DMVP "Writ of Enforcement" for $20M "Lien" II

[Prof]

Yes I read your UCC -1. I stand by my prior analysis of your silly, probably illegal,document.

[Nikki]

Prof

You are attempting to speak Urdu to someone who only understands Swahili.

He will not even get the message when every court in the land laughs him onto the streets.

Just remember "Too much space between the covers." and sleep well knowing you are not him.

[David Merrill]

Yes I read your UCC -1. I stand by my prior analysis of your silly, probably illegal,document.

Obviously not. You only read the UCC-1 which is the first of twenty pages. Then you made the silly evaluation that it is naked, like it stands alone.


I guess you are getting old.

[Prof]

Yes I read your UCC -1. I stand by my prior analysis of your silly, probably illegal,document.

Obviously not. You only read the UCC-1 which is the first of twenty pages. Then you made the silly evaluation that it is naked, like it stands alone.


I guess you are getting old.

Yes, I am getting old. And? I am also reasonably successful and reasonably well-regarded in my chosen profession. Finally, I am an expert on the UCC, taught it at law schools for about 10 years, and am quite competent to say that your UCC-1 is false, fraudulent, probably illegal under CO law (it certainly would be illegal under Texas law, and subject to criminal prosecution), and silly. The document, even if it were 100 pages long, would still be a naked UCC-1, because it is not backed by a Security Agreement signed by you and by the State of Colorado Finance Corp. and is therefore of no force and effect until such a Security Agreement is executed, you extend value, and the Finance Corp. receives value.

In one simple word, which you may possibly be able to understand, "Pfui."

[David Merrill]

Yes I read your UCC -1. I stand by my prior analysis of your silly, probably illegal,document.

Obviously not. You only read the UCC-1 which is the first of twenty pages. Then you made the silly evaluation that it is naked, like it stands alone.


I guess you are getting old.

Yes, I am getting old. And? I am also reasonably successful and reasonably well-regarded in my chosen profession. Finally, I am an expert on the UCC, taught it at law schools for about 10 years, and am quite competent to say that your UCC-1 is false, fraudulent, probably illegal under CO law (it certainly would be illegal under Texas law, and subject to criminal prosecution), and silly. The document, even if it were 100 pages long, would still be a naked UCC-1, because it is not backed by a Security Agreement signed by you and by the State of Colorado Finance Corp. and is therefore of no force and effect until such a Security Agreement is executed, you extend value, and the Finance Corp. receives value.

In one simple word, which you may possibly be able to understand, "Pfui."

Yes it is. That is on the subsequent 19 pages.

[Prof]

PROVE IT. PFUI.

[David Merrill]

PROVE IT. PFUI.

His oath was accepted for value even before he ordered up the trial, knowing full well I charge $10M per party - him and the AG were both in violation of oath.



Colorado Secretary of State.

It will only cost you $2 for full certified proof. Click Business to the left, Order Forms to the right and Order Certified copies - to get to:

Certified Copies order form.

Order by Reception #20092001574.

You may have missed it, you old fuddy-duddy, but GILBERT already tried to prosecute me for utilizing the lien, in order to approve payment for an independent psychological evaluation, in the same breath he was remanding me to the Psycho Ward for being uncooperative! GILBERT read me my Miranda and I must have smiled a little too clearly as he convened my jury...




Even with the (from your perspective) Unauthorized Use of the Great Seal, he never mentioned forgery again. But you might be thinking more along the lines of Attempting to Influence Public Officials? Guess what Prof? Either one, or any charge you can imagine would probably lead to a jury trial, huh? Are you familiar with process? Ergo, GILBERT was probably a little fearful of why I might be smiling as he Read me my Rights. He did it very cleverly, even mumbled something about how I might not want to respond in open court, and then when I explained about the lien against the state, and that I was approving payment to Dr. Kaye in front of it, he explained how what I just said was going to be used against me for felony forgery charges. - A prosecutor judge. - As my prosecutor defense/advisory counsel advised the court I was uncooperative for not contacting him to get the appointment time! I was frequenting Records as he was not my attorney. Good attorneys do not prosecute their clients for a guilty plea.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Prof]

Your word salad proves nothing in connection with the requirements of Article 9 of the UCC. There is no legal significance under Art. 9 to your documents, your allegations or your statements.

Of course, all of your statements are not incorrect. I am certainly getting old (62!) and am almost certainly (or at least probably) a "fuddy duddy." For example, I like bow ties and shined Weejuns, and wear blazers and khakis or grey trousers to work almost every day. Keep rooting around DMVP; like that blind hog, you do find an occasional acorn! (To my wife's sorrow, I did give up wearing braces (suspenders); they were too fuddy duddy, even for me.)

[David Merrill]

Your word salad proves nothing in connection with the requirements of Article 9 of the UCC. There is no legal significance under Art. 9 to your documents, your allegations or your statements.

I am not bound to Article 9 of the UCC. I only used the UCC-1 finance statement because the secretary of state insisted. I have a record of that.

I enjoy how I used the Great Seal to describe the collateral.

Yes, I am getting old. And? I am also reasonably successful and reasonably well-regarded in my chosen profession. Finally, I am an expert on the UCC, taught it at law schools for about 10 years, and am quite competent to say that your UCC-1 is false, fraudulent, probably illegal under CO law (it certainly would be illegal under Texas law, and subject to criminal prosecution), and silly. The document, even if it were 100 pages long, would still be a naked UCC-1, because it is not backed by a Security Agreement signed by you and by the State of Colorado Finance Corp. and is therefore of no force and effect until such a Security Agreement is executed, you extend value, and the Finance Corp. receives value.

In one simple word, which you may possibly be able to understand, "Pfui."

Thanks!

That is a great quote. I have no doubt I can prove that we in fact have a security agreement.

The people of the state of Colorado also find and declare that there are certain costs associated with holding public office and that to ensure the integrity of the office, such costs of a reasonable and necessary nature should be born by the state or local government.

Security Agreement.

And not only that, the people have agreed to cover SAMELSON and SUTHERS out of deep pockets.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Prof]

Still word salad; still no security agreement; still no evidence of a voluntary pledge by the alleged debtor, which is not the State of Colorado, by the way; etc., etc. Still pfui. You can believe what you want to believe. That will not change reality. As for me, I believe I'll have dinner with Ms. Prof.

With extreme disregard, Prof.

[David Merrill]

Still word salad; still no security agreement; still no evidence of a voluntary pledge by the alleged debtor, which is not the State of Colorado, by the way; etc., etc. Still pfui. You can believe what you want to believe. That will not change reality. As for me, I believe I'll have dinner with Ms. Prof.

With extreme disregard, Prof.

The State of Colorado Capital Finance Corporation is the financial face of the State of Colorado. And the voluntary pledge is right there in the state constitution.

[Prof]

Silly boy, you can repeat this as often as you wish. This is still not a security agreement under Art. 9, which is the only lien a UCC-1 perfects. In other words, still word salad, still not true or correct, and still, as you well know, "Pfui."

Disregarding your statements, Prof.

[Nikki]

David is clinging to a straw. He fervently believes that he has found a way to make a mark for himself on history.

He will do whatever he can to keep this fiction alive in his mind, even if it means ignoring the simple facts which negate his theory.

Compared to David, Don Quixote was a rank amateur.

[Judge Roy Bean]

What we are seeing here is the reason why we have a judicial system.

Fortunately, like "testimony" submitted without any foundation, it is something we don't even have to pay attention to; it was posted by someone with a demonstrated mental defect.

[Prof]

Although your attempts at insults fall flat, you just keep trying. But, like that little pink bunny, your statements are just noise on a toy drum.

Regarding you as a delusional jerk, from a safe distance, Prof.

[silversopp]

If you look closely, underneath the stamp you can read "Van Pelt"

Once again, it appears that David Merrill is using documents that reference this David Van Pelt guy. What is David Merrill's fascination with David Van Pelt?

[David Merrill]

If you look closely, underneath the stamp you can read "Van Pelt"

Once again, it appears that David Merrill is using documents that reference this David Van Pelt guy. What is David Merrill's fascination with David Van Pelt?

That is what I was wondering - why are you guys so fixed on misnomer? I abated that cause for misnomer and they just kept on going.

[The Observer]

I abated that cause for misnomer and they just kept on going.

Which should be a strong signal to you that your abatement for misnomer has no effect - the government moves on. That is why you blurted out that suitors after filing for remedy would still have to go to federal court and speak to the lawyer in black robes to see if he would permit remedy to happen.

[David Merrill]

I abated that cause for misnomer and they just kept on going.

Which should be a strong signal to you that your abatement for misnomer has no effect - the government moves on. That is why you blurted out that suitors after filing for remedy would still have to go to federal court and speak to the lawyer in black robes to see if he would permit remedy to happen.

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

[The Observer]

And as usual with intellectually dishonest people, David didn't give us the full context of that quote from the Judiciary Act. Here is the section that he clipped from :

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid. And the trial of issues in fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.

As you can see, David never fails to cite irrelevant information in support of his inane theories. Here we see that he has fallen back on the admiralty court myth, despite the fact that his "abatement for misnomer" has nothing to do with seizure of property.