Mostly about an issue I perceived about people insisting I have a legal name, Social Security Number and Date of Birth (which I believe are ownable at my option and pleasure) I began prodding the debunkers at Quatloos. This was exclusively to acquire an accurate profile of a certain mentality I call protectionism; a venomous insultinator (Heidi Guedel's term) designed to protect the risk management of the Bank and Fund.
Sometimes I regret the two argumentative characters I attracted here - B(rian) Rookard and Shoonra. But only because of my strict organizational standards. I would rather have them exclusively contained somehow to Quatloos. Maybe that is selfish. I am speculating it is because the suijuris crowd should also have the benefit of seeing this particular mentality profile at work. A mentality I find busy obfuscating the facts and truth about American history.
I suppose that the federal repository over on the Colorado College campus and the Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt found both there and on my bookshelf, in addition to other wealth of information could be fabricated by certain pressure inside my head caused by a malignant brain tumor. [I just got a phone call from someone concerned I think I have a brain tumor. Not to my knowledge. I am saying that in light of Quatloos insutinators frequently insulting my sanity. The reality I perceive is based on fairly high standards of research. However it is venomously debunked by many articulate people. That is all I meant by the tumor remark***. But if you are concerned about my health, mental or otherwise, relax. I am headed for a long happy life.] For now however since I feel fine and my thoughts, at least to me seem regular and consistent with the facts around me, I will presume my reality is a very real one. Maybe the reader should check and make sure I have been having a rather stupid argument with these two "attorneys" (I think they are because of the slick forked tongues). http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread...1&page=9&pp=10 If you find that I have actually been arguing with them about attorn being in the root etymology of attorney and that these guys are saying attorn has nothing to do with attorneys and their function as officers of the court, click the Back arrow and continue on here. I have not lost my mind as of yet.
B. Rookard said:
Quote:
Just because "attorn" had a particular meaning IN FEUDAL TIMES does not mean that the word "attorney" would carry a meaning anywhere close to that. As your earlier citation showed, an attorney was one who was appointed.
Nowadays, attornment carries a meaning similar to its old meaning. It is a tenant's agreement to hold the land as the tenant of a new landlord. When a person buys a home from someone that is being rented out, and that person wishes to keep the current tenant over, you get a letter of attornment, which is an agreement of the current tenant to stay on as the new owner's tenant. That's all it means nowadays.
I in return said:
Quote:
Good vassal.
I have heard somewhere that the most insideous doctrine comes from a slave who actually believes he is free. I know that quote just got miserably butchered but I hope you get my drift. The most agitating thing (the most revealing thing to my profiling project) is that this attorney type sounds convincing to say, a bunch of of ignorant vassals. Like maybe a jury pool of 14th Amendment residents. What convinces me these two are attorneys is that I can sense they are just playing 'devils advocate' to sharpen up their ability to litigate in front of this artful obfuscation of American History*. And it bothers me a bit that I may be honing that craft.
It was out of context and taking up a bit too much posting space over there on the other Thread about the WTP case. To nurture the profiling project I would not prove my "wacked-out" theories on Quatloos. American history is well do***ented and the onset of federal common law since 1938 Erie Doctrine as well. But simply clobbering their delusions on Quatloos was not my objective. Anyway, there is a certain denial there and I am fairly convinced I would need to talk to these rude people face-to-face, giving tours of libraries etc. Not a pretty thought.
I got two phone calls from suitors yesterday. Both of them were concerned because I had not been broadcasting snippets for a couple days. They all look forward to my Dear Suitors broadcasts and updates.** I suppose since pausing my visits to Quatloos some of them may have not intuited that I was over there testing the obfuscation waters. And also I was arguing with B. Rookard and Shoonra about the etymology of ATTORNEY around here. I think it is appropriate to argue here on this Topic thread. I argue that America in general - the citizens of the United States - of which status I presume you must be to pass a BAR exam, are all vassals in a modern banking feudal system. That the simple fact of mandatory income taxation on gain and profit; but extended to a full scope of wages and compensation, in itself-proves. (Thank you Ice for getting that argument back on topic. http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?threadid=3631 .)
I can however prove it many other ways and with very convincing resources. So long as I am willing to be tolerant of this dummy ignorance generated by these two Quatloos advocates. Which may get a little difficult considering I believe it to be an act. If not, they are both dissociated from reality. At least the one I find in libraries and other repositories.
So I will start by framing some contextual boundaries. There was an encroachment of bankruptcy upon the general common law in 1938. Since 1938 followed 1933 when a bankruptcy was declared in the States and United States, this brought about an era in which the federal common law began looking like competent common law (out in the States). Therefore be wary of these attorney types misguiding you Readers into thinking that rulings and opinions "in the courts" need to be cited to prove out the truth. Rulings and opinions in the courts since 1938 only prove the United States is in receivership. They are published in private copyrighted annotations to code.
So be wary:
Quote:
"BANKRUPTCY. The state or condition of a bankrupt.
2. Bankrupt laws are an encroachment upon the common law. The first in England was …" Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856.
I think as the argument develops we will all be able to keep cool. It will reveal both the obfuscating escapism and denial of the Quatloos mentality and many interesting and soundly provable resources to make the argument we live in a feudal banking system, predominated by Notice of Tenancy today. That the action of hiring an attorney is in fact, transfer of homage and tribute from one lord to another.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Note that I can step into any dreg Topic on Quatloos and easily double the View rate; sometimes quadruple it.
** I was napping and got a call. This new suitor misdialed and thought she was talking to the referring suitor. She began thanking me for the referral to David Merrill and when I asked her who she was told me her Internet handle (these two know each other by the handles). Well I about figured I must still be dreaming about then. So I asked her husband's name and quickly got it all figured out. Point being that I keep getting validation about my reality from what seem to be very wise people all over the country. Funny that people like Rookard and Shoonra are very articulate but cannot seem to grasp the Libel of Review as fluff wrapped around something much more substantial - the right to say, "No. Thank you." to contract presentments by Refusal for Cause. They seem to promote that like having the SSN and a DOB, there are private corporate fictions that can impose contracts upon men and women. Funny also that none of their judges will actually come out and say it that way. Once established appearance is restricted under Rule E(8) they all seem quite happy to allow the voluntary nature of contract obligations; at least that you can consider whether to sign up.
*** That notion was from a long time researcher, I will not mention his name. He did a lot of great research on jural societies, common law and non-statutory abatements at the UCLA and other law libraries a decade ago. Yesterday I heard he is recovering nicely from surgical removal of a brain tumor and has just made significant progress with a suit in State court about fictions not mixing with men and women. This morning I pondered if the brain tumor might have had anything to do with this fellows unusual understanding of law.
Last edited by David Merrill : 11-13-2005 at 04:17 PM.
Reason: add link
That's attorney types for ya. Making me follow my introduction with my own posting! Well, some people's kids. Maybe B. Rookard and Shoonra are preparing a proper answer/proof of service in debate [to treat the Internet as proper cognizance].
I have already grown impatient to start though. I will not be baited by the attorney sophistry but intend to point out spin and sophistry. Mainly around the application of attorn; to transfer homage and tribute from one lord (original estate properly "Lord" in monotheism) to another (the feudal system I intend to prove is in place).
The act of attornment (hiring power of attorney, even representing yourself) renders allocution empty. Some of you may know what I am saying. And I believe especially B. Rookard and Shoonra know just what I am saying.
Therefore the "courts" are non-judicial collection agents for the bankruptcy proceedings and even though a man can by law and code only be taxed on profit and gain (not the actual wages and compensation but dividends etc.), he is attorned by having representation into a domain where he is treated chattel for the bank note called birth certificate!
I love you attorney types. You teach so much in a single blurt.
Regards,
David Merrill.
That is introduction to a curious email I got the other day. I do not know who is talking but think maybe this journal/editorial is pretty widespread since 2003. The woman is making some, I feel misguided speculations about supposed alchemy between STRAWMAN name and English legal name in upper-and-lower case lettering. Because of the bonding against the legal name, whether it is bold type or not she really captured the reason her husband and her did not have to report to prison in the first couple paragraphs of the letter. [And therefore not understanding the bonding correctly, it would not surprise me if the attornment into the fiction finally caught up with this couple.]
From the email:
Quote:
Dear K:
Greetings !!! I wanted to explain a little more about the hearing of March 26, 2003, and talk about what happened. I didn't want to send it over the Internet because the FBI monitors all of our phone conversations. They had their man sitting in the courtroom at the table with the prosecutor. It is the FBI that is the Plaintiff in the case as an agency of the United States of America.
If you think back on it, the judge never once ordered me to do anything past, present or future. He once made an appeal to me stating "you have to stop using those." He was referring to the UCC filings. Notice he never ordered me to stop or mentioned that he was going to order me to stop, just a simple appeal. Why an appeal to me and not an order? I suspect that he was trying to tell me that they (UCC filings) are not accomplishing anything for us concerning the money issue and are not a part of the process we are seeking. They are probably causing a great deal of discomfort for many politicians we have placed upon them as "collateral" for dishonor they have committed.
The judge knows we are after the money issue and nothing else. He knows we are peaceful intellectuals and not involved in crime. Crime and “criminal offenses” are two different animals. No one escapes a criminal act such as murder, rape, assault, etc. I don't care who you are or what your status, if you commit a criminal act you can be tried in any court including one assembled by ordinary citizens in the event the authorities fail to act. Everything else is a “criminal offense” which is an act or omission against the regime. What this means is that you are presumed to be a subject owing allegiance and obedience to the crown and it's (private) codes (of conduct). These acts and omissions are purely political in nature, whereas crimes are truly evil acts and within the jurisdiction of the people. That was the lawful basis of the jurisdiction of lynch mobs of the past and still exists today.
Here are a few other oddities from the hearing. If you noticed, when I went on the record when the judge asked if I wanted to speak (allocution). I told him that I never knowingly and willfully committed any act or omission. with the intent to defraud or harm. Then I told him that I could not consent nor volunteer, meaning I would not consent to his administering any fine or punishment upon me. If you noticed, he didn't fine us nor did he have us arrested which he was required to do as soon as he pronounced judgment. What he did at the end was tell me I was a really good guy and then he stood up and stated, “we are dismissed.” The question is, who are “we” and “who” dismissed them? The answer is, each and every attorney in the room is the “we” and it was I that dismissed them. I dismissed them and their claim with my record statement during the allocution.
Also you heard him say that the $500 special assessment was payable immediately to the clerk of the court. In Rick's hearing it was $300. The words “payable immediately” are code words (term of art) to the officers of the court (attorney) to get out your checkbook. I have heard them before in Omaha and watched my attorney in a civil case tread straight for the clerks office and PAY. My attorney at the time told me if I didn’t pay immediately he would be in jail before sundown. Attorneys always come to court with a check book in their breast pocket... (emphasis mine)
In my opinion there are some misguided theories stated above. Nothing terribly fatal. Those aside the couple did not participate in the trial. There was no prima facie evidence of attorning or power of attorney - even representing themselves pro se. Being convicted (the legal persons they were expected to appear for at the trial) the woman simply announced that she had not been participating because she could not volunteer for it.
I know this sounds like "stretching it" upon the one lady's curious email. I know what she actually did because I have done it too. She is the woman, not the person and therefore no bonding upon her, the woman. Even though she was not expressing that by using true name and abating the nuisance for misnomer. She had to hire an attorney to represent her before the attorning to the new lord was complete. By not doing that (participation) she preserved that magical window when the judge is required to check for final consent and volunteering of a physical flesh and blood body; allocution. What is curious in the letter is that by paying the bond within an hour of the trial the couple caught the attorneys off guard. Meaning the attorneys became very nervous when 1) they discovered bond was paid up and 2) there was nobody attorning into the realm of "the Crown" (international banking) to face the jail time and fines upon the conviction.
Reverting to my thoughts, not hers here about international banking. Future securities floating upon the conviction would depend eventually upon somebody paying up and serving the time. That is why the attorneys were nervous. Honest banking would require that one or all the attorneys present do the penalty.
Quote:
So who does that leave as the guilty trustee* (the defendant) whose body will be imprisoned under any name? Probably the attorney types and most likely the prosecutor. They may have insider deals between them to share and spread the liability in the event that one of these deals flips. If you get the do***ent in early in the proceedings you will probably get the results the guy in Nevada got where the judge holds a hearing and tells the prosecutor “we aren’t trying this case.”
* See Form 56 attached. Some people who live in the legal entity virtually all the time would advocate the woman would have had to serve proper notification she is not the trustee for the STRAWMAN. I can see some wisdom in that and know of at least one man, like the couple who is supposed to be in prison for the evil twin. However I have no SSN, legal name or anything like that. Troubles opening? Try http://forum.suijuris.net/attachment...tachmentid=458
P.S. Later in the letter she says:
Quote:
Here is another thing to remember. Any time a judge stands up in a courtroom and says “We are dismissed,” he just abandoned the Court to whomever is left sitting excluding attorney types. He left the field of battle first. Whenever they arrest someone in a courtroom after a sentencing, the judge never leaves until the prisoner is “cuffed and stuffed” and taken away. I have watched it numerous times. Their actions speak louder than words. It is what they do that counts, and not what they say. After Rick's hearing, they all scattered. I made sure that me and you and Sue and Lori and Vic stayed in there until every clerk, marshal and attorney left. I was the last one out the door and it was caught on their cameras. (emphasis mine)
Now even with easily proven War and Emergency Powers laid down, wouldn't it be safe to say that the owner of the shop (courtroom) is traditionally last to leave the shop at the close of business?
Last edited by David Merrill : 11-13-2005 at 10:47 AM.
Reason: postscript
ATTORN. To turn. In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassals, or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate.
ATTORNEY - [Norm. attournon; torne, id. ; from tour, tourn, turn, change. One who takes the turn or place of another. See ATTORN and TURN.]
c.1303, from O.Fr. aturne "(one) appointed," pp. of aturner "to decree, assign, appoint," from a- "to" + turner "turn," from L. tornare (see turn). The legal L. form attornare influenced the spelling in Anglo-Fr. The sense is of "one appointed to represent another's interests." In English law, a private attorney was one appointed to act for another in business or legal affairs (usually for pay); an attorney at law or public attorney was a qualified legal agent in the courts of Common Law who prepared the cases for a barrister, who pleaded them (the equivalent of a solicitor in Chancery). So much a term of contempt in England that it was abolished by the Judicature Act of 1873 and merged with solicitor.
"Johnson observed that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney.' " [Boswell]
The double -t- is a mistaken 15c. attempt to restore a non-existent Latin original. Attorney general first recorded 1533 in sense of "legal officer of the state" (1292 in Anglo-Fr.), from Fr., hence the odd plural (subject first, adjective second).
So in summary I was able to stir up the argument that attorn only applied to actions in feudal times. My argument is that due to chattelizing people in international banking and utilizing bonds on mortgages, birth certificates and court judgments and convictions there is adaquate Notice of Tenancy (short of resolving the pseudonomania with capital integration we cannot own in allodium or even by land patent anymore. And even then real estate and motor vehicles are presumed property of the State) to qualify modern times feudal in nature. The attorn in attorney is quite appropriate by definition.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill : 11-13-2005 at 10:33 AM.
Reason: recap
I was hoping for immediate debate from Shoonra and Brian Rookard. Just as well they take the attorney approach (appearance) of acquiescence. On the other hand they may be preparing what they think is an insultinator approach. [And that is some fodder for them to cast right there; my speculation that the "appr" in approach is the same etymology as appearance - which cures all defects in jurisdiction. A full unconditional (unrestricted) appearance is an arraignment. If I am correct about these two Quatloos advocates being attornies, they understand that already.] On the other hand they may be casting about and spinning my wild speculations and half-concocted theories already on the Internet record into a string of insults for me to try explaining away. Having a near-firsthand record available to me tends to cause the presumption you all know better than to consider the Internet a primary source for facts. Therefore I have said a lot of things covered by an amusing bumper-sticker I saw, "Do not believe everything you think."
Readers be well-warned I will stay on point. The argument attorning has nothing to do with attornies is way too substantial an anchor for explaining banking history. I will not entertain the slurs. My objective is to lay down some of the more frail substantive arguments that outline the banking infrastructure like with the email from the couple above first and then to back up those observations with substantial history from Public Law and Congressional Records. Therefore there is another distinct possibility that Shoonra and B.Rookard are just interested. They have been trying to get me to do this on their terms for a bit now:
Brian Rookard said on Quatloos:
Quote:
Translation For The Unitiated: David Merrill (Van Pelt) has no proof. He is used to having his assertions accepted without question in the safety of the tax protestor forums he haunts. However, here he is asked to actually prove or support his claims. Needless to say, he's finding that to be a little difficult here.
[One of the favorites on Quatloos is the rumor that George Washington was shot through-and-through in an early battle of the Revolution and that Adam Weishaupt dawned his bloody uniform and returned from the battle to save the cause. Well this rumor actually finds support in the two distinct facial structures found in the Mason library. http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...-Weishaupt.jpg I found that interesting enough to speculate about. A fuller account of the rumor can be found among many other fictional tidbits in The Illuminatus Trilogy by Robert Anton WILSON and Robert SHEA.]
The composition here may be pretty monologue. But the Views column tells me there are enough Readers to make it worthwhile. I will move to an issue at the heart of attorneys in America - the de jure Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
In Colorado at the State Archives several of the first Sessions Laws for the territory have survived. In 1861 is found the Constitution prefacing the law book and in it the Bill of Rights (Amendments) ends with the de jure Thirteenth Amendment. [De jure v. de facto is the same as saying by law v. in fact.] I have filed a certified copy of this bill with my local clerk at (719) 520-6200 at Book 6744; Page 969. So many people order it up nowadays that it is the only do***ent taped to the cubicle wall for easy finding. I suppose a lot of Readers were calling without the reception number. In 1865 or so there is a curious revision to the Amendments. The Slavery Amendments, now the de facto Thirteenth Amendment appears after the Title of Nobility Amendment as the Fourteenth Amendment! Then by about 1869 the Civil Rights Fourteenth Amendment has replaced the Slavery Amendment in the Fourteenth Amendment slot and the Slavery Amendment sits in the Thirteenth Amendment slot. Someday soon I may do***ent the decade of peculiar events and make that as available. Problem is I am already convinced that such a slew of clerical errors could never have happened nearly four decades after the Amendment was never properly ratified in 1819.
This all is supported by so much more historical do***entation. I am reading Our Country by LOSSING (about 8" of history book published in 1874) sequentially but may jump ahead if I need more support. But the fact is that in August of 1814 the Library of Congress was destroyed by the enemy in during the War of 1812. The Title of Nobility Amendment was first seriously proposed at the end of 1811. And a careful look about the War of 1812 is that it was never decided.
In debating the ratification of the de jure Thirteenth Amendment on Quatloos some folks link Readers to convincing arguments; all written by attornies and substantiated by citations by yet other attorneys.
Well isn't that interesting!
Regards,
David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill : 11-14-2005 at 07:17 AM.
Reason: additions
Well, let's see ... David has supposedly posted the definition of "attorn" and "attorney" from the original 1828 edition of Webster's.
However, David must think that people don't check his sources ... or that others don't know how to look things up online.
Here is what David posted as the definition of "attorn" from Websters ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
ATTORN. To turn. In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassals, or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate.
Indeed, this definition is pretty much the definition as cited in the 1828 edition of Websters.
HOWEVER, when it comes to the definition of "attorney" ... David has apparently taken a few liberties ...
Here's what David claims the dictionary says ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
ATTORNEY - [Norm. attournon; torne, id. ; from tour, tourn, turn, change. One who takes the turn or place of another. See ATTORN and TURN.]
And here's what the online version says in relevant part ...
Quote:
One who is appointed or admitted in the place of another, to manage his matters in law. The word formerly signified any person who did business for another; but its sense is now chiefly or wholly restricted to persons who act as substitutes for the persons concerned, in prosecuting and defending actions before courts of justice, or in transacting other business in which legal rights are involved. The word answers to the procurator, (proctor,) of the civilians.
By the way, the citation online doesn't have the reference to "attorn" and "turn".
Which should make one wonder whether David added it to suit his purposes.
But David would never lie and stretch the truth.
David was able to quote the definition of "attorn" verbatim. And the online version matches what David said.
However, when it came to the definition of "attorney" ... David DID NOT quote it accurately.
Why?
Wonderful! Appearance by B. Rookard noted. [For all Internet court is worth.]
First is the opinion that B. Rookard considers my credibility on line online; great pun. So noted that I do not feel that way.
Quote:
But David would never lie and stretch the truth.
When I have said:
Quote:
Having a near-firsthand record available to me tends to cause the presumption you all know better than to consider the Internet a primary source for facts. Therefore I have said a lot of things covered by an amusing bumper-sticker I saw, "Do not believe everything you think."
In addition I have referred to Internet Yarn many times as pretty much garbage-in, garbage-out. Please contrast that to B. Rookard's inference for you to draw my reputation for honesty is on the line here even at such a finely structured forum as suijuris. Many times, especially on ecclesia.org I warn the reader that entertainment value in my speculations is important and that if the Readers do not have a properly adjusted sense of Rules of Evidence, in my opinion they get what they deserve (often referring them to exceptions to the hearsay rule [around Rule 804] for edification.
So I would rather B. Rookard contest that the Territorial Laws do***ent the Thirteenth Amendment in the 1860s manner I presented. That might cause me to go to Denver to prove it out and maybe even share that with you Readers. Very much in my writing is the excitement of wondering what the real truth is. That is what this Topic is about. My version of reality is so different from the attorning mentality I am actually starting with fairly flimsey testimony and evidence in order to build up later with sturdier evidence. The purpose? Keep you Readers entertained while I do it!
Case in Point.
If B. Rookard is correct that the direct reference to ATTORN in Webster's 1827 Encyclopedic Dictionary has been removed from the definition of ATTORNEY, that pretty much makes my point for me. Do not solely explore the Internet to make a final judgment or opinion in your court. Fortunately I have a copy of the dictionary right here. Photograph attached. Do you suppose maybe an attorney was involved?
Regards,
David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill : 11-14-2005 at 07:50 AM.
Reason: corrections
