DMVP "Writ of Enforcement" for $20M "Lien" IV

[bmielke]

Enough Said

ETA: Not directed to you Nikki, I just think this entire thread can and should have been ended with...

04/06/2010 28 ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 20 filed 03/15/2010, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court. The objections stated in plaintiffs Objection 27 filed 03/24/2010 are OVERRULED. Plaintiffs Petition for Writ of Enforcement 20 filed 12/28/2009, is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 04/06/2010.(sah, ) (Entered: 04/06/2010)

What I would be interested in knowing what DMVP's "plans" are for a FEDERAL Judge. Please enlighten us Davey.

[LaVidaRoja]

David -

Allow me to try to explain something to you in terms you can understand.

1. If someone using your methods has been successful in Court, THAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

2. Their (the party who used your method) name and the nature of the action are ALREADY in the public view.

3. Not giving sufficient information regarding the action to anyone here only makes YOU appear as a buffon who really has no success.

4. That public record may be in Colorado, or in Alaska, or in Maine, or anywhere else in the jurisdiction of the US Courts.

5. Without a name, and a Court, no one can see that your methods really work.

6. If you really have had success with your methods, in a Court, and a case CAN be cited, your standing on this forum will increase greatly.

7. Do you want to be precieved as a lying fool or as a master of Court methods?

8. It's your choice.

[David Merrill]

David -

Allow me to try to explain something to you in terms you can understand.

1. If someone using your methods has been successful in Court, THAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

2. Their (the party who used your method) name and the nature of the action are ALREADY in the public view.

3. Not giving sufficient information regarding the action to anyone here only makes YOU appear as a buffon who really has no success.

4. That public record may be in Colorado, or in Alaska, or in Maine, or anywhere else in the jurisdiction of the US Courts.

5. Without a name, and a Court, no one can see that your methods really work.

6. If you really have had success with your methods, in a Court, and a case CAN be cited, your standing on this forum will increase greatly.

7. Do you want to be precieved as a lying fool or as a master of Court methods?

8. It's your choice.

I am afraid that you do not understand. The topic is refusal for cause. A traffic ticket for example will never get to the courthouse within three days because of this right.

Three Day Rule.

Reference to Page 83




Suppose you have a traffic ticket and you identify yourself correctly to the police officer. You have a right to treat that ticket as a commercial presentment. So you write Refusal for Cause on it and you send it to the chief of police within 72 hours of the presentment. In an honest world, that is the end of the matter.

It is not always an honest world so you might avoid court later by establishing the facts now - an evidence repository. You send a copy to the US courthouse with a clerk instruction to file it into your evidence repository and while you are at it, send a copy of the clerk instruction to the chief of police so that he knows that you can prove that you R4C'd timely. All you need to do is get a certified copy from the US clerk of court.

R4C Hollywood.

That is what I was telling you about earlier. You might check the docket to see if the cause gets to the courthouse. If it does, that means that the chief of police is defrauding the court - he never apprised the judge that you refused for cause. So you show up restricted appearance with a certified copy of the R4C and the judge is grateful that you came to prevent a fraud on his court.

The way to prove this works would be to produce a Refused for Cause presentment and then show you the certificate of search from the clerk of court at that courthouse that no cause was ever filed by the police.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

Suppose you have a traffic ticket and you identify yourself correctly to the police officer. You have a right to treat that ticket as a commercial presentment. So you write Refusal for Cause on it and you send it to the chief of police within 72 hours of the presentment. In an honest world, that is the end of the matter.

Can you provide some justification for that claim? A statute or a relevant court decision would do the trick.

Absent that, your assertion is invalid and the entire basis for your RfC process crumbles into dust.

Also, you seem to be applying the RfC process to things other than traffic tickets. Is there any legal basis for that?

[David Merrill]

Suppose you have a traffic ticket and you identify yourself correctly to the police officer. You have a right to treat that ticket as a commercial presentment. So you write Refusal for Cause on it and you send it to the chief of police within 72 hours of the presentment. In an honest world, that is the end of the matter.

Can you provide some justification for that claim? A statute or a relevant court decision would do the trick.

Absent that, your assertion is invalid and the entire basis for your RfC process crumbles into dust.

Also, you seem to be applying the RfC process to things other than traffic tickets. Is there any legal basis for that?

If you identify yourself the trustee for IT, the all upper case express trust, then you are responsible fiduciary for the cause. If you identify yourself to be the man or woman instead, then you have three days to decide if you want to accept the proposed appoint of the trustee.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[silversopp]

Here's the problem David. We've been shown a number of verifiable cases where you have used Refusal for Cause and have lost. You claim that your method works, but you're not able to show any positive results. All you have is a track record of failure.

You refuse to provide what I'm asking because you know it will embarass you. Just like you refuse to answer these questions:

1) Has your mother ever requested a restraining order against you? If yes, is it still in effect?
2) Would your mother welcome you back into her house today?
3) When was the last time you have seen your daughter?
4) When was the last time your daughter said she loved you?
5) When was the last time you received a paycheck?
6) What are your current living accomodations like? And do you own/rent/bum them?

I like to point out to any lurkers just what a failure you are in hopes that they will avoid your fate.

You're free to answer these questions anytime. If you have the guts.

[Pottapaug1938]

To add to what silversopp said, David, we are expecting 1) an initial complaint, redacted ONLY to omit addresses, and 2) a judgment IN YOUR FAVOR, similarly redacted. Redaction of names, case numbers, etc. will invalidate any so-called proofs.

[David Merrill]

You misunderstand what you read about the cases. Refusal for Cause is not what you think it is. In fact, my life is much better than Nikki depicts in her gossip and rumors.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

To add to what silversopp said, David, we are expecting 1) an initial complaint, redacted ONLY to omit addresses, and 2) a judgment IN YOUR FAVOR, similarly redacted. Redaction of names, case numbers, etc. will invalidate any so-called proofs.

Understood. When I have anything to prove to Quatlosers I will let you know.

[Pottapaug1938]

To add to what silversopp said, David, we are expecting 1) an initial complaint, redacted ONLY to omit addresses, and 2) a judgment IN YOUR FAVOR, similarly redacted. Redaction of names, case numbers, etc. will invalidate any so-called proofs.

Understood. When I have anything to prove to Quatloosers I will let you know.[/quote]

You have something to prove to us, Mr. Van Pelt -- pages after pages of unfounded assertions and crackpot theories. You have been repeatedly challenged for proff to back these up; yet whether through mental incapacity or moral cowardice you have consistently refused to do so.

"Let us know", David; or else go away and live in your fantasy world while leaving the rest of us alone.

[David Merrill]

To add to what silversopp said, David, we are expecting 1) an initial complaint, redacted ONLY to omit addresses, and 2) a judgment IN YOUR FAVOR, similarly redacted. Redaction of names, case numbers, etc. will invalidate any so-called proofs.

Understood. When I have anything to prove to Quatloosers I will let you know.

You have something to prove to us, Mr. Van Pelt -- pages after pages of unfounded assertions and crackpot theories. You have been repeatedly challenged for proff to back these up; yet whether through mental incapacity or moral cowardice you have consistently refused to do so.

"Let us know", David; or else go away and live in your fantasy world while leaving the rest of us alone.[/quote]


In case you have not noticed, my name is David Merrill. If you want anything out of me, there is always addressing me by my name, you know.

[Pottapaug1938]

To add to what silversopp said, David, we are expecting 1) an initial complaint, redacted ONLY to omit addresses, and 2) a judgment IN YOUR FAVOR, similarly redacted. Redaction of names, case numbers, etc. will invalidate any so-called proofs.

Understood. When I have anything to prove to Quatloosers I will let you know.

You have something to prove to us, Mr. Van Pelt -- pages after pages of unfounded assertions and crackpot theories. You have been repeatedly challenged for proff to back these up; yet whether through mental incapacity or moral cowardice you have consistently refused to do so.

"Let us know", David; or else go away and live in your fantasy world while leaving the rest of us alone.

In case you have not noticed, my name is David Merrill. If you want anything out of me, there is always addressing me by my name, you know.[/quote]

I did -- that's why I address you as Mr. Van Pelt or as David. But, this once, I'll humor you, David Merrill. Go ahead, David Merrill -- put up or shut up. In fact, I'll make a deal with you -- if you can't produce your proof, you can go away. If you can -- and remember, it has to be proof like I outline above -- I'll go away instead.

[David Merrill]

A special deal, just for me?

No, thanks.

[grixit]

In case you have not noticed, my name is David Merrill. If you want anything out of me, there is always addressing me by my name, you know.

I did -- that's why I address you as Mr. Van Pelt or as David. But, this once, I'll humor you, David Merrill.

Ok, while i agree with everyone on his actions and probable mental state, this part is just silly. People should have the right to choose the name they want to be known by, possibly with some caveats sure. He doesn't want to go by a former name and i think we should respect that.

[Pottapaug1938]

Ok, while i agree with everyone on his actions and probable mental state, this part is just silly. People should have the right to choose the name they want to be known by, possibly with some caveats sure. He doesn't want to go by a former name and i think we should respect that.

Up to a point, I'm nore than willing to accommodate requests like this; but when someone, over much too long a time, wastes our collective time with drivel, legal idiocy and other nonsense, including the assertion that his name is not, say, John Philip Sousa but John Philip, and that calling him "John Philip Sousa" creates all sort of legal consequences which calling him "John Philip" does not, I have to draw the line. If he said that his name was John Philip Sousa, but that he wanted to be known, on Quatloos, as John Philip, I'd have no problem with that at all.

I'm also reminded of a left-wingnut who, some years ago, proclaimed that "it is the right of any people to choose the name by which they wish to be known"; and my immediate reaction was to recall the Nazis' self-identification as the Master Race....

[silversopp]

Keep in mind that David will pick and choose when his name is Van Pelt. He has no problem posting documents that include the name David Van Pelt, but he will get his panties in a bunch if someone calls him that. He's simply not consistent when it comes to his name. And yeah, that most likely has something to do with him being a mental incompetent.

[bmielke]

Ok, while i agree with everyone on his actions and probable mental state, this part is just silly. People should have the right to choose the name they want to be known by, possibly with some caveats sure. He doesn't want to go by a former name and i think we should respect that.

Absoltely, My father has and my Gradfather had the same name as me, so I go by my middle name, and have since I was a baby. I have used my middle name for so long that many don't know my first name, and I even have trouble responding to it many times. It just doesn't occur to me that some use my first name.

Where I have a problem with someone using a different name is when someone is doing it to hide their past. I think Van Pelt uses David Merrill to hide from his past. I respond to when used and use my first name on official documents.

[Pottapaug1938]

A special deal, just for me?

No, thanks.

Coward.

[David Merrill]

No. I am not a coward.

[bmielke]

A special deal, just for me?

No, thanks.

Coward.

Noooooo! Pottapaug1938 what would we do without you? We are just lucky that the world is not ready fo Davey's proof. Because if he could show us his piles of proof you would be gone.

[David Merrill]

Keep in mind that David will pick and choose when his name is Van Pelt. He has no problem posting documents that include the name David Van Pelt, but he will get his panties in a bunch if someone calls him that. He's simply not consistent when it comes to his name. And yeah, that most likely has something to do with him being a mental incompetent.

This is just not so at all. I have never been named Van Pelt. That has always been my family name and David Merrill has been my name since before I was even aware of it. Whereas if you read the posts around here, you Quatlosers never post in your names at all and wander around about my name like in the post quoted here.