Right to Travel Part 100

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra by hearsay

Since everyone is suddenly so keen on the canons of statutory construction, I'm surprised that nobody remembers one of the most basic rules: Words in common usage are generally interpreted according to their common meaning, not some arcane meaning (i.e. the meaning in ordinary dictionaries, not law dictionaries), unless there is a strong indication that something else is intended.

This is exactly the kind of misdirection that keeps Shoonra on my Ignore List. She comes up with a maxim and it is quite contrary to the collections process.

I utilized a mixture of the definitions found in the Colorado Revised Statutes for Vehicle (non-commercial) and Motor Vehicle (commercial) but had to resort to common definitions in law dictionaries for common carrier and commercial carrier to prove a motorcycle was not required to have current registration in commerce. So that there would be no objection, I notified the witness, DA and traffic court of the definitions and questions quite specifically weeks before I was in trial with the witness on the stand.

The moment I began to depend on the definitions outside the C.R.S. the prosecutor objected and the attorney in the black robe sustained the objection. Then the judge would not let me resort to the C.R.S. for definition. She would not grant a recess for me to go downstairs into the law library and she would not loan me her copy there on the bench. My plan to get the facts on the record for the appeal failed because I was depending on trash like Shoonra is spouting.

I warn you all not to listen to Shoonra parrot the collections procedures of the Bank and Fund to you. She is quite trained in the attornment misdirection and words of art. You are best off to put her on your Ignore List as well as exercise your right to avoid courts that have no jurisdiction.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This is exactly the kind of misdirection that keeps Shoonra on my Ignore List. She comes up with a maxim and it is quite contrary to the collections process.

I utilized a mixture of the definitions found in the Colorado Revised Statutes for Vehicle (non-commercial) and Motor Vehicle (commercial) but had to resort to common definitions in law dictionaries for common carrier and commercial carrier to prove a motorcycle was not required to have current registration in commerce. So that there would be no objection, I notified the witness, DA and traffic court of the definitions and questions quite specifically weeks before I was in trial with the witness on the stand.

The moment I began to depend on the definitions outside the C.R.S. the prosecutor objected and the attorney in the black robe sustained the objection. Then the judge would not let me resort to the C.R.S. for definition. She would not grant a recess for me to go downstairs into the law library and she would not loan me her copy there on the bench. My plan to get the facts on the record for the appeal failed because I was depending on trash like Shoonra is spouting.

I warn you all not to listen to Shoonra parrot the collections procedures of the Bank and Fund to you. She is quite trained in the attornment misdirection and words of art. You are best off to put her on your Ignore List as well as exercise your right to avoid courts that have no jurisdiction.


Regards,

David Merrill.

I concur with you on this one David. Obviously Shoonra did not take the time to check out the meaning of 'common'. The word 'common' taken at its' face value, would render 99.9% of all currently written laws to be in violation of that same canon that she attempts to use as a foundation for her argument.


" Words in common usage are generally interpreted according to their common meaning, "

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This is exactly the kind of misdirection that keeps Shoonra on my Ignore List. She comes up with a maxim and it is quite contrary to the collections process.

I utilized a mixture of the definitions found in the Colorado Revised Statutes for Vehicle (non-commercial) and Motor Vehicle (commercial) but had to resort to common definitions in law dictionaries for common carrier and commercial carrier to prove a motorcycle was not required to have current registration in commerce. So that there would be no objection, I notified the witness, DA and traffic court of the definitions and questions quite specifically weeks before I was in trial with the witness on the stand.

The moment I began to depend on the definitions outside the C.R.S. the prosecutor objected and the attorney in the black robe sustained the objection. Then the judge would not let me resort to the C.R.S. for definition. She would not grant a recess for me to go downstairs into the law library and she would not loan me her copy there on the bench. My plan to get the facts on the record for the appeal failed because I was depending on trash like Shoonra is spouting.

I warn you all not to listen to Shoonra parrot the collections procedures of the Bank and Fund to you. She is quite trained in the attornment misdirection and words of art. You are best off to put her on your Ignore List as well as exercise your right to avoid courts that have no jurisdiction.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Following all the above-mentioned actions, David Merrill then went to the police impound yard and paid ALL the charges associated with recovering his motor scooter.

To those who follow David Merrill's advice: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter herein."

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

.....The moment I began to depend on the definitions outside the C.R.S. the prosecutor objected and the attorney in the black robe sustained the objection. Then the judge would not let me resort to the C.R.S. for definition. She would not grant a recess for me to go downstairs into the law library and she would not loan me her copy there on the bench. My plan to get the facts on the record for the appeal failed because I was depending on trash like Shoonra is spouting....


....Regards,

David Merrill.

What was the reasoning behind the objection (other than the prosecutor wanting to bias the proceeding and hiding relevant testimony)?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

I concur with you on this one David. Obviously Shoonra did not take the time to check out the meaning of 'common'. The word 'common' taken at its' face value, would render 99.9% of all currently written laws to be in violation of that same canon that she attempts to use as a foundation for her argument.


" Words in common usage are generally interpreted according to their common meaning, "

Exactly! Every statute would have to be preceeded with an enacting clause in the common law. And the Attorney General would be ignored for running a vacant office according to the Constitution he so ignorantly decided to swear to uphold 90 days, not within thirty days of taking office.

Section 18. Enacting clause. The style of the laws of this state shall be: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado".

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...9;_AG_oath.jpg

Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of
the office upon which he shall be about to enter.

Section 9. Oaths - where filed. Officers of the executive department and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been elected.

Section 10. Refusal to qualify - vacancy. If any person elected or appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant.

According to the Colorado constitution county courts are not courts of record too!

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

Section 23. Trial by jury - grand jury. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases; but a jury in civil cases in all courts, or in criminal cases in courts not of record, may consist of less than twelve persons, as may be prescribed by law. Hereafter a grand jury shall consist of twelve persons, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment; provided, the general assembly may change, regulate or abolish the grand jury system; and provided, further, the right of any person to serve on any jury shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex, and the general assembly may provide by law for the exemption from jury service of persons or classes of persons.

Then some bozo in a black robe with an attorney registration # blurts that 1) An omnibus act covers all legislation in the Colorado Revised Statutes once a year - that people do not need to know on the face of a statute wherefrom it was legislated. 2) That since the People most likely elected the District Attorney (and principal Attorney General) into the office there is no need for him to conform to the constitution which he swore to uphold, and 3) Since there is a tape recorder going in the hearings, county courts are courts of record too. One need not conform to the constitutional requirements of a court of record for it to be a court of record.

And we have AndyK and Shoonra here to parrot the party line. Well if you have not the sense to put them and others on your Ignore List, you deserve to be confused about courts of competent jurisdiction! You know what? The intrepid suitor who prodded the Secretary of State into contacting John Suthers about that oath is wiser than me; you never hear him wasting his time writing here*. He just peacefully lives in his sovereign state. Hmmm.... maybe I will wise up soon.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

* This morning he broadcast (to other suitors):

The BASIS For The STATE's Crazy Determination Against Roger .... Is NOT Their Reasoning!


"Jan. 17th 1999 "Sir. are you the defendant?" something like that or "What's your name? Okay? Elvick does the perfect mirror image right back to the judge and took over.
------
He says. "Well sir, what is your name? Question number 1. Because Elvick understands the Judge is trying to write an agreement; the first thing you need in
an agreement is the name of the second party. Okay?


So the first thing you do is get the name so the record is set there. So Elvick says: "Well what is your name?" and then the issue is (can't decipher) Elvicks also going on this principle of agreements -- the third type -- if somebody fails to respond in protest, you have in essence got a default agreement with them. So the first thing he gets is the name. Now if the judge won't give his name, then Elvick goes ahead anyway with question number two because if somebody fails to respond or is standing mute it literally means your in control and they're waving their rights.


Question number 2: "Do you have a claim against me?" Now if the judge comes back and says anything then you've got to adapt to what's going on.. But basically the judge is never going to admit that he has a claim because then he becomes the prosecuting party and he doesn't want to be in that position. So he'll either stand mute or he will decline to answer the question or most likely he may come back and say "well this doesn't involve me"... or he's going to try to do a demur to
what's going on.

Audience question: "At that point could you not now say "Please let the record reflect that the judge has no claim against me?" (Editor -- NO!!!)

Yes and No. Here's part of the problem. They're in a record court and that's one thing I wanted to research because we usually want to make sure that records reflect certain things. But this issue from Elvick is that theirs is a record statutory, legislative court. Your's is a non-record court because what this guy is doing is common law proceeding. And i'll talk about what Elvick's doing in a minute. So he isn't (in) a court of record per se. Common Law is not necessarily a court of record; it just does what it does under the authority of law. So he doesn't want to establish - quote - unquote -- like a record of proceedings. He is doing the damn thing, he ain't talking about doing it.

So the second issue is: "Do you have a claim against me?" Getting no response or a non-responsive response, he goes on to question number 3. "Do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?" Now, he didn't say any "person" or "anybody that" -- it's anyone "who" has a claim against me. He is talking about a non-fiction, living human. Which is the difference between common law and the statutory world. In the statutory world, they're dealing entirely with fictions and corporate entities. So what he's doing is he's living and breathing the real world here. he's not pleading into a fiction or a legislative venue which is the major legislative premise. Okay? Anyone who has a claim against me. Now if he gets a "No" answer or a non-responsive answer then he goes on.

1st question: "What is your name?" - 2nd question "Do you have a claim against me?" -

Third question - "Do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?" -

NOW 4th position is a statement:

"I request the order of the court be released unto me immediately."

Now, let me explain what "order" is.

These people are all acting under the major premise of a legislative venue. They MUST have delegation of orders that give them any authority to do anything they're doing. And obviously, once he's gone through the first 3 questions: The name, the claim, know anyone who has a claim. If there's a non-response then nobody has come forward with a claim against the one asking the questions.

Audience question: Okay, so when your speaking of the "Order", that's referring to a delegation
of authority then?

Answer: well, it is whatever anybody's attempting to move on. Okay? Now here's where Elvick's commercial background comes in. Okay? The United States bifurcated military. The sale, the motivating drive behind the military to protect. And in order to protect it must have funds to pay the protectors. So it operates as a commercial enterprise. And it taxes commercial commerce to exact the funds to sustain itself. The commercial enterprise...

So when he courageously Refused for Cause a presentment on the clipboard the officer demanded he give back his copy of the (failed) agreement. Then the officer wrote up a new one, marked it Refused to Sign and shoved it back into the van window while running off!

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...and_Decree.rtf

The fellow seems smarter than to spend his time around here with Shoonra and AndyK though. These collection agent/parrots are really quite dangerous - especially if you have something to lose.

We have freedom of speech here on suijuris.net and that is good. But you really have to consider it wise to utilize the Ignore List function. I wish everybody would just let these trolls spout their party line into empty cyberspace!

[David Merrill]

I apologize - repeat post. I got a little worked up and started jockeying my mouse to the wrong buttons.

[UGA Lawdog]

Originally Posted by AndyK

Following all the above-mentioned actions, David Merrill then went to the police impound yard and paid ALL the charges associated with recovering his motor scooter.

To those who follow David Merrill's advice: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter herein."

But Andy, David Merrill at least has the excuse of not being entirely sane.

Some other person following his advice might not have that excuse.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

What was the reasoning behind the objection (other than the prosecutor wanting to bias the proceeding and hiding relevant testimony)?

Basically the objection was that he did not have a copy of the law dictionaries I was referring to. I expected that providing the definitions and questions with citations weeks in advance had given him plenty of time to research. Instead he simply knew when his queue was to object and it really seemed quite rehearsed that the judge sustained the objection.

My Ignore List is currently:

1) UGA Lawdog
2) Shoonra
3) Skeptic62
4) Lawyerdude
5) Judge Roy Bean
6) AndyK
7) B Rookard

I believe some of these folks have been banished; I don't know exactly why because they were on my Ignore List.

[pyroman1]

It seems these are the issues that people have: a) getting courts to admit that they are violating the law (as most members on this site believe) or b) fighting laws which you believe to be inaccurate enforced which are actually not (as Shoonra, JRB, UGA, etc. would have you believe)

I find myself wondering why we waste our lives fighting within their system? Why do we not instead follow the lead of our founding fathers? Read my sig to see what I mean.