White Stone that Acquits...

[David Merrill]

Shoonra said...

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Just because David Merrill van Pelt says it -- does that make it fantasy??

And this convention adopted by an attorney-trained law librarian is parroting from Quatloser Judge Roy Bean's many "slurs" Van Pelt. In his investigations and his own suppression of the masses in life and career experiences, JRB no doubt understands this might stir unpleasant memories of being called just that by sheriff deputies, jailers.

Recently I summoned Judge Roy Bean to formally present the law of the flag (admiralty) on a thread and he may or may not respond - according to the UCC he has 72 hours to Refuse for Cause my presentment or he agrees. http://suijuris.net/forum/citizenshi...lty-law-2.html I am glad I did not try that earlier because I have learned a lot from him and the other Quatlosers - much of which I hope has been imparted to the Members and Readers here. I am grateful much in the same manner as thank you technology for the downtimes that stirred me into investigating that psychological profile over there - denial and protectionism of the status quo based in the private credit of the Federal Reserve Bank and its subsequent Income Tax/Return system. [Thank you Demosthenes and Elfninosmom. The female component of *****whipping as a control weapon, even in cyberspace is always quite edifying to see in action.]

To Judge Roy Bean;


In your wild fantasy that Van Pelt sounds anything like David Merrill (idem sonans) Judge Roy Bean sounds exactly like your legal name en banc...

You are hereby summoned to appear and bring with you a definition of the law of the flag.



Regards,

David Merrill.

In preparing, I note Fulltitle's response and upon a glance say that a manorial model is quite appropriate for the judge as landlord and collection agent en banc. I am going to finish this opening post however in focus upon what awoke me to write. I came across an organization with two offices recently that supplies for a fee, World passports and identification cards. Here in summary is the application form suggested:

http://www.worldservice.org/docpapp.html

Interestingly, my right thumbprint is already part of my signature:

ATTESTATION OF UNDERSTANDING AND CERTIFICATION OF INFORMATION: The applicant understands that the World Service Authority accepts no responsibility for the position of any government as regards the acceptance of the WSA passport and/or its other identification documents. The applicant is solely responsible for the use of the passport and accompanying documents, which are the bearer's property.

The applicant swears that the information on this form is true and correct. Important: Applicants under 16 years of age must have the Attestation of Understanding signed by a parent or guardian.


Signature and Date______________________________________________ _____


CERTIFICATION OF SIGNATURE, OR PHOTOCOPY OF
IDENTITY PAPERS, OR PRINT OF RIGHT INDEX FINGER:

On this _______ day of ________________, 20____,
before me came_________________________________________,
known to me and known by me to be the person who executed
the foregoing application, and he/she thereupon duly
acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same.

Certifying Official Signature and Seal:
________________________________________

Applicant's Fingerprint:

_____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
-------------

Notice no guarantees about acceptance. But then notice that the bearer of the ID is the one who is taking responsibility for telling the truth to the WSA before they fabricate the passport or ID. [Also note I would change the word swear to attest in accord to the title. Matthew 12:33 and James 1:12.]

I have been identifying myself to officials for years now with a Certificate of Search from the Denver federal courthouse which to the layman says, "You have never filed any cause against me." and to any federal magistrate pretending to be a judge familiar with the rules of court, "Failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted."

Directing your attention to my true name David Merrill:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/ine...E/1224_enr.pdf

All the general assemblies (and such lesser officers; that's from the Colorado Constitution, not me, these yoyos are not even required to take and file an oath of office here) can do is try warning people that if they are offered such IDs as offered by the World Service Authority, and the officer accepts such an ID as a valid and authorized ID, and it turns out to involve fraud about the ID, the officer may be in trouble of some kind by the general assembly or such lesser officers of the State of Colorado corporation.

I have always had a simplistic manner of solving problems. I recall in engineering school getting "A"s begrudged by the professors because I would arrive at the correct answers in Statics and Dynamics in a fraction of the time as the other students - simply by being too lazy to solve the mathematics as taught. Not to brag about my 4.0 GPA here but what I am saying is if I were to look at the legislation above, all I would see is that if an officer is offered the Certificate of Search or the World Passport and the information is correct, and the officer gives me a hard time about accepting the information on the ID, then said officer is culpable for that.

But then again, I have also had men ejected from the jail upon asserting their true name to the point that the sheriff and deputies/jailers were threatening to charge them with Criminal Impersonation. Such an issue taken to court would have either labelled me Van Pelt or proven out my name David Merrill and false arrest and wrongful imprisonment.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
By slandering "Van Pelt", perhaps they are positioning going for the most comfortable limited liability option? And maybe what the Firm wants is for "DMVP" to git' (back) to work on the Manor.

"David Merrill, the letter from the firm is the only one they send out, it comes with a lease on a car, a house with a two-car garage. Quit going on about dead lawyers or dead presidents and all that stuff. Ya' hear?"

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

... an attorney-trained law librarian is parroting from Quatloser Judge Roy Bean's many "slurs" ...

I don't "parrot" anyone, even someone who's obviously as well-educated as RB. You yourself provided the Van Pelt on some of those pseudo-legal documents you posted.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

...
Recently I summoned Judge Roy Bean to formally present the law of the flag (admiralty) on a thread and he may or may not respond - according to the UCC he has 72 hours to Refuse for Cause my presentment or he agrees.

How does the UCC relate to your attempt to "summon" RB?? What makes you think he takes orders from you? What makes you think anyone takes orders from you?? And what are you proposing to pay RB if he does your bidding? Doesn't seem like the UCC applies (and it doesn't apply to contracts of labor). All you've done is expose your massive ego and your tiny grasp of the UCC.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I don't "parrot" anyone, even someone who's obviously as well-educated as RB. You yourself provided the Van Pelt on some of those pseudo-legal documents you posted.




How does the UCC relate to your attempt to "summon" RB?? What makes you think he takes orders from you? What makes you think anyone takes orders from you?? And what are you proposing to pay RB if he does your bidding? Doesn't seem like the UCC applies (and it doesn't apply to contracts of labor). All you've done is expose your massive ego and your tiny grasp of the UCC.

Never as my name or part of it.

The summons was not directed toward you Shoonra.

[David Merrill]

After a few minutes it occurred to me that I have not explained something in the back of my mind since writing the opening post this morning. I am convinced I know exactly why Judge Roy Bean will not respond to the summons:

Judge Roy Bean maintains his badgering me with Van Pelt like it is my name bothers me. That requires that he have some kind of authority - otherwise there is no agitation. The summons maintains an authority is present. When either way, either side of the street, there is no authority at all because this is cyberspace.

If JRB appears for my summons he will be telling everybody, the Readers that my summons has no authority and collaterally be admitting that even in the real world, until a man or woman is fooled, badgered or coerced or admits by conditioning, knowing, willing intent or whatever that they have a legal or full name, they do not have one. He has no authority to name me Van Pelt or David Merrill Van Pelt.

Shoonra, not ever being a practicing attorney, only a theoretical one with a lot of schooling in theoretical law, would not understand that by pulling the family name off of old documents, she becomes party to the document in whatever authority she uses to attach that family name to my name David Merrill. She parrots Judge Roy Bean because at least he knows the commercial value of making me appear in social compact and boiling over any one contract into a general social agreement. He does it from the bench. That explains why Shoonra appeared for Judge Roy Bean.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

I got the Van Pelt from your own phony baloney "Bill of Exchange" ...
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
.... and what's a "zionism cancellation algorithm"???

I have practiced law and appeared in courts, so it's not "theoretical". As a librarian and researcher I keep track of the actual decisions of courts, not the theories of legal writers.

I don't "appear for" RB and I don't share your notion of the magical significance of your name. However, I could understand why mentioning you by name would upset the rest of the Van Pelt family.

[jekylisland]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I have practiced law and appeared in courts, so it's not "theoretical". As a librarian and researcher I keep track of the actual decisions of courts, not the theories of legal writers.

Maybe you could answer a question I have then? How did the federal government (or United States Government if you make a distinction) expand it's jurisdiction beyond the 10 mile square box imposed by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the constitution?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

How does the UCC relate to your attempt to "summon" RB?? What makes you think he takes orders from you? What makes you think anyone takes orders from you?? And what are you proposing to pay RB if he does your bidding? Doesn't seem like the UCC applies (and it doesn't apply to contracts of labor). All you've done is expose your massive ego and your tiny grasp of the UCC.

That is your appearance for Judge Roy Bean. Albeit I admit to only reading the first sentence or two.

I have practiced law and appeared in courts, so it's not "theoretical".

Therefore you know, or are expected to know that. And:

As a librarian and researcher I keep track of the actual decisions of courts, not the theories of legal writers.

You pretend these courts are judicial functions pursuant to the oaths officers take... Regarding the infamous Rule 45.1:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/donors/...upct/Rules.pdf

Rule 45. Process; Mandates

1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.

2. In a case on review from a state court, the mandate issues 25 days after entry of

Do you appear to argue that Judge Roy Bean operates a judiciary in real life? Or is it more of an executive tribunal?

To summarize, you are making my point and explanation much plainer for the Readers. There is no more authority in an Internet summons than you calling me Van Pelt gives me a legal name. You make yourself party to the Bill of Exchange and a mathematical treatise called Zionism Cancellation Algorithm by bringing them to court with your appearance.

Do you think anybody can enter Judge Roy Bean's court carrying the Constitution as a party to that action? Sure! He will act like a judiciary until that law of the flag steps in and commands that he not reveal the bankers' strategem and tactical plan through the Bankers' Holiday (1933) - that the citizens of the US are the enemy in the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act - and I can prove that again. I have linked the documentation so many times it is a boring chore for me.



Regards,

David Merrill.



Jekyl Island;

Good question. A good part of the answer that ties into my post here is that the verbiage used in the 1933 revisions of the TWEA matches the singular personality of the United States as a corporation - same as the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment preparing for the 1871 incorporation of the District of Columbia as a municipality. Citizens of the US are under the Revised Statutes that were amended-in-a-rush on the eve of the Bankers' Holiday.


http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...my_defined.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf..._amended_1.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf..._amended_2.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...March_1933.jpg


Your question is much too uncomfortable for Shoonra to answer without obfuscation; therefore I have appeared to answer for her.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by jekylisland

Maybe you could answer a question I have then? How did the federal government (or United States Government if you make a distinction) expand it's jurisdiction beyond the 10 mile square box imposed by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the constitution?

The US govt's authority was NEVER limited to the District of Columbia -- which did operate as the Seat of Government until about 1800. That Constitutional provision simply gives the Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over the District. This means Congress alone, and none of the States - not even the States that ceded this district for the use of the Federal Govt - had the legislative authority over that district.

If you think that the Congress exists only for the purpose of legislating over a district ten miles square, that it bothers holding elections all across the country for Representatives and Senators to come to DC and legislate only over DC and not outside DC, then a serious question arises about how or why anyone bothers. Or even why the drafters of the Constitution put so much effort into it.

On the other hand, the Federal Govt, including Congress, has concurrent jurisdiction over the rest of the USA, coexisting with whatever state or territorial govt may have been locally elected. This is indicated, for example, in Article VI. Article I, sec. 8, cl. 1, makes it clear that the Congressional authority covers, among other things, "the common defense and general welfare of the United States".

[David Merrill]

I have practiced law and appeared in courts, so it's not "theoretical".

Here is her admission she is or has been a Registered Attorney. I thought she inferred that her practice of law was only academic to her researcher/librarian career. She mentioned being published in major Law Review publications.

My proposal is simply that it is theoretical. All she has ever done is practice law. This relationship comes from the organization of Knight as opposed to Esquire. She is or was an esquire. Even Attorn comes from the same origins as tournament - a drill or practice session/competition. Opponents on the battlefield never came to a tournament. The tournaments were for Brethren in arms to show off and hone skills. Practice is not the play of trial by fire - the battlefield.

It would seem that her limited time in the courtroom taught her nothing...

The US govt's authority was NEVER limited to the District of Columbia -- which did operate as the Seat of Government until about 1800. That Constitutional provision simply gives the Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over the District. This means Congress alone, and none of the States - not even the States that ceded this district for the use of the Federal Govt - had the legislative authority over that district.

If you think that the Congress exists only for the purpose of legislating over a district ten miles square, that it bothers holding elections all across the country for Representatives and Senators to come to DC and legislate only over DC and not outside DC, then a serious question arises about how or why anyone bothers. Or even why the drafters of the Constitution put so much effort into it.

On the other hand, the Federal Govt, including Congress, has concurrent jurisdiction over the rest of the USA, coexisting with whatever state or territorial govt may have been locally elected. This is indicated, for example, in Article VI. Article I, sec. 8, cl. 1, makes it clear that the Congressional authority covers, among other things, "the common defense and general welfare of the United States".

She leaves out §§17 and 18 intentionally.

In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was (not) ratified but worded in contemplation of the US being a singular entity. Compare the plural sense of the verbiage right there in the federal Thirteenth slavery Amendment for evidence. The District of Columbia became a municipal corporation in 1871.

I doubt either Shoonra or Judge Roy Bean will be addressing any of the facts from now on.


Regards,

David Merrill.