. Now something about that really struck true though - these guys were saying to ask the "judge" for his name. Then he would "give" it to you and you could bond the case with him the fiduciary instead of you or your attorney.

I have believed the UCC is an equity forum and you grant an attorney discretion to interprete it in equity. There are no firm rules. Judge Roy Bean made something very clear - albeit the statutes call for the original note as evidence of ownership on a home in foreclosure - JRB would openly just look for payments, notice they had stopped and rule in equity for the mortgage company.

The UCC Guy here in town cured out a lien and the victim took him to court. He lost and his victim was told to write up a comprehensive bill for all his troubles and UCC Guy was told he would be paying it in full.

Many suitors are from the UCC Redemption camp and came to me for drafting remedy when they found the UCC has no evidence of success. I have been debunking this concept of a Treasury Direct Account and CUSIP registration for years around here. Well, quietly as there might be something to it all - Thomas here says he has a papertrail but I have not seen it. I would follow a few links to see if there is anything there. I have attached a failed appeal with enough information to track. See if there is any hypothecation or securities attached?

Anyway, these suitors refer family and friends so there has to be something worth my salt in my intellectual property. I think maybe you might see more about the foundation of the Libel of Review in the original work done by an old friend - Are You Lost at C? Admiralty is a great forum for forfeiture, affidavit and rebuttal etc.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

Wow, what do you know!?

Still ZERO!

Incorrect Cody;


Several Suijuris members are also suitors. I prefer they not make any posts in my defense or defense of the Libel of Review process to your particular style of Troll. It is a bad habit to get into process-wise.

If I was you though, I would just make up several internet personas to chime in.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[phreeman2003]

David,
There seems to be something of a glimmer to the prisoner bonding scenario, as preliminary search in my situations leads back to some type fidelity funds. I'm sure there must be some way to connect the electronic to paper trail. Might be a job for an insider. One thought I had was maybe the judges' pension fund accounts.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel...tml#post142457

But, back on topic I'll have to devise a strategy for a sui juris polling to quell (no) RIGHT TO CASTLE'S TROLLING ways. He can't help it; the ambulance chasing mentality maybe inborn or just a hazard of an alleged occupation.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

David,
There seems to be something of a glimmer to the prisoner bonding scenario, as preliminary search in my situations leads back to some type fidelity funds. I'm sure there must be some way to connect the electronic to paper trail. Might be a job for an insider. One thought I had was maybe the judges' pension fund accounts.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel...tml#post142457

But, back on topic I'll have to devise a strategy for a sui juris polling to quell (no) RIGHT TO CASTLE'S TROLLING ways. He can't help it; the ambulance chasing mentality maybe inborn or just a hazard of an alleged occupation.

I think he may be right. Any suitors posting on Suijuris are not talking about the Libel of Review. Maybe there are no suitors posting at all on this forum. That's cool by me. Most of the time, when somebody PM's for help I turn them down anyway.

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.

Knowing Cody though, he just wants to keep me talking with him.

I attached one of his cases above so that you can try numbers for connections. My suggestion has been to grab a free trial week on a CUSIP search engine and start plugging in numbers. Download Howies screensaver and show us snapshots of anything you find.



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. He should have been banished long ago - - no, wait a minute, he probably holds the Suijuris record for being banished from this Website. I guess Admin has just grown tired of trying to keep him off this forum.