small claims are common law

[David Merrill]

Dear Readers;

I registered and made a comment on another forum and used the links to the Credit River Money Decision to amplify my point. Real quick a member there was investigating me by search engine. I am pretty quickly convinced this fellow is an attorney.

Of course the amusing thing about attorneys is that they are always tipping their hands. In an attempt to belittle the obviously common law Credit River Money Decision the attorney tells truthfully that small claims courts are common law.

That all depends on the audience. There are certain audiences to whom I have no desire to be convincing. In fact, were certain audiences to find me convincing, that would be a cause for concern.

I already have. The merits of that small claims proceeding are fully and authoritatively described as "nullity".

Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. You probably wont be reading him here. He thinks a lot more of himself than of you. He says I am teasing the "village idiots" here on Sui Juris. Well! Even if we all have our quirks, I am certainly impressed with you all; village idiots or not.

[David Merrill]

One undeclared attorney (nothing in the "occupation" field) said a sarcastic aspersion about 1938. Whereas I have not mentioned Erie Railroad Company. This is a tacit admission that the speaker is an attorney. Erie Doctrine, the federal common law is considered secret intellectual property.

So, you are claiming that both of you were in for counterfeiting money, but that your suuuper-sikrit "US is a corporation that was bankrupt since 1938" argument set both of you free.

I am sharing this not so much for your edification as that it amuses me to be able to spot these subtle slips.

So come on by. This site and especially the topic is largely attorneys who debunk patriot myths. http://www.quatloos.com/TaxForums/vi...?p=87312#87312

But I warn you. If you start in with these folks, have the documentation from authenticated source material ready and up front. Don't wait until they are asking you to prove it.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Never argue with a classroom full of "foreign agents" posing as attorneys!

Especially when most of em' don't even follow their own rules of play/commerce!

[David Merrill]

I am slowly wheedling tacit admissions.

The most interesting today is that the Secretary actually is (known to be) the US Governor for the IMF.

But of course that is documented fact anyway. Among the ridicule and aspersions I am leaving something coherent and edifying for subsequent readers.

Certainly cannot blame you for abstaining though.

[iamfreeru2]

David,

I have been following your posts on that other site and am enjoying it. They do love to call everyone that does not agree with them as the "village idiots," especially those of us on suijuris. I think what they do though is give us a lot of free publicity, which is good for our site. People that come here find truth and this is a good thing, eh?

[David Merrill]

That was an interesting excursion. Thanks for following. It culminated with one outspoken expert there trying to convince me that bondholders like him, albeit he allowed for bankers and soforth to buy bonds, are fully responsible for the national debt. Which is in a way true. However it does not allow for the bankruptcy and Bankers' Holiday of 1933 which demanded by "law" that the people give up their gold on a "hoarding" accusation.

That really made the loan of the international banking system to require absolutely no consideration. Therefore no contract.

That was a critical part of the argument, disqualifying the Credit River Money Decision. Several of the 'attorneys' there were adamant the common law jury produced nothing more than a nullity.

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg
Credit River Money Decision

For his privacy I should not tell you the name of his book on macroeconomics. But it has been translated into 40 different languages. It is responding a couple exchages to the Rocky Mountain News article that clerks are requiring we be attorneys in order to electronically file.

I agree Suitor but you say;

"Everything is now reversed."

And I do not think so unless you are speaking exclusively from within the scope of bankruptcy. That is the paradigm shift that suitors go through in becoming courts of competent jurisdiction. [Another Suitor] issued an Order and Decree. That came from his heart knowing he had a right to a probable cause hearing.


Regards,

David Merrill


----- Original Message -----
From: Suitor
To: David Merrill
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: mulling this important topic around awhile


Hello David:

I do believe that when the Constitution for the United States of America was proposed in 1787, ratified in 1789, and amended in 1791, the people (you and I and the majority of the people in America outside of government) were not parties to it (the Constitution) and therefore could not bring a suit under the Constitution. The same applied to the State Constitutions. The people (creators of the constitutions) were considered to be private. The laws that applied to them/us were the laws of private contracts, and when they/we could not mutually settle a problem, then we had access to public courts by contract to settle private differences, because those courts had enforcement powers.

Everything is now reversed. We the people are now considered the public (slaves), and those in government are considered private (masters). The courts are still theirs (now private instead of the prior public courts to which we had access). They can now deny us access to their private courts using private copyrighted laws.

After the revolutionary wars the people were and are still sovereigns. The sovereign has a right to hold court wherever he/she is. You have a large enough number of enlightened people in the Denver area to set up a people's court under the common law.(lex non-scripta) and bring in errant public servants to task.

It is always good to interact with you, David.

Peace, and Joy to you.

Suitor

And after the base rudeness over on Quatloos, that is a real breath of fresh air. Yep, those attorneys are certainly driving people toward the truth fast. That is refreshing to know.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[iamfreeru2]

David,

Thank you for posting the Admiralty Counterclaim over there. So far there have been over 40 views, but no one has cared to reply to it yet. I am interested in seeing what those on the other site have to say about it. I have copied and pasted it to my MS word and will be studying it. Thank you for the education you are giving us here at suijuris. It is very enlightening, indeed.

[iamfreeru2]

You know David, it is hilarious to read the posts of those on Quatloos. They cannot rebut anything you are saying so they resort to the name calling and belittling of those that have really stuck them. This is what attorneys are best at when cornered and have no substantive reply. Good job, and I thoroughly enjoy the rantings over there to your posts from the resident know it alls, that is in their own minds. LOL!!

[David Merrill]

Again. Thank you.

Something that occurs to me more consciously lately, after writing on Quatloos. The tactic that seems so infuriating, if you let it get to you. It is what lawyering/debating is all about.

Say I make three points. Two are inargueable based in objective fact, history and law. But the third is subjective comment; something I threw in for entertainment value. The attorneys will zero in on point number three and simply ignore points one and two.

This morning I wrote up an abatement for misnomer for somebody who got into trouble last week. The fellow is an adamant Believer and wanted to add some verbiage about being a bondservant, and how Jesus Christ has made fulfillment of covenenants of law. Just three sentences but I convinced him to redact it to two so not to grant leverage with the subjective spiritual topics.

Banter on Quatloos is certainly rewarding!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Bill Smith]

David,

I've read several of your recent posts, including your mention of an "Abatement for Misnomer" whatever that is, and must very respectfully ask you this question:

Have any of your motions ever actually won at a hearing such that the court granted the relief that you, or whoever was relying on your motion, sought?

Thanks in advance for the kindness of your reply.