Read on Twitter
Wish to clear up some misinformation that I posited in answering some replies.
Whenever a claim is made it must be backed by evidence if we are not to assume everything. I will be destroying assumptions in my upcoming court case.
@SantaSurfing @familyman20181
Whenever a claim is made it must be backed by evidence if we are not to assume everything. I will be destroying assumptions in my upcoming court case.
@SantaSurfing @familyman20181
Saying "I saw it on the internet" will not be admitted into evidence. It must be a recognizable, authoritative source. If the author is disputing a claim from an authoritative source, you will still have to back up that claim from another authoritative source.
Anyway the claim was, "Don't call it a signature call it and autograph." I bought it and agreed. But it bothered me, so I went to the authoritative source. For legal definitions. Blacks Law Dictionary 10th edition, (I now see there is an 11th). Another source would be
Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Older but still a good resource. In order to know what the framers of the law were thinking it is good to see how words were defined when the law was written
Returning. An autograph is the same as a signature. That is what the "or" signifies.
"ones own writing" is from the etymology of the word
"ones own writing" is from the etymology of the word
When we look at signature it is a much more robust definition. A signature is what has legal standing, not an autograph.
For purposes of 12 USC 411
For purposes of 12 USC 411
Notice that a signature is a "mark". If all else fails getting the banker to place the lawful money redemption verbiage on the signature card, you can always say that is my mark, and there is no way they can dispute that. There are more elegant arguments but brute force has place
So were does this misinformation on autograph come from. The Internet of course. And where on the Internet can you find this bastardization of English??? This leads me to my second mistake. I was quite excited about the War Castles information and some derivative works. I spoke
highly of it before I did my due diligence. Please let me say that War Castles from start to finish is hokum, bunk, BS. The first most obvious flaw is their lack of verifiable evidence. I did not watch all so maybe there was, but I was never presented with any verifiable evidence
They spoke a lot of bizarre, yet truthful things, like the importance of the Universal Postal Union in the formation of Nations, but that is not enough but the sign of a good con.
My research showed multiple cases in the District Courts by Miller and his proponents. Written in Quantum-Parse-Syntax-Grammar that failed before it started. Their failure was not stating a claim for which remedy can be given.
Failure is not a detraction. I have tried and failed in court but I have never asserted my legal theories produce tangible results, Much less the up ending of our legal system as we know it. So where is that winning court case that proves it? I've not found it.
Then just look at the theory itself. They call the method parse-syntax-grammar. Pronouncing the word parse as 'parsay'. If knew grammar at all they would know 'parsay' would be spelled "parsé". I'm sorry, that word does not exist in English. I doubt it exists in any Latin based
language. I couldn't find it any way. There is the word parse, which means to deconstruct a sentence. But it is a verb, 'to parse'. with a gerund 'parsing' as its forms of speech. Yet the theory says that you compound a noun by placing a hyphen between the nouns. Parse is a verb.
and cannot be compounded. From the very outset their theory commits Grammar Fraud. I can go on and on finding fraud, misrepresentations, etc. in theory presentation.
Here's this:
Meyer investigated further with a Westlaw search for David Wynn Miller. Meyer said the search revealed “a lengthy history of frivolous filings that use the same impenetrable language that appears in the filings in this case.”
Meyer investigated further with a Westlaw search for David Wynn Miller. Meyer said the search revealed “a lengthy history of frivolous filings that use the same impenetrable language that appears in the filings in this case.”
Westlaw is the authoritative source. Meyer, may not be a verifiable source but it would be easy to authenticate in Westlaw. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_of_bogus_postal_court_files_purported_judgments_claims_only_nouns_hav
See https://freemandelusion.wordpress.com/2018/07/21/david-wynn-miller/
where it is pointed out that Miller claims to be 92nd Degree Mason WTF???
where it is pointed out that Miller claims to be 92nd Degree Mason WTF???
Or how about some comments by professional linguists
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/
'nuf said, I apologize for my irrational exuberance in the beginning
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/
'nuf said, I apologize for my irrational exuberance in the beginning
