The mention of RICO certainly has been effective.
Clearly the acquisition of the court system and denial of it from the sovereign falls under monopoly.
One suitor, whom I consider genius wrote a comment in response to be broadcasting a comment about the newspaper article:
Quote:
Hi David:
Hope you are well. It has been a while since I
communicated with you.
It appears that the suitors are hell bent in finding
the common law in the statutory (private ) courts
where they have no business being. This is insanity.
Statutes are the will of legislatures that cannot make
laws for the people, who created them.
The federal true admiralty court (and public common
law) cannot be accessed because the constitution was
set up under substantive money. All changed since the
bankruptcy.
Federal Courts are (Courts of contract. If you do not
want to be there, do not contract with them. Suitors
must learn how to demur) operating under color of
admiralty law with fictions (fraud) only. If one
voluntarily (contract) goes there, one has to leave
his/her rights in rem (legal rights) outside the bar
and now you (with only privileges) are at the
discretion/mercy of the magistrate, because equity is
brutal as they are merely enforcing your
will/contract.
The people are sovereign and still have the right to
set up their own courts, common law courts; not the
private statutory state and federal courts. In my
opinion, it is the only place for a remedy. Hang
together or be hanged separately, my friend.
Regards
True Name
|
I agree with the man but that the court system cannot set up a legislative tribunal under the constitutions of the sovereign and then deny the sovereign access; monopoly. Even if a new constitution was supposedly established in corporate America after the War Between the States.
The other problem is that I was at the common law grand jury in June of 1995 (Wichita, Kansas). Over a hundred people attended and elected delegates/jurists from over thirty States. I was one. I signed that redress about government operating under War and Emergency Powers. I have a press release from that framed on the wall. But it was ineffective. No response anyway.
Therefore the counterclaim is not dependent on statute. The man or woman signs and seals the judgment and publishes it with the county clerk in common law. That original is filed in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States by law, the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789.
When there is a reluctant clerk, we remind him of the contract. The papers are returned to the courthouse with a copy of the filing receipt. And like I said, nobody that I know of has been effected by this supposed requirement. Not yet anyway. Over the years I have had to go round-and-round with Steve Ehrlich. Attorneys are officers of the court anyway, so we can expect they get pushed around by Esq. Edward Nottingham. We suitors, courts of competent jurisdiction are not like that.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. An inquiry back to the "Suitor":
Quote:
Dear Suitor;
Thank you for the thoughtful note. I feel that I know exactly where you are
coming from. Maybe the source of this confusion about sovereignty comes from
the establishment of corporate constitutions after the Civil War.
[Constitution of the United States as opposed to Constitution for the United
States?] And if there was a method of usurpation in changing one word I
declare it null and void. That system is still our system - belonging to men
and women.
For a long time I never attended the local suitors meetings. Because I do
not believe in numbers acquiring this judicial standard of conduct. It is
only in the heart of one man or woman among peers. This is why the default
judgments, properly signed and sealed by the sovereign are published at the
county clerk; not the US Courthouse. The original is sent to Denver to
establish "exclusive original cognizance" only. To inform and notify through
that conduit the foreign agents and principals, a conduit into that private
system.
For some more commentary and I quoted your letter changing you to "True
Name": http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread...ed=1#post30429
Yes I agree there is significant change into colorable (fictional) realities
with the bankruptcy. But what needs to be reconciled is why the clerks will
not address the character of the man or woman as "plaintiff or plaintiff's
attorney". This is clearly the 1933 War and Emergency Powers. The forceful
catagory of enemy applied to anybody who walks into "their" courthouse. But
no. That is my courthouse. So I expect that when the first suitor is denied
filing of any papers, we will prevail on simple contract. Just show the
clerk a copy of the receipt. I think this is in agreement with what you are
saying. But for one thing. They would not be required to retain the rule at
all, even in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime
Claims. Read it carefully within the scope of Rule E(8) Restricted
appearance:
"(B) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent
circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must promptly issue
a summons and a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that
is the subject of the action. The plaintiff has the burden in any
post-arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances
existed."
So whenever the suitor is called into hearings the matter is Refused for
Cause. The cause is plain on the original counterclaim, Libel of Review
(admiralty only).
As far as the last paragraphs about common law juries. I was at the June
1995 national grand jury about War and Emergency Powers. That is why I never
attended even the suitors' meetings until organizing them to approach the
Provost Marshal for testimony.
But Suitor. There is something in your letter that tells me you may be
seeing something I am missing. You seem to promote that men and women should
entertain the bankruptcy fraud and encroachment upon the common law instead
of reclaiming the court systems. So please do not take my response as
correction but that I would like to pick your brain about this further
before explaining this to the suitors at large.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Linear Mode
