You sound like a classical identity thief. You are saying I am not in control of legal name? At any rate you insist on posting in the wrong thread so I just figure you hope to distract Readers from how Bob Shultz is handling his flopped appeal.
Your second sentence shows delirium or a poor reader retention. When do you think the National Grand Jury about war powers was held?
Maybe that is why you are blabbering here on this thread; the WTP Appeal was about redress of grievances like the 1995 jury.
So long as the Readers can understand the timeline. The alleged signing was twelve years ago and the Post says that particular legal name has been out of use for ten years as of about two years ago.
So the question is do I have the right to control what I have and do not have?
No, you don't have the right to control what you do not have. But, that is just more of your usual obfuscation and baloney.
What did you expect from a guy who doesn't believe in (or endorse) money?
I bet that's what he tells his daughter when it comes time to cough up the child support.
"Sorry, sweetheart, but daddy doesn't endorse Federal Reserve Notes. Here, take these liberty dollars instead. What's that? The only person who will redeem them is that strange militia man in Montana? Well, daddy would give you a ride but as you know he had his scooter taken away from him because of 9-11. Now, now..don't cry...Daddy promises the minute he wins his court case against Jesus he'll make sure you never want for anything again."
Drill weekend sucked, boys and girls.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
David Merrill wrote:So long as the Readers can understand the timeline. The alleged signing was twelve years ago and the Post says that particular legal name has been out of use for ten years as of about two years ago.
Lying [jerk].
[Edited by LPC in a calmer moment.]
Last edited by LPC on Mon May 21, 2007 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
P.S. Classical projection: Case # U.S.-95-3 She is making up the dates to fit his own mistaken timeline...
LPC wrote:
David Merrill wrote:So long as the Readers can understand the timeline. The alleged signing was twelve years ago and the Post says that particular legal name has been out of use for ten years as of about two years ago.
. wrote:The question is the one you refuse to answer: Did you sign the name Van Pelt when you claimed that you haven't used that name in over 10 years?
The voices in Van Pelt's head that Van Pelt forgot about wrote:
I have signed nothing "David M. Van Pelt" for well over a decade.
Rock => Van Pelt <= Hard place.
Maybe the Motor Scooter has taken to signing itself "Van Pelt"?
David Merrill wrote:What I find somewhat interesting is all your denial does not seem to get boring to some of you.
What about Bob?
Regards,
David Merrill.
Bob is in deep doodoo.
He lost his "LANDMARK RIGHT TO PETITION" case unless (which has a lower probablility than hell freezing over) the Supreme Court reviews it.
He is facing civil actions regarding his personal income tax filings (actually, the lack thereof).
Within a very short time, he will be defending the WTP's 501(c)(3) tax exemption against revocation for multiple reasons -- the least of which is his failure to file the mandatory annual financial statements.
Bob is history. The only thing left for him is another death fast. If the government has any sense, they won't interfere in this one.
. wrote:The question is the one you refuse to answer: Did you sign the name Van Pelt when you claimed that you haven't used that name in over 10 years?
The voices in Van Pelt's head that Van Pelt forgot about wrote:
I have signed nothing "David M. Van Pelt" for well over a decade.
Rock => Van Pelt <= Hard place.
Maybe the Motor Scooter has taken to signing itself "Van Pelt"?
I thought the government claimed the scooter because of 9-11.
Did the scooter manage to secure its own release?
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
