famous WTP appeal sealed...

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Post by . »

So the question is do I have the right to control what I have and do not have?
No, you don't have the right to control what you do not have. But, that is just more of your usual obfuscation and baloney.

The question is the one you refuse to answer: Did you sign the name Van Pelt when you claimed that you haven't used that name in over 10 years?
The voices in Van Pelt's head that Van Pelt forgot about wrote: I have signed nothing "David M. Van Pelt" for well over a decade.
Rock => Van Pelt <= Hard place.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
David Merrill

Thank you

Post by David Merrill »

You sound like a classical identity thief. You are saying I am not in control of legal name? At any rate you insist on posting in the wrong thread so I just figure you hope to distract Readers from how Bob Shultz is handling his flopped appeal.

Your second sentence shows delirium or a poor reader retention. When do you think the National Grand Jury about war powers was held?

Maybe that is why you are blabbering here on this thread; the WTP Appeal was about redress of grievances like the 1995 jury.



Regards,

David Merrill.
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Post by . »

The question remains the same one you repeatedly refuse to answer while you unsuccessfully try to obfuscate the issue:

Did you sign the name Van Pelt when you claimed that you haven't used that name in over 10 years?
The voices in Van Pelt's head that Van Pelt forgot about wrote: I have signed nothing "David M. Van Pelt" for well over a decade.
Rock => Van Pelt <= Hard place.

Answer the simple question.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Brian Rookard
Beefcake
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:09 am

Post by Brian Rookard »

. wrote:The question remains the same one you repeatedly refuse to answer while you unsuccessfully try to obfuscate the issue:

Did you sign the name Van Pelt when you claimed that you haven't used that name in over 10 years?
The voices in Van Pelt's head that Van Pelt forgot about wrote: I have signed nothing "David M. Van Pelt" for well over a decade.
Rock => Van Pelt <= Hard place.

Answer the simple question.
Since we know that David Merrill of the House of Van Pelt is a liar ... do you expect an honest answer that isn't evasive?
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Post by . »

No.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

So long as the Readers can understand the timeline. The alleged signing was twelve years ago and the Post says that particular legal name has been out of use for ten years as of about two years ago.



Regards,

David Merrill.
Doktor Avalanche
Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Yuba City, CA

Post by Doktor Avalanche »

. wrote:
So the question is do I have the right to control what I have and do not have?
No, you don't have the right to control what you do not have. But, that is just more of your usual obfuscation and baloney.
What did you expect from a guy who doesn't believe in (or endorse) money?

I bet that's what he tells his daughter when it comes time to cough up the child support.

"Sorry, sweetheart, but daddy doesn't endorse Federal Reserve Notes. Here, take these liberty dollars instead. What's that? The only person who will redeem them is that strange militia man in Montana? Well, daddy would give you a ride but as you know he had his scooter taken away from him because of 9-11. Now, now..don't cry...Daddy promises the minute he wins his court case against Jesus he'll make sure you never want for anything again."

Drill weekend sucked, boys and girls.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

David Merrill wrote:So long as the Readers can understand the timeline. The alleged signing was twelve years ago and the Post says that particular legal name has been out of use for ten years as of about two years ago.
Lying [jerk].

[Edited by LPC in a calmer moment.]
Last edited by LPC on Mon May 21, 2007 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

What I find somewhat interesting is all your denial does not seem to get boring to some of you.

What about Bob?

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -5359a.pdf

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit ... Docket.htm

I wonder how he is doing?



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Classical projection: Case # U.S.-95-3 She is making up the dates to fit his own mistaken timeline...
LPC wrote:
David Merrill wrote:So long as the Readers can understand the timeline. The alleged signing was twelve years ago and the Post says that particular legal name has been out of use for ten years as of about two years ago.
Lying asshole.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... m_Ring.jpg
http://www.icresource.com/public_html/C ... chita.html
order to show cause
The Dog
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:11 pm
Location: England

Post by The Dog »

. wrote:The question is the one you refuse to answer: Did you sign the name Van Pelt when you claimed that you haven't used that name in over 10 years?
The voices in Van Pelt's head that Van Pelt forgot about wrote: I have signed nothing "David M. Van Pelt" for well over a decade.
Rock => Van Pelt <= Hard place.
Maybe the Motor Scooter has taken to signing itself "Van Pelt"?
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

David Merrill wrote:What I find somewhat interesting is all your denial does not seem to get boring to some of you.

What about Bob?

Regards,

David Merrill.
Bob is in deep doodoo.

He lost his "LANDMARK RIGHT TO PETITION" case unless (which has a lower probablility than hell freezing over) the Supreme Court reviews it.

He is facing civil actions regarding his personal income tax filings (actually, the lack thereof).

Within a very short time, he will be defending the WTP's 501(c)(3) tax exemption against revocation for multiple reasons -- the least of which is his failure to file the mandatory annual financial statements.

Bob is history. The only thing left for him is another death fast. If the government has any sense, they won't interfere in this one.
Doktor Avalanche
Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Yuba City, CA

Post by Doktor Avalanche »

The Dog wrote:
. wrote:The question is the one you refuse to answer: Did you sign the name Van Pelt when you claimed that you haven't used that name in over 10 years?
The voices in Van Pelt's head that Van Pelt forgot about wrote: I have signed nothing "David M. Van Pelt" for well over a decade.
Rock => Van Pelt <= Hard place.
Maybe the Motor Scooter has taken to signing itself "Van Pelt"?
I thought the government claimed the scooter because of 9-11.

Did the scooter manage to secure its own release?
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros