Diverted topic split - A poor Quatloser indeed!

[Doktor Avalanche]

David has e-published many instances where he allegedly contacted people facing prosecution and provided advice to them.

He has also opined on many court losses, explaining in detailed word-salad how his procedures could have averted the negative outcome.

However, he has never, not even once, provided a verifiable example of how his advice has helped anyone.

He can't even explain how his legal knowledge has even helped him win a single one of his own cases. The closest he has ever come to a victory was not being imprisoned for elder abuse because his mother refused to follow through with her complaint against him.

His career batting average is 0.000. His career record is zero wins, many losses, and one rain-out.

It's also noteworthy to point out that his local courthouse is zero impressed with his legal skills and has put him on a permanent Not Allowed To Practice Law list.

[David Merrill]

Tolerance doesn't mean approval. It just means that we are going to extend the same rights that we want for ourself.

Yet my posts get deleted?

You guys are pretty entertaining - you have a website about alleged scams and you delete the links and links to the law.


Regards,

David Merrill.

You sound whiney today... all of you.

I noticed this.

"The FRNs she gave me were lawful money!" David Merrill Van Pelt, 6/10/2007 (after spending weeks arguing that FRNs are not lawful money).

If only this pilot fellow had seen my videos. He might have understood remedy years ago and solved a lot of his IRS problems!



Regards,

David Merrill.

(Ed. Links to scam promotional materials deleted.)

P.S. Nevermind - I found it pulled aside:

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5439

[David Merrill]

It's also noteworthy to point out that his local courthouse is zero impressed with his legal skills and has put him on a permanent Not Allowed To Practice Law list.

Even if that is so, I do not practice law. Never have.

[David Merrill]

My description of the 1913 remedy found in the Fed Act being helpful was meant along these lines:

Yes. But would "bringing forth the testimony" in the way you suggest make sense to the uneducated LEO at the roadside who loses his/her comfort zone of "normal procedure" when a sovereign provides documentation that he/she sees as either bogus or a threat? I understand that the documentation and "testimony" itself is proper and lawful, but "johnny law" doesn't have a clue. If it were just Me alone I would employ this method of proper documentation and bringing testimony. However, as i have said before, I have little ones who I do not wish to traumatize. I would rather use a method that "johnny law" can easily understand, whether it be conventional or not, so as to avoid unnecessary conflict. This is why I am also trying to devise a "bringing forth of testimony" method as suggested in my previous posts. Those of us who do not have the specific documents you have provided here as your "testimony" must either duplicate what you have done, use what you have documented or devise a method which achieves the same goal and results. I am open to any and either method which will accomplish a peaceable encounter while not divesting one iota of my sovereign character, standing and freedom.

Most, if not all, of the required steps have been implemented by Me to achieve this. The right method for Me in this situation is all that is left. What "Stuff" do I file into court. That is a question I must answer according to my situation.

Any advice or suggestion is welcome.

My preference is to NOT contract with the STATE and be in honor and responsible for my actions. If I can achieve this without the probability of subjecting my children to a traumatizing event, then I will employ it.

BTW. On the Registration Reminder, do you mean to say that no actual money was sent in, and only the words "paid for in redeemed lawful money..." were written on the Registration Reminder?

thanks.

The bond you likely hold while traveling is called insurance. It is a policy and authorizes you to be operating heavy machinery that can maim or kill others in your path. That is the authorization right there, you make judgments, dynamic judgments of life and death - decisions and they are authorized by your ability to recompense for mistakes - errors in judgment.

The insurance is your bond. The insurance company expects the state to train you about rules of the road and therefore likely has notified you that to cover your vehicle you must be certain not to allow unlicensed drivers to operate it. [We find that this doctrine falters with Deadbeat Dads, Non-filers for State Income Tax and soforth being denied licenses - but ignore that for the pure, original intent.] So let the truth be told and you will likely not offend the police officer, and you will protect your bonding, thus your sovereign authority. I am going through a similar point about renaming yourself whatever you feel like - great, and you can be sovereign in your own living room if you never go outside...

http://synworks.net/thinkfree/viewtopic ... 9&start=70

The moment somebody has a valid claim, and you have not bonded coverage, you become the claim and it goes into court and you have to pay fines to the state in addition to jail time.

No bond. No authority.

So you might well get a license signed in your true name. This is the truth. Get a Certificate of Fact from the US district court showing that the US has no record of any claims being made against you. Take that Certificate of Fact as a summary adjudication and publish it with your county clerk and recorder - in the eastern states that would be Register of Deeds as an extension of the county courts - sometimes called superior court. This way you can get certified copies for about $1.

Since you have a common middle name as a last name there may be several litigants in that full or legal name, no matter; the officer would be required to identify the cause and judgment upon which he is proceeding in the cause of the central bank's private credit.

Of course you redeem lawful money and are not pulled into that mess. What the police officer understands is you identified yourself to be Anthony Joseph and he has a Certificate of Fact that nobody has filed a cause against you in the district courts of the US. Let's say your family name is SMITH. He might write out a ticket for Anthony Joseph SMITH but it would feel incorrect according to his training because when you handed the license to him you pointed out:

Anthony Joseph: Notice that my name is Anthony Joseph - like you see signed here at the bottom. I am not giving you that license for identification purposes, because my name is not SMITH, ANTHONY JOSEPH like it says there for you. Here is a Certificate of Fact about my name from the US district court too. You can keep that if you want.

Officer: Is this a valid driver license?

Anthony Joseph: Yes. And I am only showing it to you for competency purposes. I want you to know I am competent to be operating a vehicle on the roadways and that my insurance company will cover any accidents and injury I might cause.

Officer: Is this a valid ID?

Anthony Joseph: It misidentifies me to be Anthony Joseph SMITH; my name is Anthony Joseph, like I have signed at the bottom there. What is your name?

Officer: I am Officer Jones.

Anthony Joseph: I am asking that and memorizing that you are Officer Jones because no matter how many officers there are here milling around speaking to me, I am identifying you as the Stopping Officer and expect if you give me a ticket it will be you signing it and if I take this to court I want you to remember how I identified myself here today. Is that fair?

Officer: Yes. That sounds like a reasonable expectation for you.

Anthony Joseph: If you issue a citation I want you to keep that Certificate of Fact in your paperwork. I can get another one from the court clerk for a dollar, don't worry about keeping it. I want that entered into the court with your papers and mentioned in your report on the backside of the citation. Can you do that for me too please?

Officer: Of course. No problem sir.

Anthony Joseph: Thank you.

Now what has transpired is the officer testifies. He will likely decline from giving you the citation for one thing, you have informed him he will be spending half or all day sometime in the future sitting around the courthouse at a trial. His sergeant has expressed that if it is not a serious offense, decline summoning a driver. Nextly, he will have a problem filling in LAST NAME on the form. He will be reconciling it with your true name and it may not feel right because he is forging something out of a presumption you identified yourself with the state's driver license.

Lastly, he is a revenue collection agent for that private credit system of the central bank in admiralty and international law and you redeem lawful money and have for some time. You have provided evidence with the Certificate of Search that no central banker has filed in the US district court, any cause against Anthony Joseph and therefore he has failed to state a claim against you for which relief can be granted - according to rules of court. You have not arraigned yourself with endorsement of private credit from the Fed, have you? Therefore you remain innocent of engaging in false balances - elastic currency - until you prove yourself guilty, or he can prove you guilty. Main point being that he is already speaking with attorneys and his CO on the radio and will likely never issue the summons. Or maybe he will issue it and the attorneys will look over the paperwork before submitting it to the court and discover what you did.

More importantly is that the papers will not go to the courthouse by law for at least three days.

This provides your Three Days Grace to Refuse for Cause the contract. The main reason is misnomer. You cannot be arraigned because pleadings can be abated for misnomer. If they proceed, you issue an abatement for misnomer and that is another story on the other thread linked herein. Because of attitude about making up names; I am demanding that somebody order up and scan in my Judgment from 2004 before I show that whole process. And of course Anthony - you can be the member here to do that if you like. I prefer somebody else express the desire to learn rules of evidence though, just to assure myself I am not wasting my time typing posts around here.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_ ... Nzdl&hl=en


Regards,

David Merrill.

Next Post:

Excellent explanation. I am going to copy that to my library of files that I am accumulating. This helps me about my decisions regarding my automobiles and the contracts surrounding them. I can proceed as I have been because both my wife and I redeem lawful money ans have the DLs signed in True Name d.b.a. LEGAL NAME knowing to provide the DL for compentency ONLY and not as ID; The LEO as witness to that end. It can be indicated as such in the memo area of the summons, if it even gets that far. Perfect evidence on the very presentment itself. Then, timely and lawful R4C filed into my evidence repository and the original returned to the presenter.

My next step is to learn more about bonding utilizing the instruments you presented (BoE), or others, rather than conventional insurance policies which is admiralty and born of bottomry as you have made well known. The less unnecessary involvement in those type of agreements and contracts, the better in my opinion. In the mean time, I can continue as I have only now I am the one in control rather than the one being "controlled".

Thank you for your great insight and the willingness to impart it.

[David Merrill]

Why do the rest of you tolerate him?

He is nothing but a piece of pig-excrement grubbing crumbs from the lowest members of society. Contributing nothing to anything, except gibberish and fantasies - in between smacking his mom around and living in her basement.

He should be locked up and warehoused away in a mental health facility forever.

You want a reason why America is not as safe and friendly as it was when you or I were kids? Look no further than all the David Merrill Van Pelts that have obvious mental defects and only function at a minimal level in society, and whose every action and thought brings chaos and physical danger to others, but allowed to roam free because people are too gutless or too politically correct to face up to the fact that some people need to be in mental health facilities, rather than ruining the quality of life for the majority.

Quatloser!

However, he has never, not even once, provided a verifiable example of how his advice has helped anyone.

Why would I provide an example - Elfninosmom?

It would appear you scared somebody into writing me to say that we need to convince you guys? He called you all US bank collections agents. He sincerely wants you all to know my advice is great advice.

[Thule]

However, he has never, not even once, provided a verifiable example of how his advice has helped anyone.

Why would I provide an example - Elfninosmom?

To prove that your gibberish has more value than what the cat left on my door this summer.

[David Merrill]

However, he has never, not even once, provided a verifiable example of how his advice has helped anyone.

Why would I provide an example - Elfninosmom?

To prove that your gibberish has more value than what the cat left on my door this summer.

A cat left something on your door?

[Thule]

A cat left something on your door?

Yup, the little devil tore the door straight off its hinges.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Even if that is so,

And it is.

I do not practice law. Never have.

You got that right!

[David Merrill]

Even if that is so,

And it is.

I do not practice law. Never have.

You got that right!

You are going to tell us when I was put on this imaginary list of yours?

[Nikki]

Dog, you'll never learn.

You referenced a listing of orders, one of which specified "VAN PELT, DAVID."

How is that, in any way, related to David Merrill who has no last name, SSN, or birth certificate?

[Thule]

How is that, in any way, related to David Merrill who has no last name, SSN, or birth certificate?

Ahem, it's David MERRIL.

Or The Emperor. The usurper Emperor Whining Beagles IV seems to have been overthrown.

[David Merrill]

http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/Reg ... isting.htm

Abated for misnomer.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... ement1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... ement2.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/default.jpg

http://recordingsearch.car.elpasoco.com ... sults.aspx

Plug in #203089656 and 203105436.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... ault_9.jpg




That was just sour grapes because I won that international custody battle for my alleged "client". Mom's local attorney just went ballistic. Dad still has the son and can send him safely to Mom for holidays. Exactly what he wanted. Mom is probably still livid. At one point in the proceedings he got scared so I gave permission for him to refer communications to me; that was what the suppression was about.

Doktor sounds like he is referring to a local list. Which is absurd. Nobody can practice law in Colorado unless they are an attorney. If you are not an attorney then you have to be the defendant pro se. I bet it is that way all over. So the good doktor should know her malicious prosecution was dropped. They must have made that list up just for me!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Yep, Dok;


Her malicious prosecution was dismissed by the next morning!


https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_ ... YjM0&hl=en

[Doktor Avalanche]

Yep, Dok;


Her malicious prosecution was dismissed by the next morning!


https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_ ... YjM0&hl=en

No it wasn't - you're still on the list.

And what does a street musician have to do with any of this?

[Doktor Avalanche]

http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/Reg ... isting.htm

Thank you.

[Doktor Avalanche]

They must have made that list up just for me!

Sure they did, Van Pelt. Sure they did.

[David Merrill]

No harm done. I thought for a moment you meant there was a list they put me on locally because of a more recent success story.

That one about the custody battle was great!


By the way, I am not an attorney so it really doesn't matter.

[Nikki]

Cut him some slack. He recently fell off his little electric bicycle and banged up his head fairly well.

What few synapses were functioning probably got a bit scrambled.

[David Merrill]

Yeah; cut me some slack...

At least I have a biographer. Do any of you have a biographer?