| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Apr 2005 : 09:43:57
|
In light of comments made by Charles and because I feel this is still relevant to generating pseudonyms, third party or not. And because Charles has now completely privatized his Christian Common Law forum to only the handful of members I am writing this email to Charles and broadcast here. I am not a member on his site so I cannot Post this there.
quote:
Charles says:
quote:
I checked the "IP Address” of the person registered as “Dr Fill".
That IP was from a Denver Colorado dial-up account; as follows:
“dialup-sanitized prankster address??.Denver1.Level3.net [ 1 Post ]”
The email address which our forum-records indicate to be
Registered of “Dr. Fill. phd”, is: <sanitized address I write from> .
So I wonder who the prankster is in Denver?
I am inquiring with a tech if it is possible that someone could substitute this email address in registering Dr. Fill. I know I did not do it. I believe it is the kind of thing you would do Charles. It is clear to your readers from your two comments that 'sanitized' is in Colorado Springs and the 'dialup-4...' address originates in Denver.
quote:
You are located in that area.
After you sent me your personally-threatening email,
I see that your email service provider is from colorado springs, colorado.
You are obviously located in the same general area as where this “Dr Fill” is coming from.
Your little party (now quite private) of nine plus Dr. Fill is not worth much of my time. But I thought you might get your techs to get to the bottom of this and prevent it, if a prankster, from ever happening again. I got an email, as indicated telling me somebody registered me on your site as Dr. Fill. I am unaware third parties can do that unless in a position at either end of the communication. I still believe you registered Dr. Fill and connected this email address to it.
You do not want it to happen again. Prankster or not. Because of the deviant nature of your doctrine, you do not need investigators viewing your site on a legitimate complaint or suit. Typically your server would drop you without me having to file suit, if I am being harassed; third party or not.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 12 Apr 2005 09:50:30 |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2005 : 12:09:36
|
My inquiry of a technician reveals that registering this email address on a system like Charles' might be as easy as registering for oneself.
The creation of a pseudonym for ulterior purposes is really what I feel Marty was inquiring about in the pursuit of definition for DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT, only in a much more benign context. So there is a good lesson in yesterday's experience.
Because of Charles' slur campaign which got him expelled from ecclesia.org it is difficult for me to form an apology for my presumption it must have been him who registered this email address as Dr. Fill. So I better get started...
Regards,
David Merrill.
Crow is best eaten without allowing it to grow cold.
quote:
Dear Charles Bruce;
The technician I inquired of tells me that your structure on your sight makes it as easy for a third party, a prankster, to register this email address as if I or you were to be doing it. Especially since your computer automatically generates response.
To avoid any further complaints I hope you will correct that if possible. But you should remove display of this email address from your site because any further such pranks will point directly to your exhibiting this email address when it is clear from my Posts documented on both your site and ecclesia.org that I wish not to display the address I currently write from. You are inviting repeat incidents like yesterday if you fail to sanitize your Posts there.
I am confident the Denver prankster knows how easy it would be to identify him and prosecute. You might wish to do so.
I am sorry for presuming what seemed the obvious scenario. That you were toying around with your sarcasm toward me. I will not be excluding the possibility of third-parties playing pranks in the future. But if future incidents occur like yesterday I will be investigating that you did not invite them by broadcasting this address and even that you have made good faith attempts to exclude third party registrations from your website.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 12 Apr 2005 12:27:37 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2005 : 16:22:46
|
quote:
David Merrill wrote:
Crow is best eaten without allowing it to grow cold.
David,
We appreciate your willingness to yield the benefit of the doubt. That says something about you as a man.
In light of the what the Holy Scriptures state at Leviticus 11:13-19 we would encourage a careful choice of words.quote:
Leviticus 11:13 These you shall regard as abominable among the birds; they shall not be eaten for they are an abomination; the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard,
Leviticus 11:14 The kite, and the falcon after their kinds;
Leviticus 11:15 Every raven after its kind,
Leviticus 11:16 The ostrich, and the horned owl, and the seagull, and the hawk after its kind.
Leviticus 11:17 The little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl;
Leviticus 11:18 The white owl, the desert owl, the osprey;
Leviticus 11:19 The stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 12 Apr 2005 16:28:02 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2005 : 17:42:59
|
Some research turned the true origin of the registration prankster "Dr. Fill", if the number Charles gave is correct, to be Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It routed through a final server in Denver. So I doubt it will happen again since it will be easy with investigating authority to pin the prankster.
To summarize, in light of the above report about the origins, is that even on Charles' site where he promotes the "people" docrine of the Montana Freemen I have now been labelled the "person" who responds to entity "Dr. Fill". That is why I wanted to play this out for the people here on this Topic and forum. Note that "David Merrill" is nearly always misspelled there; typically to "Mr. Merrill" or "Merill" etc. - misnomer - sound familiar? [traffic court.]
Also, there are quite a few folks reading that Topic there, "Leroy Michael of the Schwietzer Clan and David Merrill". So you might see that Charles has broadcast my request he stop broadcasting the email address I write from. He calls it "More Merrill Whining". I even quote his invitation to write him "private email". In this forum, to broadcast a PM will get you into trouble. So listen.
Note that I was careful never to respond for Dr. Fill. That would have been to click and try to unregister Dr. Fill. Anything like that. If Charles knew what he was doing - let's say there was no prankster or that Charles called someone in collusion in Sioux Falls. That was the objective. To get me to "appear" for the entity Dr. Fill - the STRAWMAN. I never did jockey my mouse like I was Dr. Fill but reading over there, because I am in the general area of Denver, the last routed server, then I must be the "person" identifying himself as Dr. Fill. Such distortions are familiar to me. Faulty grabs for jurisdiction; falsely declaring an appearance has cured jurisdiction.*
[Jockeying my mouse like I was Dr. Fill is quite similar to opening a letter to "Dr. Fill" found in 'my' (federal enclave) mailbox. I just appeared as Dr. Fill or I am intentionally opening someone else's mail. Think about it. So Marty; does the STRAWMAN really exist until it is endorsed? Now do you understand why I refused to answer your demand (complaint) that I define the entity you created? If people can get and keep a grasp on the metaphysical interplays of process between reality and fiction, then a lot of the junk will be dispelled; it will disappear from existence.]
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_William_Thornton.wmv
clip about private attorney
The same thing was demonstrated when Marty became frustrated, thinking I was evading his demand for a "yes" or "no" answer - that I must help him define something he created here on these Pages; DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. I actually doubt Marty was trying for an appearance and subsequent jurisdiction (authority) but more Marty assumed he had the authority (probably by conditioning). I was pointing out DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT was his creation not mine more for academic reasons - to make the point about jurisdiction. [I have no worries about perceived jurisdiction from either Marty or Charles.] The conditioning is really crux in the paranoid illusion they may do whatever they want. Charles thinks he may do whatever he wants anyway. The same elitist Christian Common Law that burned the Montana Freemen. [I was there. I watched and even participated. It is tempting to revert to the term delirium instead of delusions. The delusions are so strong and adamantly protected by the victims/patients that they might as well be caused (or are causing as a result) by chemical imbalances and psychotomimetic (LSD) or psychotropic pharmaceuticals.]
Marty's creation was easy for me to spot. DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT a/k/a David Merrill [inferring my true name is an alias] has been used against me several times. I can spot a prompt for appearance from miles there. So be assured that I am not Dr. Fill. I had nothing to do with its creation. If I require a legal name, I would more than likely use the general public trust already in place since 1933 [The New Deal], and go with "David Merrill Van Pelt" which of course would come off any cash register and tax receipt in the conspicuous (UCC) form, "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT".
Regards,
David Merrill.
* It is very important to impress upon the Readers that Charles has the transparent ambition of creating a court system. In his mind he already has - and in truth he has [we are all courts of varying competence]. He titles one of his Posts, where he broadcast one of my private emails to him, "Merrill Pleads Innocence". Charles Bruce understands how processes work enough to stage my arraignment in his court system. What many gullible readers may not understand (to their own detriment) is that the answer has to come from the (alleged) defendant's mouth, not the court's mouth. [Leroy told the judge who entered "not guilty", "I object and take exception. I have not hired you as my attorney."] Thank God Charles has no enforcement powers and that the privatized "Christian" common law Charles spouts has no future. http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=88&whichpage=7 Apr 14 2005 : 09:18:21 AM. I feel Charles has been properly notified that at the first sign of injury, (so far his rants are simply making my points for me. Many of the few participants on his site are people who have lost arguments with me here in the past) his insideous Freeman doctrine website can easily be shut down. He is not allowed to use cyberspace to hurt people.
P.S. If you write something to Charles Bruce in private beware he feels justified in broadcasting it. I have been warned to just ignore him but felt it edifying to Readers here and there to get some testimony out of his mouth to warn you all.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 14 Apr 2005 10:51:07 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2005 : 13:46:29
|
quote:
David Merrill wrote . . . . .
If I require a legal name, I would more than likely use the general public trust already in place since 1933 [The New Deal], and go with "David Merrill Van Pelt" which of course would come off any cash register and tax receipt in the conspicuous (UCC) form, "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT".
David,
We noticed on the hospital agreement that the hospital had listed a form of a STRAWMAN name assigned to you (i.e. MERRILL, DAVID).
We understand that the STRAWMAN name MERRILL, DAVID is a derivative of the, “DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT”, STRAWMAN name that someone somewhere once put on their records hoping that David Merrill, the real live flesh and blood man would some day begin to use that STRAWMAN name and by using it become surety for the STRAWMAN in their way of seeing things.
We further understand that MERRILL, DAVID and DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT are both misnomers for the flesh and blood man.
We understand that you, David, did not and do not wish to be surety for those STRAWMEN and that is precisely why you made the correction on the hospital admission form.
|
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 14 Apr 2005 13:50:06 |
|
|
|
Werner Maximilian
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2005 : 14:07:16
|
I know in my case, it's more just a desire to be truthful than anything else.
Avoiding contracts is a nice side benefit. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2005 : 15:20:19
|
Marty;
It is your perspective that stultifies you seeing many of my points. It is a paradigm shift; a change of perspective that I keep pressing on you.
You say that someone was "hoping" that I would become chattel in the Strawman name. And that may be true enough but that comes out of an "us" and "them" perspective - that I could possibly have been registered in a suppositional wagering scheme (Tontine) for international bankers in cartel collecting on life annuities, civil and actual death (= debt action in assumpsit). You like so many others will spin your wheels forever; burning up energy creating heat. Look at the bill of exchange again - I am the epitome of that banking cartel.
Listen to Vern. He has put his finger on it so eloquently. Tell the truth.
That kind of childlike simplicity makes me feel so complicated. In fact the first time at the ER when I realized that they had treated me on my wealth/life-bonding instead of my endorsement of civil death, I was walking down the corridor and it nearly felt like an out-of-body experience. I realized it was just telling the truth that had such a freeing effect. The truth had set me free from all that Tontine-on-human-flesh-and-bone junk you keep dredging up.
Here is what really happened Marty. While reading the contract I noticed the patient's name was (mis)spelled "MERRILL, DAVID". So I corrected that.
The reasons behind the misnomer are inconsequential once you have made the paradigm shift. I think it is probably the "conspicuous" requirement for notices in commerce. Sorry Redemption guys - the STRAWMAN is nothing more than a silly fantasy - a faulty model that only works at certain times in certain conditions. You have been trying to redeem a phantom.
You have again indulged in fantasy by bringing up DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. That is still your creation, not mine.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 14 Apr 2005 15:40:31 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2005 : 16:22:45
|
Psyco-logical War-fare is a good way for me to know of it... and when I write "it," I mean - it.
The clip on the private attorn-ey explains it pretty well both of the outside parameters and the inside. Its like a parabolical sense/microphone, contrary to diabolical blindness/deathness. The true life blood living man. His Image.
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 06:45:23
|
"...and whoever shall say,
'You fool!'
shall be in danger of the fire of Gehinnom."
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 08:26:54
|
In context of you and your wife participating on Charles' Christian Common Law website I figure you are speaking about this statement:
quote:
You like so many others will spin your wheels forever; burning up energy creating heat.
Or maybe you are speaking about my analysis of Charles Bruce in general. [I was in the audience during the Freeman lecture he broadcast. By the timing it was my Comptroller Warrant that triggered the Montana Freeman Standoff. The figures (look in the "Views" columns there) indicate Charles is definitely spinning his wheels trying to form a competing positive law jural society on the Internet. But I do not accuse Charles of being a fool. He is sick. Both he and his son are completely convinced I am an MK-ULTRA (Manchurian Candidate) agent. See Conspiracy Theory by Mel Gibson. That would in the current CIA Mind Control scenario mean that I was tortured as a child in ritual abuse. Until work product of Charles' crops up in my email or here, I am finished with him. So please leave us not to infer he is speaking through you, Oneisraelite, his agent.] There is a much longer leash for insult over on "Psychoanalyzing David Merrill".
Back to the first presumption. That I call Marty a fool for spinning his wheels. I did not feel that way when I said it. Morelike the anomia has effected him and I am using his boldness to confront me directly with intelligent and scientific questioning to bring forth my point of view more clearly.
Thank you Marty. Your intrepid nature, your courage to confront me is welcomed. I have secured already "quiet rubber stamp" of the chief district judge in the district* of Colorado. I plainly asked of Lewis Babcock to explain what if anything I might have incorrect in my scenario about the law (reality) and he went silent. That, as I understand it is proper process.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* From the Statutes at Large: http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Act_-_districts.jpg
Act of 1789 – debts functional
P.S. In response to a comment you made on Charles' website. I am sovereign. The FBI is my agency to use as I wish, at my pleasure. Charles' illness is not allowed to injure others with the same. If I see the "View" figures become alarming, I will shut that site down.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Rubber_Stamp_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Rubber_Stamp_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Default_Judgment_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Default_Judgment_2.jpg
Quiet Rubber Stamp
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 15 Apr 2005 10:28:29 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 09:16:30
|
quote:
David Merrill wrote . . . . .
on 1/19/2005 4:20:28 PM in the Birth Certificates for Fictional Slaves topic at http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=33&whichpage=5.
The following evidence of contract has no effect on me whatsoever. I have signed nothing "David M. Van Pelt" for well over a decade. If I wanted to use that trust entity I would sign "David Merrill dba DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT". My name is obviously "David Merrill" and I was born into the Van Pelt family. Notice my father's name is "Philip Jansen" and my mother is "Louanne"*. This paperwork is not even mine. I borrowed it from my mother to file it when I understood how it could be used to prove assumpsit. I suppose the certified copy you are looking at is mine because I paid for it at my clerk's office. But it is not mine until I say so. And I can disown it instantly if it suits me. Like that:. . .
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Question #1: May a reader of average intelligence infer from your statement above that David Merrill believes and acknowledges that DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT is a trust entity?
Question #2: Would you, at this juncture, care to revise or clarify the statement you made before this court on 1/19/2005 at 4:20:28 PM? |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 15 Apr 2005 09:30:47 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 09:41:02
|
Question #1: May a reader of average intelligence infer from your statement above that David Merrill believes and acknowledges that DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT is a trust entity?
No. The paradigm shift I press upon you and upon the record of the courts (Readers) is simply that I was a little-bitty baby at the moment David Merrill Van Pelt or DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT was suggested to me. That is not me forming or endorsing it.
Question #2: Would you, at this juncture, care to revise or clarify the statement you made before this court on 1/19/2005 at 4:20:28 PM? (emphasis mine)
Yes! You are acquiring testimony on the record. You are posturing as a court of record, a court of competent jurisdiction. Good!
And No. I will not revise my testimony but thank you for the offer. Readers pay attention to the generous notice and grace... common law, the forgiveness that I may have changed my mind since I stated what I said. This is the wisdom of Jesus at:
quote:
Mt 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Mt 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mt 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
And direct reflection of the Laws of Moses about notice and grace:
quote:
Ex 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
It is gracious indeed that you would offer I might amend my testimony from the past. A woman I offered counsel was in a messy divorce proceeding and she was upon short and simple testimony pleading that she no longer endorsed the signature upon the marriage certificate - misnomer - I had taught her her name. The "judge" persisted, "Are you the person who marked these marks upon this document, a marriage certificate on this bench?"
Out of the Holy Spirit of God (I had not told her to say this) she said, "That was before I knew better!" The case fell apart within a few minutes and she was released from an ugly ongoing battle.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 15 Apr 2005 10:13:53 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 10:32:28
|
Question #1: May a reader of average intelligence infer from your statement above that David Merrill believes and acknowledges that DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT is a trust entity?
quote:
David Merrill answered the question in this way....
No. The paradigm shift I press upon you and upon the record of the courts (Readers) is simply that I was a little-bitty baby at the moment David Merrill Van Pelt or DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT was suggested to me. That is not me forming or endorsing it.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
A "reader of average intelligence" will understand that David Merrill did not form or endorse the trust entity DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT when David Merrill was "a little-bitty baby."
The question was and still is on 1/19/2005 at 4:20:28 PM when David Merrill was larger than "a little-bitty baby." did David Merrill refer to DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT as a trust entity?
Followup Question #1: Does David Merrill, now understand why "we are going in circles" and who is responsible for the circular motion? |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 15 Apr 2005 11:23:57 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 11:07:34
|
Within quotations, do not change paragraph structure.
I have had problems with misquotes in the past. So please duplicate the above question without altering my quote. Then I will answer you.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Thank you for correcting by edit.
Answer:
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 15 Apr 2005 11:36:14 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 11:27:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Within quotations, do not change paragraph structure.
I have had problems with misquotes in the past. So please duplicate the above question without altering my quote. Then I will answer you.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Cornerstone Foundation:
We have cut and paste the paragraph to the structure you requested.
Please answer the question!
Notice and Grace:
It would be appropriate and preferable for David Merrill to answer the questions straight forward on the Ecclesia.org Forum.
In response to our fair questions David has posted the following:
quote:
David Merrill also posted ….
You need to sit back for a moment and understand why you were being offensive to Admin. You were ousted from this forum.
It is not my place to speak for Admin and we might expect comment. . . . .
. . . . So you got shut out until you came around.
Now you are allowed back in, to write here. But it is clear to me you are dividing the parameters incorrectly. You do not yet understand why you were kept out. Your apology that allowed you back in is not in correct context. I hope you will and are allowed to stay. But try to understand what I am saying and Admin, add what you will.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Admin does not and has never communicated directly with us to the extent that we can recall.
Bondservant has communicated directly with us privately on more than one occasion.
Bondservant has expressed his appreciation to us and has indicated that he also would like to see David answer the questions to substantiate the claims he makes and to explain as Werner Maximilian so eloquently put it “what the heck” David Merrill is talking about.
These are not difficult questions that we have asked so far.
If Admin would like to communicate with us privately we welcome that.
It is our understanding that this website is financed and administered by Bondservant and Admin. It is our further understanding that this website is run by Bondservant, Admin and David Merrill.
We believe that Bondservant and Admin have the right to tell Cornerstone Foundation what he can and cannot do on this website.
It is our understanding that Cornerstone Foundation is currently well within all parameters heretofor set by Bondservant and Admin.
If we are violating any of the administrators directives, if they will notify us we will either amend our ways to please them or shake the dust from our feet and no longer ask questions here.
It is unlikely, but within the realm of possibility that David Merrill is Admin. If we are again removed from the membership of this forum without given a chance, by Admin, to amend our ways we may speculate that it is more likely that Admin is in fact David Merrill.
Admin has our permission to post either one or both of the letters we sent to him the last time we we locked out of Ecclesia.org, but only if he will post the letter in it’s entirety without editing.
If we are locked out of Ecclesia.org again, you may contact us at farmco7@yahoo.com or inquire by PM to other members of this forum to find where on the internet we are continuing, in good faith, to post David Merrill’s statements and soliticiting his straight forward response to those questions posed in good faith.
As we have stated in the past, it our hope that once the process David Merrill recommends has been analyzed it is our hope that we will find that it is well grounded in organic law. If so. It could benefit a lot of good people.
We believe it may well be that we will conclude this discussion with such favorable findings.
We thank David for all he does for all of us.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marty
|
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 15 Apr 2005 13:04:22 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 11:43:21
|
Yes indeed! The demand for an answer. That is arraignment.
But you must acknowledge the terms of Hebrews 11:1, that you have forsaken Rules of Evidence in your court, oh ye man of faith.
quote:
He 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Your question:
quote:
The question was and still is on 1/19/2005 at 4:20:28 PM when David Merrill was larger than "a little-bitty baby." did David Merrill refer to DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT as a trust entity?
Answer: Show me where.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 13:17:49
|
quote:
David Merrill wrote:
We are going around in circles....
quote:
David Merrill wrote two pages later:
Your question:
quote:
The question was and still is on 1/19/2005 at 4:20:28 PM when David Merrill was larger than "a little-bitty baby." did David Merrill refer to DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT as a trust entity?
Answer: Show me where.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Answer to David Merrill’s answer, which in fact was not an answer at all, but a question to a question that had already been linked above . . .
on 1/19/2005 4:20:28 PM in the Birth Certificates for Fictional Slaves topic at
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=33&whichpage=5.
New Question: Is anyone dizzy yet?
David, please answer the former question.
|
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 15 Apr 2005 13:21:37 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 13:26:33
|
I just thought of a STRAWMAN situation. I'll put it this way:
GRASS-HOPPA... snatch the pebble from my hand. The young boy turns around and walks, not jumps outta there.
I rememeber when I was a young boy, another boy would get teased by some young girls. The young girls would call him a pig. Well... as the years passed, the not so young boy told me that many times, back then, he thought he had a little squiggly tail 
For those of you who wonder why I make such childish remarks, well sometimes it gets a little too unbearable for me, and I try to bring some humor/amor back into this topic.
|
Edited by - Manuel on 15 Apr 2005 13:31:09 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 14:08:24
|
Humor of course is invited.
I often view the interjection of jokes as distraction.
In between jokes though (I) clearly understand that Manuel knows what he is talking about.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 15 Apr 2005 14:11:32 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2005 : 10:04:29
|
quote:
New Question: Is anyone dizzy yet?
Charles Bruce continues building his discussion forum by Cut-and-Paste from here. He says that David Merrill (Van-Pelt) is talking. Not true. I am David Merrill. That is what I was named.
I am not sure what goes through his mind in making the new construction. He is trying to create a legal name? Interesting.
There was a time when the Denver clerks in the US Courthouse got all like that.
Marty. I think you have stated the question already. Is DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT a trust entity? You tell me. In the quotation from (I believe) an abatement it is clear that 'if I were to choose' a legal name I would likely use the one suggested on the birth certificate. You are still the creator of DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT and David Merrill Van Pelt. Just like Charles created David Merrill (Van-Pelt). So it is not up to me to define these things you create.
There is the relevance of my Answer: Show me where.
quote:
(8) Restricted Appearance.
An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.
If you can prove I have been using (that I created) any name, including my own, David Merrill, then you may expect me to fulfil any obligations to perform on the agreement. Even if I used "Donald Duck". So you or Charles would need to show me where I have used these alternate names - you would need to prove me nakar - foreigner or stranger. "Feign self to be another." That is the penumbra under which (HJR-192) debt currency and usury become real. One cannot use these things on the "son".
quote:
Mt 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Mt 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
It is interesting that Charles Bruce knows his own name but alters mine into a fiction. He and his son have put several colorful names upon me. None of which are mine.
That is the point Marty. Christian elitism can only exist by constructing an 'in' or 'out' close, a fence. Charles may be trying to exclude me from his 'congregation' there. That might be why he constructed David Merrill (Van-Pelt).
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 16 Apr 2005 10:24:03 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Strawman
