Evidence Repositories -- why?

[Pottapaug1938]

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

[Arthur Rubin]

I think I found more sense in David Merril's posts.

[JamesVincent]

Huh? No sprechen des Duetsche, or whatever the hell he was using. I can actually say I do not understand a single thing he wrote.

[Pottapaug1938]

I find very little sense in ANYTHING which appears in Saving to Suitors threads. I think that this clown is arguing that, if you can establish your "evidence repository" in a courthouse, such "evidence" as is in those "repositories" thus becomes admissible, in court, under the stated exception to the hearsay rule. Of course, if I had a dollar for every other reason why this sort of piffle is useless (at best) in court, I could fly down to Curacao for a week....

[wserra]

It's hard to keep any response to stuff like this to just a few paragraphs. In Wolfgang Pauli's famous critique, not only is it not right, it's not even wrong. Hitting, therefore, only the highest of the high points:

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.

Funny, my version of the statute includes "at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank". Seems like that should count for "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).

Well, no, not exactly. There's not a judge in the country who would rule that doug and friends scheming to evade taxes is "regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling" (the actual phrase, not "normal course of business"). Not even if the judge were on drugs.

SO THEN: Remedy is between our ears.

Likely because nature abhors a vacuum.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that this idiot believes that a case file is a record made as part of the "regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling" for the court involved, and thus qualifies for the exception to the rule. If that were true, then there would effectively be no hearsay rule, since all one would need to do to get around it is put the hearsay in document form (if it is not there already) and then file the document with the court.

But, that's okay. After all, David and his acolytes have such an amazing record of final victories in court... right?

[AndyK]

Why is there any question or controversy about the rules of evidence or procedure on Planet Merrill?

The entire Planet Merrill legal code is written on multiple Ethc-A-Sketches which are shaken and rescriven as need arises to accomodate incompatibilities with foreign legal systems.

[The Observer]

SO THEN: Remedy is between our ears.

Likely because nature abhors a vacuum.

But there is a kernel of truth in that statement of doug's. This is the only place that "remedy" can reside where it can resist the light of truth and objectivity. As long as the suitors can make a mind game out of "remedy" they can avoid having to admit that they have lost and keep on constructing the air castles of victory everytime someone shows why they are wrong. Like in David Van Pelt's case of his $20 million "lien", when asked why he hadn't pursued securing the monies encumbered by the lien, he retreated to the next line of defense between his ears by claiming that just having the "lien" in place was working all sorts of intangible miracles for him.

[Famspear]

.......Like in David Van Pelt's case of his $20 million "lien", when asked why he hadn't pursued securing the monies encumbered by the lien, he retreated to the next line of defense between his ears by claiming that just having the "lien" in place was working all sorts of intangible miracles for him.

That sounds like some obscure place somewhere between my ears where it says that all women find me completely irresistible. Just my knowing that "fact" works all sorts of intangible miracles for me. Of course, I perceive the frustration felt by 99% of all women who long for my attention and who realize that although I am irresistible, they just can't have me. There isn't enough of me to go around.

And so on....

And so on....

[jkeeb]

I thought the discussion was about Trojans for rapists.

[Famspear]

I thought the discussion was about Trojans for rapists.

[grixit]

One of these days, some overworked clerk is going to lose it and "reposit" the paperwork in a really secure place.

[Red Cedar PM]

Are we sure they didn't mean Evidence Suppositories?

Thanks, I'll be here all week, please tip your waitress

[Pottapaug1938]

Are we sure they didn't mean Evidence Suppositories?

Thanks, I'll be here all week, please tip your waitress

I guess that this term comes into play when an angry court clerk responds to a demand that this sort of thing be filed, with the court, with a suggestion that the would-be filer stick the desired documents where the sun don't shine....

[webhick]

Only a Constipational Ranger can use an Evidence Suppository properly.

[Gregg]

Only a Constipational Ranger can use an Evidence Suppository properly.

I would normally say "you are hereby fined 20Quatloo for that remark and remanded to the corps of interns for a period not to exceed 84 years" which would be about right if I had a choice to finish with anything besides "now report to Webhick for execution of sentence"

whaddaya do when the inmates take over the asylum?

[Kestrel]

Only a Constipational Ranger can use an Evidence Suppository properly.

... and restrain the nouveau effluence from backfiring all over the free fish sandwiches.

[Pottapaug1938]

Only a Constipational Ranger can use an Evidence Suppository properly.

... gives a whole new meaning to "Refused for Cause", I suspect.

[The Observer]

Of course, the real reason for teaching suitors to set up a evidence repository is so that they will think they are accomplishing something, something so powerful and unknown to the rest of the hoi polloi, that the marks will most likely be distracted from asking pertinent and probing questions. Such as "why does the law not read the way you quoted it?", "why does the court brief you cite in support of your instruction contradict what you said?" and probably the most important one, "Why doesn't this #$% work like you said it would?"

[wserra]

And, of course, to have a response to the obvious question concerning why every single suit is thrown in the trash.

"It's not a design defect, it's a feature!"