Hello

[Lawprof]

The Illumanati never sleep! (And when you turn your back, they click the buttons in your profile to frustrate your lawful purpose!)

David -- I'm thinking about pulling your thumbprint off that hospital form and putting it on t-shirts. Kind of a modern art thing. Are you familar with the artwork of Shepard Fairey? I bet we could turn your signature into an "Obey Giant" cultural phenomenon (if you don't know about him, look it up. It would be an honor for you.)

lp

[David Merrill]

Somebody got into my Profile and made some changes for me.

Right, right, right. :roll:

I thought it was you.

The Illumanati never sleep! (And when you turn your back, they click the buttons in your profile to frustrate your lawful purpose!)

David -- I'm thinking about pulling your thumbprint off that hospital form and putting it on t-shirts. Kind of a modern art thing. Are you familar with the artwork of Shepard Fairey? I bet we could turn your signature into an "Obey Giant" cultural phenomenon (if you don't know about him, look it up. It would be an honor for you.)

lp

The irony of your post is how easily you have been manipulated! Not a surprise though, you just washed ashore in Quatloosia and were hit in the face with something you do not understand:

I'm doing my damnedest to start monitoring and deleting David's attempts to hijack every thread and make this forum "All David, all the time". But I gotta let him post if you are going to the same threads to make fun of him.

It's up to you guys.

Yesterday morning Demosthenes was busy deleting any post that might lead you to ponder the truth about lawful money.

http://www.deathandtaxes.com/bio.htm
http://alina_stefanescu.typepad.com/totalitarianism_today/2004/12/beware_of_helpf.html

You are amusing, such clay in the hands of a mistress of manipulation; never even asking yourself, "If she was trying her damndest not to let this happen, why is she such a lousy moderator?

She even seems to have managed to make you think that I am concerned about your fundamental identity theft, about making my thumbprint art - like that would ever happen. And especially that you seem to have overlooked me giving you the number of the US clerk of court to order up copies of the cases. And additionally informing you to be patient while the clerk pulls the information out of archives was construed as my not wanting you to have the case? I am just saying a law professor should have a certified copy from the clerk of court, not me.

Ask for Joe O'Hare - (303) 844-3433.

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/su ... rrant1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/su ... rrant2.gif

Joe will be first to tell any of you, "The admiralty is not the domain of revenue purposes; it is retained exclusively for below high-tide mark only!" [Note the signature on the warrant.]

http://www.freedom-school.com/the-1994-ebsworth.pdf

In the Grand Scheme of things you are Isaac Asimov's - The Mule. Remember when Sedrin's equations had every little detail worked out and then one man's genetic mutation threw the whole Plan awry?

A few threads back someone asked me to define lawful money. Congress gets to do that. Are you interested?


Regards,

David Merrill.

Cool -- I was wondering how you knew enough about the law to translate what David was saying into something I'd understand.

Seriously, I need to get my hands on a copy of the scooter lawsuit. I think I'll call a delivery service in COLO tomorrow to see how much they'd charge to run over to the courthouse and get me a copy. How many people here would want copies?

The beautiful thing is that since David filed it in court, it is now a public document and as such, he has no copyright interest in it. I can knock off copies and sell for profit if I want!

[Lawprof]

David -- You know far less about me than I know about you. Yes, I can get true copies from the court clerk, but sometimes it's cheaper to send a runner in to get them. Yes, I know you did not sue THE Jesus Christ (How could you? He's legally dead!) No, your thumbprint is not your Identity (if it was, what if you were in a scooter accident and lost your thumb but lived? Oh NO! No more David!)

I know you've done time in jail. Have you been diagnosed with ADD, ADHD or Paranoid Schizophrenia? I don't mean that as an insult -- after all, sicknesses are not a laughing matter. It would just go a long way to explain your disjointed banter.

And no, my views on the law and reality were not formed by Quatloos or any of the people here. I've been practicing law for 20 years, and studying law and USHistory for many more years than that.

In case you haven't figured this out, I have a sense of humor (along with the law degree etc . . .) and occasionally I try and make points thru humor. No, I'm not going to make t-shirts with your thumbprint/signature on them (I looked -- the print on the hospital form isn't photogenic enough!) -- who'd buy such a thing? It was a joke, to point out how silly a thumbprint signature is. And, I note that even though you want us to believe that the thumbprint was your signature, you did make some scribbles next to the print. Obviously, the admitting nurse said "umm, you have to sign this," and handed you a pen, AND LIKE A GOOD LITTLE DRONE, YOU SCRIBBLED WITH THE PEN TO MAKE YOUR MARK ON THE PAPER. She probably said to herself, "Check and Mate!"

LP

[David Merrill]

I think it may have been Prof poking fun at Erie Doctrine - the 1938 blending of law and equity:

The delay may seem strange, especially in light of the quite rapid effects of the 1938 merger of the Equity Rules into the first Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But the late depression era was one of great social activism on the part of the Federal government, and this faded seamlessly into wartime legislation which appropriated control of private property. The District Courts under the new FRCP were quickly forced by the volume of litigation into the wholesale application of equitable remedies in actions "at law".

...from the Ebsworth & Ebsworth Lecture by Proctor Wiswall, which by the way has been scrubbed from the Internet ever since it was spoken?

http://www.freedom-school.com/the-1994-ebsworth.pdf




Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

David -- You know far less about me than I know about you. Yes, I can get true copies from the court clerk, but sometimes it's cheaper to send a runner in to get them. Yes, I know you did not sue THE Jesus Christ (How could you? He's legally dead!) No, your thumbprint is not your Identity (if it was, what if you were in a scooter accident and lost your thumb but lived? Oh NO! No more David!)

I know you've done time in jail. Have you been diagnosed with ADD, ADHD or Paranoid Schizophrenia? I don't mean that as an insult -- after all, sicknesses are not a laughing matter. It would just go a long way to explain your disjointed banter.

And no, my views on the law and reality were not formed by Quatloos or any of the people here. I've been practicing law for 20 years, and studying law and USHistory for many more years than that.

In case you haven't figured this out, I have a sense of humor (along with the law degree etc . . .) and occasionally I try and make points thru humor. No, I'm not going to make t-shirts with your thumbprint/signature on them (I looked -- the print on the hospital form isn't photogenic enough!) -- who'd buy such a thing? It was a joke, to point out how silly a thumbprint signature is. And, I note that even though you want us to believe that the thumbprint was your signature, you did make some scribbles next to the print. Obviously, the admitting nurse said "umm, you have to sign this," and handed you a pen, AND LIKE A GOOD LITTLE DRONE, YOU SCRIBBLED WITH THE PEN TO MAKE YOUR MARK ON THE PAPER. She probably said to herself, "Check and Mate!"

LP

Like I said. A mistress of manipulation would have you this way. "Check and Mate". [I guess you just forgot to ask how much that trip to the ER cost out-of-pocket? And why that has anything to do with a BOE that cured judgment on September 11, 2001?]

So what do you think about that quotation from Proctor Wiswall?

The delay may seem strange, especially in light of the quite rapid effects of the 1938 merger of the Equity Rules into the first Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But the late depression era was one of great social activism on the part of the Federal government, and this faded seamlessly into wartime legislation which appropriated control of private property. The District Courts under the new FRCP were quickly forced by the volume of litigation into the wholesale application of equitable remedies in actions "at law".

Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Context:

Since you teach the UCC, you'll find the UCC arguments and tax lien arguments made by some of the folks completely confusing.

I find the analysis set out at various places concerning the common law entertaining, as well. See the arguments about Erie RR v. Thompkins.

As an ex law prof, I am truely amazed at the "logic" exhibited by these nuts. For grins, also try http://www.suijuris.net.

Welcome to the fun house.

P.P.S. Demosthenes; Thank you for tenderizing the fresh meat.

[Lawprof]

Another non sequitur on your part, Dave. The Erie doctrine simply stated that in actions in Federal Court, procedural issues were to be ruled by Federal code etc and substantive issues were to be governed by state law.

Any first year law student knows that. The "scrubbing" of the internet is a sign of Paranoid Schizophrenia (after all, why wouldn't "they" scrub the Al Qaida sites from the net?)

I notice (as do others) that when you don't want to answer a question, you change the subject. When you change the subject too many times, you then accuse your opponent (sorry, I don't feel we are opponents, but could not think of a better word this early in the AM) of being delusional (the old pot calling the kettle black) and pretend that you answered the question(s). You never did. Presumably you never will.

Live long and prosper my friend.

LP

[David Merrill]

Another non sequitur on your part, Dave. The Erie doctrine simply stated that in actions in Federal Court, procedural issues were to be ruled by Federal code etc and substantive issues were to be governed by state law. te

Any first year law student knows that. The "scrubbing" of the internet is a sign of Paranoid Schizophrenia (after all, why wouldn't "they" scrub the Al Qaida sites from the net?)

I notice (as do others) that when you don't want to answer a question, you change the subject. When you change the subject too many times, you then accuse your opponent (sorry, I don't feel we are opponents, but could not think of a better word this early in the AM) of being delusional (the old pot calling the kettle black) and pretend that you answered the question(s). You never did. Presumably you never will.

Live long and prosper my friend.

LP

I am still savoring this...

David -- You know far less about me than I know about you.

in the same breath as...

I don't mean that as an insult -- after all, sicknesses are not a laughing matter.

You must get ridiculed by youngsters a lot. Your students?

And you throw me?

Any first year law student knows that.

So kind of you!

I recall speaking with my cousin's wife at a family reunion. She was about 2 1/2 years toward her degree, typically a student of yours I think. She blurted, "Where did you ever hear about Erie?"

It struck me how obvious the conditioning is - even so that she realized her mistake was talking about Erie at all, much less revealing it had been taught to her as private intellectual property of the Bar.

I really like the confirmation though, that there are many foreclosure hearings but none where the bank will bring in the original note:

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitor ... heck_1.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitor ... heck_2.jpg

Even though in every hearing there is a statute requiring the bank to do so. When the informed homeowner calls for the statute the "judge" will give the statute lip service, but like Judge Roy Bean admitted on Suijuris a while back, he would simply deduce from payments made that there was in fact an agreement, a mortgage in place.

There you have the law blended with equity.

You should comment about Bennett v. Butterworth 52 U.S. 669. Law cannot be blended with equity and still be competent common law.

Is that what you are trying to say about it? That the law and equity have not been blended together in America's courtrooms?



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I would change your comment to:

Any first year law student is conditioned to think that.

[wserra]

why wouldn't "they" scrub the Al Qaida sites from the net?

Why, they wouldn't scrub the Al Queda sites so that, when they do scrub the sites that really matter (like Van Pelt's), they can point to the Al Queda sites and say, "Why wouldn't 'we' scrub the Al Queda sites from the net?"

What does that make you, "Lawprof"?

Hmm? Hmm?

[Demosthenes]

Guys, David's not a well man. Why do continue to feed his cravings for attention and abuse?

[Prof]

Guys, David's not a well man. Why do continue to feed his cravings for attention and abuse?

Si!

[wserra]

Guys, David's not a well man. Why do continue to feed his cravings for attention and abuse?

Yeah. God forbid anybody should repost that article linking Van Pelt to the Freemen.

[David Merrill]

I am glad you jumped back in. Demosthenes is getting a little scary there, trying to keep you guys from making things about me again. What's with that?

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/su ... rrant1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/su ... rrant2.gif

I love when Wesley Marc tells us all about the story where this warrant, like hundreds is not actually in admiralty. It is a civil action in rem that merely tracks admiralty rules? Is that how the story goes Wesley?

Maybe you can quote something from Wiswall's comparative admiralty lecture to spice things up a bit this time through?

http://www.freedom-school.com/the-1994-ebsworth.pdf



Regards,

David Merrill.


http://www.iwfbsnewyork.com/jsp2650291.jsp

P.S. I think Lawprof and Wserra would rather comment about old newspaper articles than Proctor Wiswall's lecture just to bug me.

[.]

Once some voice in Van Pelt's head has opined that you are the:

mistress of manipulation

That's it. You're done. You're a bad moderator. Time to break out the whips and harnesses and open a dungeon.

[Demosthenes]

Guys, David's not a well man. Why do continue to feed his cravings for attention and abuse?

Yeah. God forbid anybody should repost that article linking Van Pelt to the Freemen.

I answered Tax Prof's question about David's ties to the Montana Freemen, a group that is very much on topic on a tax protest discussion board.

I'm not mocking David, or taking cheap shots at his mental illness, or trying to humiliate him for the umpteenth time on his various court failures, family failures, fantasy "suitors," or medical quackery beliefs.

Beating up on a mentally ill man doesn't make you big and clever and smart attorneys and tax professionals. It makes you look like assholes, and while you have every right to be assholes, it scares away the people who actually need help. One of the reasons I move Merrill's threads to Ranting and Raving is so that the endless and repetitive nastiness that gets heaped on him won't be archived.

If this speech sounds familiar, it's pretty close to the same one I gave when people here were shredding that 14 year old kid's blog. Pick on someone your own size, guys. There's no challenge in picking off the weakest from a herd. We should be using our pack hunting skills to take down the big juicy strong ones like Schulz and Hendrickson and Champion and the violent ones like the Browns and Hendrickson.

David comes here because he thrives on attention and abuse. I've threatened several times to ban him to protect him from himself (he prods people here into abusing him), but I prefer to let him post because I think it's important that he have some social interaction with people who don't buy into his delusions. I'd also like to establish a google history that shows people debunking his garbage since otherwise the only record online of people critiquing David's theories would be SuiJuris.

[Famspear]

Demosthenes wrote:

---"[ . . . ] mocking David, or taking cheap shots at his mental illness, or trying to humiliate him for the umpteenth time on his various court failures, family failures, fantasy "suitors," or medical quackery beliefs.

Beating up on a mentally ill man doesn't make you big and clever and smart attorneys and tax professionals. It makes you look like assholes, and while you have every right to be assholes, it scares away the people who actually need help."

As someone fairly new to Quatloos I may be guilty of some of this myself, and I agree with Demosthenes. I have been reading David's posts here and on other web sites and I am concerned. I have no health care expertise but I have a cousin with schizophrenia and I do believe David shows some possible signs of that. The problem I with which I wrestle with David is how to strike a balance -- and I'm asking myself whether my interaction with him can help him. I don't really have a definite answer. --Famspear

[David Merrill]

Guys, David's not a well man. Why do continue to feed his cravings for attention and abuse?

Yeah. God forbid anybody should repost that article linking Van Pelt to the Freemen.

I answered Tax Prof's question about David's ties to the Montana Freemen, a group that is very much on topic on a tax protest discussion board.

I'm not mocking David, or taking cheap shots at his mental illness, or trying to humiliate him for the umpteenth time on his various court failures, family failures, fantasy "suitors," or medical quackery beliefs.

Beating up on a mentally ill man doesn't make you big and clever and smart attorneys and tax professionals. It makes you look like assholes, and while you have every right to be assholes, it scares away the people who actually need help. One of the reasons I move Merrill's threads to Ranting and Raving is so that the endless and repetitive nastiness that gets heaped on him won't be archived.

If this speech sounds familiar, it's pretty close to the same one I gave when people here were shredding that 14 year old kid's blog. Pick on someone your own size, guys. There's no challenge in picking off the weakest from a herd. We should be using our pack hunting skills to take down the big juicy strong ones like Schulz and Hendrickson and Champion and the violent ones like the Browns and Hendrickson.

David comes here because he thrives on attention and abuse. I've threatened several times to ban him to protect him from himself (he prods people here into abusing him), but I prefer to let him post because I think it's important that he have some social interaction with people who don't buy into his delusions. I'd also like to establish a google history that shows people debunking his garbage since otherwise the only record online of people critiquing David's theories would be SuiJuris.

Demosthenes is completely disingenuous. Anybody who has been reading knows that. Yesterday she was deleting my posts knowing full well this would end up about me anyway; mainly because this new guy Lawprof is a complete asshole.

That is all you Quatlosers have going for you. You drive intelligent and thoughtful people away.

And this notion that people are here and could come here for therapy or even legal advice?

It makes you look like assholes, and while you have every right to be assholes, it scares away the people who actually need help.

I know from experience that albeit a flaming hemorrhoid of a person, opening with how great you are at making fun of history and law; making a mockery of the truth because he has been put in a position of conditioning young minds, Lawprof, if properly prodded and manipulated will tell me some things about the UCC that may be useful.

So shut that crap off Demosthenes. Nobody believes you!



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Example/admission:

2) If you want to be paid in gold or silver, you have the right to demand it WHEN YOU ARE HIRED. (Basic contract law.)

[Imalawman]

I concur with Demo to a point. I would not have a problem with deleting all Van Pelt's posts to this forum, but leaving the ones from Ranting and Raving. So David would know that he's not welcome in the TP forum. I hate it when he comes on to these threads and completely ruins them. I would also support a total ignore David policy.

[The Observer]

I think the above post shows a decision has to be made about whether David has to be censored. The problem is that you just cannot censor him partially. It is either a situation where he is totally banned or that he is allowed to continue posting here.

I, for one, will not sit by when David posts patently false information that is for the purpose of generating traffic and income from the gullible. I don't care if it appears to be beating up on David or taking advantage of him. If he comes here to post, then he needs to accept the fact that he is playing in the big leagues and will be challenged unmercifully when he lies.

Demo, if you believe that David is truly mentally ill (a premise that I don't agree with) and needs to be protected, then banning him may be justified in this context. Otherwise allowing him to prowl around here at will means that he has to be kept on a very short rope. And that is something that has not been done very well here over the years. It is almost like parading Bambi around a crowd of deerhunters during hunting season and telling them the Bambi is free to gore them, but they can't shoot back.

[David Merrill]

I concur with Demo to a point. I would not have a problem with deleting all Van Pelt's posts to this forum, but leaving the ones from Ranting and Raving. So David would know that he's not welcome in the TP forum. I hate it when he comes on to these threads and completely ruins them. I would also support a total ignore David policy.

How about no links?

That was an especially amusing injunction proposed by Judge Roy Bean; especially where people complain about me proving everything all the time by attaching documentation and court cases and stuff!



Regards,

David Merrill.


Ouch!!

Never compare me to Bambi!! You just went somewhere and you can never get back...

I think the above post shows a decision has to be made about whether David has to be censored. The problem is that you just cannot censor him partially. It is either a situation where he is totally banned or that he is allowed to continue posting here.

I, for one, will not sit by when David posts patently false information that is for the purpose of generating traffic and income from the gullible. I don't care if it appears to be beating up on David or taking advantage of him. If he comes here to post, then he needs to accept the fact that he is playing in the big leagues and will be challenged unmercifully when he lies.

Demo, if you believe that David is truly mentally ill (a premise that I don't agree with) and needs to be protected, then banning him may be justified in this context. Otherwise allowing him to prowl around here at will means that he has to be kept on a very short rope. And that is something that has not been done very well here over the years. It is almost like parading Bambi around a crowd of deerhunters during hunting season and telling them the Bambi is free to gore them, but they can't shoot back.

[wserra]

Guys, David's not a well man. Why do continue to feed his cravings for attention and abuse?

Yeah. God forbid anybody should repost that article linking Van Pelt to the Freemen.

I answered Tax Prof's question about David's ties to the Montana Freemen, a group that is very much on topic on a tax protest discussion board.

The comment was intended as a gentle poke in Demo's ribs. Sorry if I offended.

I'm not mocking David, or taking cheap shots at his mental illness, or trying to humiliate him for the umpteenth time on his various court failures, family failures, fantasy "suitors," or medical quackery beliefs.

Neither am I. If you look at the posts I made over the last month or so in response to his, all but one cited cases, posted images of his docs to analyze them, and so forth. (Awright, some might consider the photo of the train wreck to be gratuitous.) And I agree with The Observer that this is a good thing for the lurkers here.

The topic does not only matter re: Van Pelt, since it is likely that the situation will recur. Maybe the solution I see Joey just posted is the best. It certainly seems worth a try.