Libel in Reveiw use

[futop]

I thought I would start a thread specifically addressing the Libel in Reveiw and its use after reading this post my David Merrill in the "appointment of fiduciary" thread. This seems to be a potent weapon to use but I would think it must be used properly.

As far as the admiralty venue goes, I understand the two inch gold fringes are admiralty fringes. Therefore see Admiralty Law in American Jurisprudence at Law of the Flag. I think it possible to integrate any of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims into any lower proceedings in respect for the law of the flag.

I saw an attorney appear restricted citing Rule E(8) in county court for a traffic matter. The attorney was so confident in a dismissal the client did not even show up. The officer had in January, so typically put the last year on the citation. What was amusing is that the judge would not dismiss the cause in open court and said it was because I was in the gallery. I was learning a lot alright. The attorney took me out into the hall and was explaining some things but chiefly because he was annoyed that I had affected his dismissal. He would have to come back and announce himself, so that I could not find the case on the docket I suppose, and the judge all but promised him an open court dismissal if he would only return for it while I was not there.

I also saw mention by Ice in another thread about using the Libel in Reveiw for a DYFS issue.

The affidavit of earthly occupancy will make you look like a nut case. And you won't be helped if you look like a nut case. That would just add to their ammo. The notice to rescind signature is okay but can be cut back... more simple.

Here's the thing, at the very beginning they were in the position of "Plaintiff". That means the burden of proof was on them. At this point they are simply waiting for you to step in and take the position of "Plaintiff" which will shift the burden of proof onto your shoulders. You need to avoid becoming the "Plaintiff".

Having said that... think about the fact that you can choose any venue to pursue remedy. Might it not be possible to choose "Admiralty"?? Might it not be possible to put the "libel of review" to work in this situation?? Remember that questioning everything being the better strategy... could that strategy be plugged into the "libel of review" and used to facilitate your remedy in "Admiralty"??

Or is this off base?

Question: On the the second rescind, are you rescinding or are you claiming that the signature is "fraudulent" and not yours? Look at the impression that some of the code you cite might be giving.

Ice

Although Weis makes a good point that it would seem more difficult to use in this situation.

The thing is, is that the IRS lists the Supplemental Rules for civil forfeitures as their authority for In Rem Jurisdiction

So, it is easy to make the connection w/printed material that they are using maritime law and invoke admiralty Jurisdiction

Thing is, they are an administrative agency and have made a secret admin judgement and it would seem that they are expecting him to "appeal" it by being an alleged "Plaintiff"

I like the libel in review, but how can you make the "pen & ink" admiralty connection to DYFS like you can the IRS?

Also, it doesn't appear to be in rem due to the fact there are bodies being snatched

So, May be David Merrill can point us in the right direction as to how we could use the Libel in Reveiw under conditions that don't seem to be obvious Admiralty issues such as traffic cases and DYFS as stated above.

[dashboy]

I have read over Merill's Libel also! Of course I understand small tidbits of it to know it is on track, but it is still way to far over my head to impliment in real life battles. Almost like trying to do a Spinning back flip karate kick in a real fight with Bubba's big brother when you have never even taken a karate class !

Perhaps Merill or Weis Could get the ball rolling here for us newbie's on Libel in Review and how to impliment it in court say for occasions like when the bank sues you for default on a loan !

dashboy~

[weishaupt1776]

Man, the LoR is mos def on a high level of Kung Fu.

I highly recommend reading the Lost at Sea book which David posts all of the time

That is about as far as i have gone so far


I grasp the concept, but not the procedural, nitty gritty.

[futop]

at this. If this is true then Admiralty seems the best place to go with anything coming from the "government". This stuff is great.

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/law/Admiralty.htm

[Livefire]

perhaps they view the children as the "res" and are exercising their contractural "right". might be able to file a LoR and use that venue to question the validity of the "marriage contract" and use discovery to prove the state had dirty hands and didnt give full disclosure when the "contract/license" was validated. Also if they take the kids w/o a warrant, Id think their process was defective and could be voided. Just my ignorant musings here!

[David Merrill]

The Libel of Review is fluff wrapped around the Refusal for Cause.

Once the R4C is in place, one is dependant upon Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) Arrest warrant. That is where things stall out with the U.S. deputy clerk saying, "There are no ships; no high tide marks. Therefore I will not process the arrest warrant."

However when the case is obviously in admiralty because the U.S. Attorney is moving in Rule C (in rem) things go well. The best method is Verified Statement of Right.

The LoR when initiated by the libelled man or woman is usually dismissed. However one learns by doing how to say, "No. Thank you." properly in international law. And if you look closely, the case jacket becomes an evidence repository for future Refusals for Cause.*

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...n-response.gif

This gians control over contracts, even though it may not make the immediate problem go away. [Seldom does anyone file a LoR within three days of the initial presentment anyway. There are typically several adminstrative judgments formed against the petitioner by the time they call me.] So that is what generates more suitors. Jealousy. I have explained it so many times that the suitor usually sends a friend or two to me. Because of this I must deduce it is well worth the money spent.

Also keep in mind that the Are You Lost at Sea? booklet is outdated and by the time I was using it, it was failing, if it ever worked to begin with. But it describes a foundation accurately.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* Sometimes the clerk returns a subsequent R4C saying the case has been dismissed. The package is returned to the U.S. Courthouse with a copy of the filing receipt to remind the clerk of contract. [The suitor actually purchased much better than a "judgment" from a U.S. Magistrate pretending to be a judge; the cognizance of the United States.] Subsequent R4Cs are filed without hitch.