Evidence Repositories. why?

[sulee154151]

Every so often, I enjoy going over and take a peek at the world of David Merrill.

For some time now, several of us have wondered why Merrill and his acolytes are so focused on creating "evidence repositories" in court houses. The post reproduced below, written by Michael Joseph, gives one explanation... such as it is.

Originally Posted by doug555
This is exactly why I do NOT write anything but my signature on the back of the check. I believe the back of the check belongs to them.

12 USC 411 makes no requirement on where the demand is written. There is no implementing CFR for this statute, so it is up to us to decide how and where.

All we need is a substantive record of it being made in the normal course of business, which are records that fit the exception to the hearsay rule of evidence at FRCP Rule 803 (6).
One who knows what one is doing would have no problem, as 12USC411 does not respect persons and does not specify the nature of the demand. But thinking of how my actions might impair another, I would not want to do something that leaves a presumption only to find that someone has food on their table for their children based on a faulty presumption. So I believe being a good steward requires a public notice. However, I do see your point - and you are right - the location where the Demand is lodged is not mandated at law. We clearly see this expression in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

SO THEN: Remedy is between our ears.

However for the newbie, developing an Administrative written remedy is most times what is needed. I liken my response to the following:


There once were 5000 men - probably at least 20k in terms of men, women and children - who came out to hear Yehoshuah speak. As the day grew on, they began to get hungry. So then, Yehoshuah performs a miracle over five loaves and two fishes. The disciples then perform the work in handing out the food. Now then, many just came for the free fish sandwich; HOWEVER some came for the message!

Many just want the free fish sandwich and will jump headlong into whatever guru is offering the latest; you know them. Ask them to explain what it means to make a demand for lawful money - just sit back and watch the BLANK expression form. But one who studies to show himself approved, is going to comprehend even the minute nuances.

Shalom,
MJ


EXCELLENT FIND - thank you.

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

(E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness

[wserra]

several of us have wondered why Merrill and his acolytes are so focused on creating "evidence repositories" in court houses.

Eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of bat and tongue of dog, Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting, lizard's leg and owlet's wing. What over there isn't mumbo-jumbo? Whatever their reason, it does nothing at all. Specifically, if doesn't come close to making their nonsense into "records of a regularly conducted activity" per FRE 803(6) - or, for that matter, into "public records" per FRE 803(8), which I've seen claimed as well.

Welcome to Quatloos, sulee.

[notorial dissent]

Merrill and his followers live in cloud cuckoo land, and (some) of the Federal Courts let them get away with this, many do not, when really they shouldn't as it is a violation of the rules for those types of files. So, as a result they get to deal with them when they should have told them to pound sand to begin with.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Court or county record clerks, like many elected officials, have a tendency toward avoiding confrontation and as far as the judges allow, will set the tone for their staff and internal operations. In Van Pelt's case(s), there in Colorado, they seem to be more bemused and accommodating than strict.

We have all probably seen rough equivalents over time. There is a fellow we see at a restaurant on occasion who comes in and if a specific booth is taken, he'll wait. Once seated, the server brings him two glasses of ice water and a cup of coffee which he proceeds to load with sugar - several packets. He never orders food. He speaks very quietly to someone across the table from him who isn't there and appears to be having a real conversation. We have asked the servers about him and they say he will sit there for hours sometimes and that every once in a while they have to ask him to keep his voice down but he's pleasant enough about it. The only problem they've ever had was when the law changed and he couldn't smoke inside the restaurant. He sat down, got his coffee and lit up then became unhappy when they wouldn't bring him an ashtray because there was a no-smoking ordinance. When they told him he'd have to take it outside he yelled at a girl that he would never come back but he was back the next day as if nothing happened.

They live in their own little fantasy worlds and the 'net enables them.

[The Observer]

The short answer is that (1) this is how David markets his swill to his marks in order to make them think that he has the unique solution to their tax and other problems, and (2) it is his way of pretending that once his irrelevant garbage gets filed in the "repository" it becomes incontrovertible evidence of proof of David's claims.

As Judge Roy Bean pointed out, court and recording clerks are not being paid to filter out the nonsense that comes in on a daily basis. And if they did, the wingnuts would file a suit as an additional way of attracting more attention to their cause. Inevitably a judge somewhere is going to lose patience with claptrap filling his or her docket and will probably instruct the clerk's office to simply file the documents. Why? Because the filing means nothing and will never impact or affect anyone.

David realizes this and thus exploits the situation. So he is able to brag about how he has filed a number of documents that means he is owed $23 million by the state of Colorado, and whatever other nonsense he is peddling at the moment. But all one has to do is simply ask David when he is actually going to collect the $23 million or be recognized by the US government as a legal representative of the defunct Dutch government of New York City, and he will hem and haw and evade the question. Because David knows himself all too well that his evidence repository is just a charade.

[Burnaby49]

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has a rule that any court filings that have any indication of being freeman/sovereign documents are to be rejected by the court clerks. The clerks have training to recognize them. Apparently this has worked very well and the volume of freeman gibberish filed had dropped drastically. Since they rely very heavily on documents Alberta freemen are now filing much fewer lawsuits.

[Pottapaug1938]

Over the years, I've made occasional visits to Planet Merrill; but I find lately that I do so less and less, because all I see is a combination of the same old horsebleep and turgid religious rants. The sad thing is that David seems to be able to attract a continuous stream of new marks; and of course it won't be him who suffers when reality catches up with them.

It's been a long time since I've wasted time on any of David's delusions; but as I recall he seems to think that, by creating a "evidence repository" in a gen-yoo-wine gummint facility such as a court house, you have proof that you have demanded lawful money in all of your transactions, thus converting your (taxable) Federal Reserve Notes into (nontaxable) United States Notes (which have not been printed since the 1960s, and only exist today in coin collections).

No one need try and go on there to challenge his fantasies, because he swings the ban-hammer on anyone who even hints at any sign of heresy. A family member of mine even got banned on the mere suspicion that he was really me.

[.]

In an optimal world, there would be no gibberish "filed" in any court, imaginary "legal" analysis notwithstanding.

In a better world, all of Van Pelt's adherents would be required to read some Shakespeare and reflect for a bit before they "file" anything. Or do anything else, for that matter.

In reality, there are precious few totally clueless tax dopes left out there and we inveigh against their idiocy at the possible cost of our general amusement. Ah, never mind. We'll never make a dent, only federal prosecution and incarceration seems to do that.

[The Observer]

We'll never make a dent, only federal prosecution and incarceration seems to do that.

And not even that is guaranteed. Our hallowed evidence repositories here at Quatloos are replete with proof of the idiots who have multiple convictions for trying different variations of nonsense in their attempt to become tax-free.

[Dr. Caligari]

I always thought DMVP should have an evidence suppository-- as in, "David, take this phony lien and shove it."

[The Observer]

I always thought DMVP should have an evidence suppository-- as in, "David, take this phony lien and shove it."

I had thought about the using the wordplay of "repository" vs. "suppository" in my earlier post above, but was afraid to do it in case it inspired Famspear to write a limerick.

[Arthur Rubin]

I always thought DMVP should have an evidence suppository-- as in, "David, take this phony lien and shove it."

I had thought about the using the wordplay of "repository" vs. "suppository" in my earlier post above, but was afraid to do it in case it inspired Famspear to write a limerick.

Now, there is something I wouldn't want to get behind....

[Famspear]

I always thought DMVP should have an evidence suppository-- as in, "David, take this phony lien and shove it."

I had thought about the using the wordplay of "repository" vs. "suppository" in my earlier post above, but was afraid to do it in case it inspired Famspear to write a limerick.

Aw, that would never happen.......

[Burnaby49]

I always thought DMVP should have an evidence suppository-- as in, "David, take this phony lien and shove it."

I had thought about the using the wordplay of "repository" vs. "suppository" in my earlier post above, but was afraid to do it in case it inspired Famspear to write a limerick.

Aw, that would never happen.......

And you're the only guy who can ensure that it doesn't.

[Gregg]

In one thread, nigh, in one POST you have invoked two things that most men tremble at the thought of, DMVP and Limericks by Famspear....may Bob have mercy on your soul.