PlanetMerrill aka Saving to Suitors Club

[Pottapaug1938]

P.S. This is the link you should get a look at, you Quatlosers!

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthre ... gent-think

I'd rather spend my time watching the paint dry on the neighbor's house. If I want to read gibberish, I'll go next door and see their baby's scribblings.

[David Merrill]

How do you transform a routine tenet of law into a secret?

Answer: Declare a Bankers' Holiday instead. Look at the date - January. The Bankers' Holiday was in March.

Page 1
Page 2

Only David Merrill would ever think of responding to a challenge about turning a routine tenet of law into a secret by blithering about a Banker's Holiday, and then using as supporting documentation a PROPOSAL to abolish county courts (which never came close to enactment into law). Way to go, David. In the Quatloosian baseball game, you're oh-for-everything.[/quote]



Leave it to a Quatloser to fail linking the two - yet admit that there was such a proposal only a few weeks before the Bankers' Holiday. I like that, from you. There you go, admitting that there even was such a proposal made. You made my evening Poppycock! And you did not even mean to.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Gregg]

Does this mean they're gonna abolish courts in Colorado so David can get his imaginary money?

[David Merrill]

Does this mean they're gonna abolish courts in Colorado so David can get his imaginary money?

That's gotta hurt, huh Gregg?

The lien stands published upon true judgment - by the facts waiver of tort. There it is - you can buy your own certified copy of the Finance Statement for a few bucks from the Secretary of State.



This is much more hilarious than Gregg! Why would the clerk of court file this Notice of Lien with a marked Lawful Money $100 bill of exchange into a "converted" case file? Huh, Gregg?

But what has you so bent out of shape - assuming you are not really as dense as your anxiety portrays - is that we know that all the investigative observation of the Quatloos Team is reading There - at StSC - and they know by including the comprehensive collection of recent memorandum that the IRS agents read themselves by instruction as to what they can and cannot declare "frivolous" filings that it makes perfect sense.



The NY DoR agents contemplated this Return. They gave this same fellow a full Refund last year too. This year, they studied it and deduced, that instead of it being absurd that he would be sending $6K in Withholdings while earning no actual Taxable Income, that he had missed his $125 School Tax Credit:



So while we understand you trying to make light, and we appreciate your attempt to feign Denial Gregg, the real source of your anxious drama is that this fellow is a banker by profession, with a license for Income Tax Preparation. He has an informal source, an IRS attorney who however reluctantly has admitted, If you redeem lawful money you are considered outside the Federal Reserve System.

Good to see you here Grandslam;

I hope you will start an interesting thread or two. They don't like for me to do that around here - for obvious reasons. I have to bite my tongue a little on other informed people badgering my private Quatloser resources for the occasional tidbit of useful law process. I guess there is enough to go around. Prof was really the most useful that comes to mind by declaring that there is no signed security agreement behind oaths of office as fungible fidelity bonds:



I look forward to some of the byproducts of your exploration into the Quatloosian State of Denial.


David Merrill.

[Pottapaug1938]

How do you transform a routine tenet of law into a secret?

Answer: Declare a Bankers' Holiday instead. Look at the date - January. The Bankers' Holiday was in March.

Page 1
Page 2

[/quote]

Only David Merrill would ever think of responding to a challenge about turning a routine tenet of law into a secret by blithering about a Banker's Holiday, and then using as supporting documentation a PROPOSAL to abolish county courts (which never came close to enactment into law). Way to go, David. In the Quatloosian baseball game, you're oh-for-everything.[/quote]



Leave it to a Quatlooser to fail linking the two - yet admit that there was such a proposal only a few weeks before the Bankers' Holiday. I like that, from you. There you go, admitting that there even was such a proposal made. You made my evening Poppycock! And you did not even mean to.



Regards,

David Merrill.[/quote]

David, once again you completely miss the point of what I was saying. Let me repeat it again, and I won't use big words:

What a Court can talk about has nothing to do with a day when bankers can stay at home and not run their banks. A day when the bankers can stay home has nothing to do with an idea someone had, in 1933, to close down some of the courts. The idea of closing down the courts doesn't mean anything because no one ever said, "Okay, the courts are closed".

Why should I not "admit that there was such a proposal," David? You provide the evidence yourself. Of course, you completely misunderstand it; and you fail to admit that the proposal never was enacted into law and thus has no legal impact whatsoever. Once again, your "documentary evidence" proves NOTHING.

Oh-for-everything, plus one.

[David Merrill]

Your declaration is incorrect. The Sixteenth Amendment ties the two events together quite well in that the courts of the US were legislated competent to hear the disputes of the private endorsement contracts between people and the Federal Reserve. The letter in the Colorado Archives describes the intent that was executed by emergency 60 days later by the Bankers' Holiday.



The People were allowed into the position of Fed banks in the original 1913 Fed Act. Look at the first sentence:



...and for no other purpose,

[Pottapaug1938]

Your declaration is incorrect. The Sixteenth Amendment ties the two events together quite well in that the courts of the US were legislated competent to hear the disputes of the private endorsement contracts between people and the Federal Reserve. The letter in the Colorado Archives describes the intent that was executed by emergency 60 days later by the Bankers' Holiday.



The People were allowed into the position of Fed banks in the original 1913 Fed Act. Look at the first sentence:



...and for no other purpose,

No, David. Once again, you prove yourself incapable of understanding what the letter means. It is only a PROPOSAL. If it were anything more, you would be able to cite the law that abolishes the courts in question; but since that proposal never got enacted into law, the letter means nothing. The issue of a banker's holiday is something else again; and in the throes of the Great Depression, many other such letters were written and are certainly contained in many archives.

Still oh-for-everything, David.

[Gregg]

A few years ago I was invited to join a group of people who were going to attempt to buy the Arbys's Roast Beef chain. I didn't join, and they didn't end up buying Arby's either.

Does that mean David hasn't yet gotten his imaginary money because Roast Beef Sandwiches are on sale, 4 for $5 this week?

[grixit]

I propose that David Merrill be designated a public ferret shelter.

[Judge Roy Bean]

A few years ago I was invited to join a group of people who were going to attempt to buy the Arbys's Roast Beef chain. I didn't join, and they didn't end up buying Arby's either.

Does that mean David hasn't yet gotten his imaginary money because Roast Beef Sandwiches are on sale, 4 for $5 this week?...

On Planet Van Pelt, yes; conflation, no matter how absurd, is part of the natural order.

[David Merrill]

No, David. Once again, you prove yourself incapable of understanding what the letter means. It is only a PROPOSAL. If it were anything more, you would be able to cite the law that abolishes the courts in question; but since that proposal never got enacted into law, the letter means nothing. The issue of a banker's holiday is something else again; and in the throes of the Great Depression, many other such letters were written and are certainly contained in many archives.

Still oh-for-everything, David.

Yet you keep admitting that in all seriousness, the Bar Association proposed abolishing the county courts 60 days prior to the Bankers' Holiday!

You guys are a hoot - all conflation aside.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

A few years ago I was invited to join a group of people who were going to attempt to buy the Arbys's Roast Beef chain. I didn't join, and they didn't end up buying Arby's either.

Does that mean David hasn't yet gotten his imaginary money because Roast Beef Sandwiches are on sale, 4 for $5 this week?...

On Planet Van Pelt, yes; conflation, no matter how absurd, is part of the natural order.

Being a donkey whisperer, I thinks JRB meant conflatulation?

[Pottapaug1938]

No, David. Once again, you prove yourself incapable of understanding what the letter means. It is only a PROPOSAL. If it were anything more, you would be able to cite the law that abolishes the courts in question; but since that proposal never got enacted into law, the letter means nothing. The issue of a banker's holiday is something else again; and in the throes of the Great Depression, many other such letters were written and are certainly contained in many archives.

Still oh-for-everything, David.

Yet you keep admitting that in all seriousness, the Bar Association proposed abolishing the county courts 60 days prior to the Bankers' Holiday!

You guys are a hoot - all conflation aside.

Regards,

David Merrill.[/quote]

SO WHAT, DAVID? All that the Bar Association letter shows is that the letter writer had one proposed solution for dealing with what was going on within the United States. There were many other such letters, columns and speeches; and like the Bar Association letter, the solutions that they proposed never saw the light of day. The Bar Association letter had as much to do with the Banker's Holiday as the ...um, "retirement" of Manny Ramirez had to do with the outcome of yesterday's Chicago Cubs game.

Still oh-for-everything, David.

[David Merrill]

I think the score is much more in my favor. You just admitted to what I said originally.

One solution was to abolish the county courts, in order to privatize them to the Bar, that was moving and volunteering to accomplish this highly unjudicial task if I may say so. Really!! Do you not see something rather odd about abolishing county courts?

The solution as proposed in the letter was never implemented in that form because it was accomplished by 1938 (federal) and as early as 1935 (Colorado) through the implementation of One Form of Action. - The blending of law and equity.

The resetting of the common law (stare decisis) came about with overturning Swift (1842) after the 1933 Bankers' Holiday. So the new, corrected common law was based in the new form; where the layman could endorse the Fed's private credit.

But the Score is really settled with you admitting that the Solution would have been to abolish the county courts. That must be why you think your settlement is better drawn in big red letters?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think the score is much more in my favor. You just admitted to what I said originally.

Only in the sense that there was a proposal to abolish county courts.

One solution was to abolish the county courts, in order to privatize them to the Bar, that was moving and volunteering to accomplish this highly unjudicial task if I may say so. Really!! Do you not see something rather odd about abolishing county courts?

Wrong. There was no attempt to "privatize the courts to the Bar, or to any other private group. And no, I don't see "something rather odd" about abolishing county courts, IF SOMETHING ELSE TAKES THEIR PLACE. Here in Massachusetts, county courts were abolished long ago; but the Trial Court of the Commonwealth, and its judicial districts, took their place. Essentially, they are the same courts under a different administration.

The solution as proposed in the letter was never implemented in that form because it was accomplished by 1938 (federal) and as early as 1935 (Colorado) through the implementation of One Form of Action. - The blending of law and equity.

Wrong again. All that the 1938 reform did was to abolish the artificial distinction between law and equity and simplify the forms of pleading

The resetting of the common law (stare decisis) came about with overturning Swift (1842) after the 1933 Bankers' Holiday. So the new, corrected common law was based in the new form; where the layman could endorse the Fed's private credit.

Wrong again. Swift v. Tyson wasn't overturned until 1938, in the Erie R.R. v. Tompkins case. Erie held that there is no Federal common law and that a Federal court must apply the comon law of the state in which it sits; and one effect of the decision was t reduce the "forum-shopping" that went on under the old Swift rule.

But the Score is really settled with you admitting that the Solution would have been to abolish the county courts. That must be why you think your settlement is better drawn in big red letters?

Wrong again. I made no admission about the solution being to abolish the county courts. As for the large red letters, that was my desperate attempt to drive my correct point home in your (ahahaha) mind.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Still oh-for-everything, David.