David Myrland arrested

[grixit]

Hmm. He refers to Becraft as a Quatloser. It's good to see a tp who understands the difference between a Quatloosian (one of us regulars here), and a Quatloser (someone that we expose/refute/mock) .

He calls Becraft a jewish disinformation specialist. That seems rather specilized. Why specialize in writing disinformation for jews when it's a lot more efficient to disinform everybody?

And he refers to Becraft being caught with his "pants on the ground". Wasn't that the democratic alternative to GWB's invasion of Iraq? You know to send Bill Clinton to destroy the Saddam Hussein regime through sexual conquest? Too bad the republicans prefered boots on the ground instead of pants.

[ArthurWankspittle]

And if you want to listen to Myrland talk about his epic war with Quatloos...

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-59615/TS-305602.mp3

Pretty amusing stuff.

Wait there's a war going on involving Quatloos and no one invited me? If the GD mailman lost my invitation again there will be hell to pay!

Am I liable to be conscripted? Did someone slip some very small print into my sign up agreement?

[The Observer]

Am I liable to be conscripted? Did someone slip some very small print into my sign up agreement?

No, that was tattooed on your skin over the fourth vertebrae. Now stop stalling and report to the front.

[Nikki]

Am I liable to be conscripted?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

You were, we won, the war is over, and you've been discharged.
Amazing what we can do when we harness thousands of bot-brains into the driving force behind our mind-control rays, isn't it?

[Joey Smith]

Wonder how Myrland is doing in the joint? Something tells me that he would not get along well with the general prison populace.

[Famspear]

The state criminal charges are actually old news.

David Myrland is now facing federal charges. From a report on Wednesday, January 26, 2011:

A Redmond man previously charged in state court with threatening to arrest the Kirkland mayor and city attorney is now facing federal prosecution.

Filing charges earlier this month, federal prosecutors at Seattle reiterated claims that David Russell Myrland threatened to come to the homes of the Kirkland officials and went on to allege that Myrland's supporters have made threats against the King County prosecutor and others.

In September, King County prosecutors filed felony charges against Myrland, a traffic offender who was apparently upset that his car was impounded following a traffic stop and sent a threatening e-mail to Kirkland Mayor Joan McBride.

[ . . . . ]

King County prosecutors filed charges against Myrland in September. Months later, according to the federal agent, threatening letters related to Myrland's case began arriving.

A letter sent from Little Elm, Texas, and received by the City of Kirkland on Dec. 27 faulted King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg for engaging in "malicious prosecution" of people who think like Myrland, the federal agent told the court.

[ . . . ]

King County prosecutors had charged Myrland with two counts of intimidating a public servant. Myrland, who was free, was arrested Tuesday [January 25] and was ordered detained at the SeaTac Federal Detention Center pending a hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.

Myrland has been charged with transmission of threatening interstate communications, a felony.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/434173_k ... source=oys

(bolding added).

The federal criminal case is United States v. David Russell Myrland, case no. 2:11-mj-00030-MAT, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle.

He is charged under 18 USC section 875(c).

Public defender appointed.

[wserra]

Myrland was arraigned on the federal complaint last Tuesday (Jan 25), and ordered detained pending a hearing. The following day, the M-J ordered Myrland released on various conditions of supervision. The govt told the M-J they intended to appeal that order to the DJ, and detention was continued pending that appeal. On Thursday, the govt moved before the MJ to reconsider.

That motion is worth reading. Myrland truly appears to be a dangerous wacko.

[Demosthenes]

A 2008 sample of Myrland's writings from the HOD (Harddrive of Demo):

Hello?

I honestly don't know how an American can hold their tongue about the behavior and derelictions of their public servants across the board; civic slumber. Speaking nicely has gotten America to precisely where it finds itself so I refuse to do it. While I indeed am quite charitable and want to act in the manner of which I know I'm capable, the constant and profanely un-American brand of harassment of which public servants are so proud prevents me from pursuing higher causes than to attempt to impress some official abuser with the fact that their acts are criminal. Add to this the fact that law, for the most part, is very boring, and that finds me quite restless and searching for ways to spice it up, ways to turn somebody else's legal controversy into my opportunity to entertain myself by being a pain to the prosecutor, judge, cop . . . I call it "drive-by litigation." Hi, officer; cough.

Can't you hear it? Can you hear a public servant describing what they hate a litigant to do during a case? Can you hear the judge say to the prosecutor in some rinky-dink (I don't even know how to spell that) cash register court, "Listen! Every time you bring this guy in here he boxes you into a corner, and when I help you he files criminal complaints against me across town - Leave him alone for the little stuff!"? I always file criminal complaints because they hate it every time! One can never claim a victory because servants have the guns and jails; I'm no fool. HOWEVER, in reading the rules (our laws) I discovered that I can be a far bigger *#%&- to them than I ever dreamed was possible when I first took exception to gov't in 1988.

In WA state I'd try to ring the felony bell, I'd try to identify a felony committed by the public servants of my affections, because in WA I can arrest a felon with any necessary force without a knock at the moment of my choosing at sometime during the next ten years. (See RCW 9A.16.020 citizen's arrest, 9A.04.080 ten yr. statute of limitations; Hudson v. Michigan, U.S.S.Ct. #04-1360 (6/15/06), cops don't have to knock). In New Mexico I would simply push my servant to commit an act of official misconduct or theft, because then I could kill them. (See NMS § 30-2-7 Justifiable homicide over "any unlawful act").

Now, picture being somebody who can, in most instances, find the crime and grind the process against the derelict servant; for the little stuff I'm not worth it, in cash register court. Now picture a U.S. Dist. Court Chief "judge" and two IRS agents and two DOJ attorneys, failing miserably to prove that more than just executive branch regulation alone implicates Americans as subject to the provisions of the Tax Code, but only after raiding a home under search warrant, seizing property and accessing the computer they took from the home. If they have no statute (the 16th Amdt. says only "Congress may lay the tax) they have no statutory authority, and so they're guilty of residential burglary, 1st degree theft, and computer trespass; three WA state felonies.

So you move to dismiss and the judge refuses, and is therefore guilty of a WA state felony under RCW 9A.82.060 Leading organized crime, because the DOJ is still unable to provide more than a regulation for their authority over Americans under the Tax Code. Now I add the judge to my WA state felony complaint and petition for a Grand Jury I had already filed in county superior court, and sue in that court for a decision that I have probable cause to arrest the attorneys, agents, and the judge. And when they remove my state case to federal court (28 USC §§ 1441, 1442, 1446) I tell the federal judge there that failure to remand the action back to superior court gives me grounds to arrest that judge for "leading organized crime" - 10 yrs., no knock, etc.

Oh sure! Who the Hell is this malarkey vendor, and what kind of fools does he take us for?!?!? Well, all of this is HISTORY! The motion to dismiss was to be decided by January's end. (See U.S. Dist. Court, Seattle, WA #V-07-0509-L; King County Superior Court, Kent, WA #07-2-33375-4-KNT). And having briefed this issue and others in a RICO complaint I filed w/eighty members of Congress on 12/28/05 I knew the DOJ would fail just as it did. (See www.ToCongress.com).
GOOGLE THIS - "open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel" and then recount all of the discussion from grade school and high school (No, I'm not talking to hip-hoppers) about the common right of "public vehicular travel"; I never heard of it either, but after getting 464k hits on my first Google I tied up .com .net .org .info .tv .us and .biz for "public vehicular travel." Because you've read the RICO complaint against Congressman David Reichert on www.PublicVehicularTravel.com (he was sheriff here, in Seattle) you already know him, and every other cop in the country, to be guilty of unlawful imprisonment (a felony) for each and every traffic stop of a public vehicular traveler, because surely a common right is not a privilege granted by the state, such as the operation of a motor vehicle upon the highways of the state; right? And Mr. Reichert supervised this extortion under the motor vehicle code by threat, ala, drive w/o these and we'll *#% your life! This makes him guilty of leading organized crime under RCW 9A.82.060; a felony, bacon in the pan, fat in the fire.What you've just seen here are the keys to the two major modes of crime and abuse American government offers us, as it's done for decades. "I've been deprived of the right of public vehicular travel"; motor vehicle solved. "I'm only named as a subject to the Tax Code by regulation alone, in violation of the 16th Amdt."; Tax Code eliminated. This pretty much adds up to personal sovereignty, doesn't it? Until I seek to work in a regulated profession I surely won't see a servant with an attitude toward me, not one they can actually act upon. (See the New Mexico justifiable homicide statute; right?).

Yes, law is a list of boring rules that takes forever to comb through, rules most of can do without knowing because there's a rodent in every pot; we're happy. Since Feb. of '02 the private bank note the U.S. gov't makes us use as legal tender (FRNs) has lost 50% of its value against the EURO and against the Canadian dollar; we're happy. Everyone on t.v. and in public schools tell our children that it's an Arab terrorist glued to the bottom of the second plane to hit the towers; we're happy. Society's failures are telling our children about sex, about style, about culture; we're happy. The DOJ imprisons innocent women who the IRS doesn't like, like former IRS agent Sherry Jackson (facing sentencing), but they let approx. 12 million illegal aliens skate past 8 USC § 1325 which puts them in jail for six months for their crime against us; we're happy.

Well, my standards are higher. You see, I have this problem with my servants stealing from me and then threatening me when I object to the fact that they're above the law across the board, clearing their throats at the top of their lungs at our children for everything from littering to not figuring out the forms we need to file for mercy within the required window of opportunity for mercy. Yes, it is time to halt the pleasantries and speak to our minds, whether you believe me or not. I'm not nice to my servants because they're not nice to me; it's that simple. What do you do to a soda machine that takes your money - You kick it until you get your Sprite - *$^%# it! I paid for due process and I'm going to get it! Oh yeah, you're the judge that hates criminal complaints; get me my pen!

So this derelict superior court judge in San Mateo, CA (Lisa Novak appointed by Arnold 2005) who was the hired hatchet [man] brought in to tar and feather a tattoo parlor owner the city wanted to get rid of, took to flying off the handle in a number of disgraceful ways, falsely imprisoning him over nothing and finding contempt where there was none; I'll handle it. I need 3 exhibits to attach to a CA felony complaint for kidnapping, extortion, robbery and assault against the judge and 2 deputies and I file those w/petition to empanel a grand jury. (CA § 904). I use a stamped copy of all of that as an exhibit to my complaint to the FBI for federal crimes and pay them a visit. I then attach ALL of that to an affidavit of prejudice against Lisa to get her the Hell away from the case she had previously refused to assign to another judge; it worked!

Where there once was the wicked witch of the west there now is a humiliated, stammering, clumsy fool who relied upon a public defender the defendant didn't even ask for to soften the record and allow enough time with no mention of the criminal complaint for her to recuse herself. At present you can find these pleadings at - www.NoConfidence.com - click on "Freebies" and see "San Mateo"; this is what I do. On my radio show page, there, you'll see an audio link to a 25 minute interview of a man who attended all of the San Mateo hearings wherein he tells of having a bigger laugh than he can recall having in many, many years, on the steps of the courthouse after seeing Lisa dribble about jx^g*f#d&qib; I wish I could have been there! This is when law IS NOT boring!

Change is good; I amended Lisa's constitution, the law is back in San Mateo (however briefly). Once the servants were in check (the new judge is saying, "Do I feel lucky?"), the messing around they'd done caught up with them, and the first motion the defender filed got the case dismissed. (Speedy trial rights expired). That may seem simple enough, but even that would not have been enough for Lisa and her mood. Once the court (and the new judge) realized how far from decency Lisa really festers, the door to justice fell open a crack; the system missed this one. (See San Mateo, CA Superior Court #NM-366245).

Bruce Lee would rather not fight, but he spent ten years perfecting the eye gouge; fight's over. When servants come at me I want it to hurt them. "Oh yeah, that's the guy with the eye gouges; the judge hates that. Leave him alone."

"THANK YOU, SERVANT!" Why does it take this level of animosity just to handle organisms who've sworn to protect us and to uphold the law? Not my problem; their problems and perversions are not my problem beyond making them stop it. Why they do what they do is of no concern except for the fact that it makes me protect my family against their children; that's all. (Now roll your eyes back in your head and swear. It's okay, they're your servants.). While this pursuit is very disheartening and can strip one of their patriotism, and their poise, the filthy looks one gets from the once street domineering sheriff who now works the metal detector at a courthouse must be considered as precious gems, recalling that it was you and your own student who filed the criminal complaint that got him demoted.

They have the guns; I'm no fool. Corruption is entirely unpredictable so there is no victory to claim. We're happy; count me out. I want my whole paycheck, and I want public vehicular travel. Hi, Mr. Reichert; please resign.

David R. Myrland

Emphasis mine.

[Famspear]

This one is soooooo easy!

David Myrland:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
DSM-IV, Axis II, code 301.81

The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder revolve around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement. Often individuals feel overly important and will exaggerate achievements

[ . . . ]

Treatment for this disorder is very rarely sought. There is a limited amount of insight [on the part of the subject] into the symptoms, and the negative consequences [suffered by the subject] are often blamed on society. In this sense, treatment options are limited. Some research has found long term insight oriented therapy to be effective, but getting the individual to commit to this treatment is a major obstacle.

(bolding added).

http://allpsych.com/disorders/personali ... ssism.html

Myrland is a pretty severe case.

[Famspear]

I checked PACER, and David Myrland has been in and out -- and in and out -- and in and out -- of U.S. Bankruptcy Court (he filed once in 1992, twice in 1996, and once in 1997). Let me guess: His financial problems were all someone else's fault......

There are also numerous other federal cases where he's listed as a party.

Judging from what I've seen of his writing, my sister's dog knows more about the law than this guy.

His near-violent opposition to something as mundane as vehicular traffic law is telling.

[LPC]

Myrland truly appears to be a dangerous wacko.

He may be legally insane, in the sense that he doesn't seem to understand the difference between right and wrong.

[Joey Smith]

Yeah, but according to Myrland himself, you're just a pink panty wearin' pedophile, and he OWNS you on knowledge of tax law.

[wserra]

Yeah, but according to Myrland himself, you're just a pink panty wearin' pedophile, and he OWNS you on knowledge of tax law.

But I'm going home to my family tonight.

[webhick]

If all you see are kiddie diddlers, then what do you see when you look in the mirror?

[Imalawman]

Myrland truly appears to be a dangerous wacko.

He may be legally insane, in the sense that he doesn't seem to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Hmmm, doubtful. He pointed to statutes which gave him the right to kill - evidencing that he in fact knew that he needed authorization before he could kill someone. It shows that he in fact is aware of right and wrong - remember, it doesn't have to "right" in the common meaning or in terms of the law. I don't think he'd have an easy argument on that front.

[bmielke]

Myrland truly appears to be a dangerous wacko.

He may be legally insane, in the sense that he doesn't seem to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Hmmm, doubtful. He pointed to statutes which gave him the right to kill - evidencing that he in fact knew that he needed authorization before he could kill someone. It shows that he in fact is aware of right and wrong - remember, it doesn't have to "right" in the common meaning or in terms of the law. I don't think he'd have an easy argument on that front.

Question though, if you believe you have a "right to kill" doesn't that show that you don't know the difference between right and wrong. Unless the places he talked about are very different that Tennessee you don't have a "right to kill" anyone rather you have an affirmative defense to the act of killing someone.

[Imalawman]

He may be legally insane, in the sense that he doesn't seem to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Hmmm, doubtful. He pointed to statutes which gave him the right to kill - evidencing that he in fact knew that he needed authorization before he could kill someone. It shows that he in fact is aware of right and wrong - remember, it doesn't have to "right" in the common meaning or in terms of the law. I don't think he'd have an easy argument on that front.

Question though, if you believe you have a "right to kill" doesn't that show that you don't know the difference between right and wrong. Unless the places he talked about are very different that Tennessee you don't have a "right to kill" anyone rather you have an affirmative defense to the act of killing someone.

Not necessarily. (treading into dangerous waters...Wes, help!) It depends on the state and the test that is used. If a strict M'Naghten test is used, then it takes more than a mistake of the law in order to be legally insane.

For instance - consider a man who kills a stranger on the street because, due to mental illness, he believed he was cutting down a tree. He was unable to appreciate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of his actions, therefore legally insane. Let's say that he kills the man because he believes that the man is an agent of the Devil. However, he knows that he is killing a man and that it is not in self-defense. The fact that he believed that the man was an agent of the Devil was merely a motive for the murder - not the basis of an irresistible impulse or delusion.

The fact that this whacko understands the law to a certain degree, "knows" that there are situations where killing is justified or unjustified, is going to be problematic for bringing a defense later on. Knowing the law is not a requirement for insanity - having the capability to understand is the important fact.

Just this past year in my state there was a killing where "God told me to kill the man, I had to save the children" (who knows that really meant). However, he knew he was killing a person, the killing was not in self-defense, and he demonstrated the he understood that some killings were wrong and others right. Clearly, the dude was insane under medial definitions. However, he was not legally insane. He was convicted of first degree murder.

[wserra]

Not necessarily. (treading into dangerous waters...Wes, help!)

Don't think you need it - I see it the way you do, understanding that above a (low) threshold these are questions of fact for a jury. But I, like you, don't see a jury acquitting someone of murder because he got the law wrong about whether a certain course of conduct is a "right" or an "affirmative defense". If he realizes that the conduct is governed by law, that should suffice to "know right from wrong".

BTW, "insanity" was always a terrible defense, because it always carried the "he'll get away with it" undertone. Long ago - as a PD - I got one of the few jury acquittals around on an insanity case, but the facts were the best I've ever heard of (I'll describe if someone wants). More and more jurisdictions are restricting M'Naghton, adopting the Model Penal Code formulation: "lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law". A few states have done away with the insanity defense entirely.

Hey, if Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't succeed with an insanity plea, Myrland doesn't seem to have a prayer (not that he would plead it anyway). You guys remember the stuff Dahmer did, right?

[Famspear]

......You guys remember the stuff Dahmer did, right?

Nobody's perfect.

[littleroundman]

As an observer from afar,

I'd really, really like to know what this tax protester fascination with pink panties is all about.

Envy, perhaps ???