Removal of Lien

[rottweiler]

Last night I was going to post the testimony of a guy who had a NOFTL removed but I checked the public record and sure enough a new one was in it's place.

If a Libel of Review at the federal level was unanswered by the IRS and if they continued to file NOFTL's how could a suitor actually make the IRS pay damages? I have also read that the Recorder of the NOFTL can be made to pay. That is why I said be prepared for the sheeple because just when you think you have killed them, they keep coming.

Here are two potential scenarios. What are the options?

1)Man writes the contract to sell his home for so many US Notes. Wouldn't a mortgage and Title Insurance for the buyer be unattainable? Seems like this won't fly.

2)If the man uses a real estate agent the Title insurance company would hold back some of the proceeds due to a NFTL that the man had thought was extinguished (I read somewhere that they will hold it up to 6 months before turning it over to the IRS).

What in your opinion would make the most sense? A Libel of Review at the federal level immediately after the withholding by the Title Company or whomever holds the funds back?

Is their a way to convert the withheld portion to US Notes so they must release it?

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The Certificate of UCC-11 is unnecessary when the county clerk and recorder behaves according to law. Suitors have sat in his office and he has said, We hope people are not filing junk with us but we do not make any legal determinations.

Some suitors have more than three UCC-3 adjustments in place and they work every time for removing Notice of Federal Tax Liens. The problem is that many brokers, bankers and employers will call up the IRS and the agent being alerted, will run right back down there to the clerk and recorder's office and file another NTFL - telling the diverter of the funds to fear the IRS. Any attorney looking at the UCC-3 will protect the lien process and of course, attorn the man or woman as the chattel in Fed mortgage...

See that Chattel Mortgages article attached above. The interesting part to me is the common law notice and grace - recording.

You have a good point about sheeple Rottweiller. But I refuse to defeat the kingdom of heaven over a mentality. On earth as it is in heaven does not in my mind refer to a future time... However when the critical mass is revealed to break into that paradigm shift when the masses discover the image of God within, then we will have the Messianic Age.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...elCalendar.jpg



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

I hope you got a listen to that audio file I added P.S. to my last post.

If a Libel of Review at the federal level was unanswered by the IRS and if they continued to file NOFTL's how could a suitor actually make the IRS pay damages?

That is the function and purpose of Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B):

(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 warrant for arrest of vessel or other property is subject action. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.

The problem is that the federal judges (taxpaying magistrates) turn a blind eye to the clerk behaving like a judge and saying that "plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney" actually means US attorneys and federal judges. See attachment:

Logically, interfering with a man's right of arrest is inciting a riot* and ripe for the provost marshal, even off base. However when four suitors went to the provost marshal, he ran to the JAG who said since it was off-base, they had no jurisdiction...

Any ideas?


Regards,

David Merrill.

* Note how the right to make an arrest ended the Salem Witch Hunt according to a respected historian.

[rottweiler]

I just now listened to the audio attachment, I did not see it before you mentioned it. The point that the attornies are the worst victims of mind control is well taken. They are the head zombies. One could also say they are practicing witchcraft and possessed by the devil. I don't want to get too far off point but I think it might be possible that a state national can get a passport and maintain status. I stopped my research a couple days ago but I was looking at the application online the other day. A SS# is not absolutely required.

I have no ideas on how to get the system to arrest itself.

[rottweiler]

I notice in the letter someone requested a arrest. Was it the result of a process similar to your generic counterclaim posted here?
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...-courts-2.html

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Logically, interfering with a man's right of arrest is inciting a riot* and ripe for the provost marshal, even off base. However when four suitors went to the provost marshal, he ran to the JAG who said since it was off-base, they had no jurisdiction...

Any ideas?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[rottweiler]

I also noticed in the letter that the clerk mentioned that only a judge can issue a order for in personam arrest.

Rule C is entitled "Actions in Rem: Special Provisions"

Can you post the arrest order? Did the suitor specifically order the arrest in personam or in rem?

Damn, that reminds me of the Carl Miller video I posted where he claims a writ of quo warranto can be used to dissolve a whole city if their agents continue to act unconstitutionally. He says he used it to free Dr. Kervorkian. Maybe we should start a group to dissolve the defacto US government.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Maybe we should start a group to dissolve the defacto US government.

That would be simply to create de jure government. De facto government only exists during emergency. The emergency began March 28, 1861.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I notice in the letter someone requested a arrest. Was it the result of a process similar to your generic counterclaim posted here?
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...-courts-2.html

No. It was a result of the generic counterclaim. That is just what I called the file though; it is a Libel of Review in admiralty and when I glanced at the link you provided, I did not see the file.

So I am gathering you are actually asking me if the letter, resulting from a suitor issuing arrest warrants and Katherine refusing to execute them, was a result of something similar to the Libel of Review. Therefore the answer is No.

There is something persistently off about your inquiries Rottweiller. I wanted to answer Yes; that the letter was a result of a Libel of Review, called generic counterclaim in my computer. But it turns out the answer is actually No. I just had to be careful around your question.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[aksis]

David, did the suitor make a Motion for Arrest? And if so, did that work?

In my mind, it kind of changes the role of the suitor, making Motions rather then giving Orders... yet if the clerk issues a warrent on a Motion rather then an Order then the goal is accomplished.

[rottweiler]

I would of just attached your file under post #18 entitled generic counterclaim
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...-courts-2.html
but I can't quite figure out how. You asked if I had any ideas and the only thing I could think of is to look at the document you submitted requesting arrest of the offending party. Can you scan it and post a sanitized version?

There has to be remedy for the continual refiling of the NFTL, the IRS should be forced to file suit or drop the matter.

Now if you can't understand a post just reread it until you do, it works for me because believe me your posts are not the pinnacle of lucidity.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

No. It was a result of the generic counterclaim. That is just what I called the file though; it is a Libel of Review in admiralty and when I glanced at the link you provided, I did not see the file.

So I am gathering you are actually asking me if the letter, resulting from a suitor issuing arrest warrants and Katherine refusing to execute them, was a result of something similar to the Libel of Review. Therefore the answer is No.

There is something persistently off about your inquiries Rottweiller. I wanted to answer Yes; that the letter was a result of a Libel of Review, called generic counterclaim in my computer. But it turns out the answer is actually No. I just had to be careful around your question.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by aksis

David, did the suitor make a Motion for Arrest? And if so, did that work?

In my mind, it kind of changes the role of the suitor, making Motions rather then giving Orders... yet if the clerk issues a warrent on a Motion rather then an Order then the goal is accomplished.

One thing about being a court of competent jurisdiction is not moving courts pretending to be. And not taking legal advice from somebody like Katherine too.

One day in the quiet repository Katherine was shouting at me about not providing last name for a Certificate of Search. She was shouting so loud that the prospective suitor heard her from the cell phone speaker, ready for a good fight stood up and handed me $500 on her behavior saying, "Let's do it." That is some insight into Katherine's legislating rules in the US district court.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._falsified.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._corrected.jpg

After a bit I reported the falsification with $350 to Congress requesting they hear it, and the clerk in Denver quit Katherine's falsifications. Good thing about it is that it taught us we did not need to actually provide the certificate, just the means (telephone #) for the defendant to order it.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Rottweiller; it is just so consistent with you that I am not taking the time to decipher your posts anymore. If I just blurt what I think you mean, I will end up saying something else anyway. And if I am careful, then the Readers just get confused because they do not see the syntax trick.