Why We Don't Permit Redacted Docs from People Like DMVP

[David Merrill]

Dear Quatlosers;


I know that you folks are reading here and there too. This demonstration exemplifies my point about your "proof". This is a case where the IRS decided to write and tell the suitor that it was all forgiven. Most of the time that forgiveness arrives in a Treasury check or silence. Those both are a little difficult to R4C! So you will not find the forgiveness part very often in the Libel of Review cases.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Normally, the above Van Pelt post would not have been approved. It contains representations about documents which are not possible to verify, at least without considerable effort and perhaps not at all. Thanks to the efforts of a couple of my colleagues, we've identified the case. It's Sauzedde v. Geithner, 11-cv-99 (TNED). It's just another in the unbroken string of losses folks who use David's BS suffer. I didn't find it because it's not filed as Type 340, "Marine", and is thus a needle in a haystack. (Actually, the civil cover sheet shows that they did file as "Marine", but the clerk saw the mishugas and called it "Civil Rights - Other".) Thanks, David. We couldn't have found it without you.

David, of course, paints it as a win, something not easy with a sua sponte dismissal. The complaint is the same gibberish as the others, and (as the others) attaches things like Credit River and Bretton Woods. Rather than following the Federal Rules - hey, those are for slaves, not sovruns - they serve the summons they way they want. Judge Collier points out not once, but twice, that they can't make up their own rules. They "refuse for cause". Along the way - because Geithner didn't respond to their idea of service, they file a "Default Judgment" - which, of course, does nothing other than convince anyone who knows anything about courts that they're wackos. Finally, Judge Collier loses patience with the farce and dismisses sua sponte. Some excerpts:

Plaintiffs have refused to follow the Court’s orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, Plaintiffs have demonstrated an utter lack of respect for this Court and the staff of the clerk’s office through their filings with the Court.
...
Although Plaintiffs had been put on notice as early as April 2011 regarding their failure to properly serve Defendant, the Court provided additional time and clarification by issuing a second show cause order on November 8, 2011. In that order, the Court directed Plaintiffs to review Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) and informed them that they still needed to serve the United States. Defendants responded again by returning a copy of the Court’s order with the words “Refused for Cause” written across the front of each page, and the words “misnomer, clerk forgery” in the caption [The clerk had the audacity to add their last name to the docket - WS]
...
Plaintiffs have ignored the Court’s orders and refused to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for proper service of an officer of the United States. In addition, they have failed to effect timely service of process as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and lack good cause for failing to do so. Finally, Plaintiffs have continually been disrespectful and dismissive in their filings with the Court. Accordingly, the Court determines sua sponte dismissal is appropriate here. Pursuant to its inherent authority as well as that provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ action.

A WIN!

But it doesn't end there. DMVP claims that "This is a case where the IRS decided to write and tell the suitor that it was all forgiven". Wrong. In fact, one of the last entries in the docket is a letter from Sauzedde basically apologizing to the IRS for filing frivolous returns. Even that is stupid; you can't "revoke" a frivolous return, although you may amend it.

OK, David, enough lies. From now on, abide by the rules of the board, or you're gone. Those rules include but are not limited to refraining from burdening this thread with more repetitive bullshit defenses for the indefensible.

[AndyK]

Apologizing ??? Go back and read it again.

(1) They have revoked any filings "which the IRS considers frivolous" -- which means crap. There is no such thing as the revocation of a filing. There must be a subsequent amended filing correcting the earlier instrument.

(2) Rene restated his reliance upon and demands for lawful money.

Not an apology -- just another (poor) example of TP gibberish

[wserra]

Why would he "revoke" something that's correct? Obviously the govt threatened him with a frivpen, and that's how he responded.

Hey, AndyK, where ya been, man? How's retirement?

[webhick]

The way I read it was:

I'm filing this with the court because I know that what I'm about to do isn't allowed and I want a record of the IRS ignoring my demand.

My CPA wouldn't file the returns the way I wanted him to, so I used my extensive edumacation on tax law to file them the way I wanted. The IRS complained a lot about that and when they decided to start charging me an idiot fee, I told them to "talk to the hand." Since they refuse to talk to my hand, they have to pretend they never saw that which offended their eyes. This way, they can't try to collect any money I owe them.

WINNING!

I wish I had a picture of Charlie Sheen snorting tax returns. It would be very appropriate.

[Pottapaug1938]

One common phrase which I see in TD filings, not just of the van Peltian variety, is a phrase on the order of "if I have stated any positions which have been labeled frivolous, I hereby disavow them". They then fill the rest of their waste paper with TS foolishness which proves the opposite, including the notorious "notice to agent is notice to principal, and notice to principal is notice to agent" phrase, which practically shouts "FRIVOLOUS LEGAL CONTENTION" from the rooftops.

I can only guess that the TDers think that the disavowal phrase, and the notice phrase, amount to Legal Magic Words, which will make the IRS, and the court proceedings against the TDer, go "poof!" and vanish into thin air, and can ward off the Ebil Gummint like a silver crucifix wards off vampires.

[Chados]

I read Mr. van Pelt's original posting. The link brings up a document filled with absolute nonsense. I see this kind of thing filed a lot, and there's nothing about it that even remotely supports the theory that the defendant prevailed. It's complete gibberish. And if that "default judgment" directed to Secretary Geithner was filed in state court in my jurisdiction and brought to my attention, local law enforcement would have been called in to investigate it as a criminal felony violation of our state's paper terrorism statute.

This is without even considering wserra's comprehensive de-bunking of it.

[Pottapaug1938]

As best I can figure out, Van Pelt has this fantasy that, if you file one of his written piles of legal horsedroppings, the waste paper goes into a file somewhere in the court, there to become an "evidence repository" which proves that an honest-to-goodness court has filed your paperwork and therefore It Must Be Very Important. Of course, that paperwork is unlikely to see the light of day, after it gets shot down right from the start, on its lack of legal merit, until it gets pulled out to be either burned or recycled.

[wserra]

Crazy or prevaricator, he's gone. There was a last straw (on top of the other 5,000,000), but it's not worth going into.

One thing I ask my colleagues here: if you see something worth reporting on Van Peltian gibberish, feel free. But report. Personal attacks on someone unable to defend himself are not worthy of us.

[wserra]

And if that "default judgment" directed to Secretary Geithner was filed in state court in my jurisdiction and brought to my attention, local law enforcement would have been called in to investigate it as a criminal felony violation of our state's paper terrorism statute.

It appears that was actually done in Polk County, TN. It will likely have no effect, since Geithner probably has no property or other assets there.

Still, Polk County, TN, law enforcement, you appear to have a bogus judgment against the Secretary of the Treasury in your records. And Donna Bramlett, Register of Deeds there, should be more careful what she files and then certifies.

[Burnaby49]

NOOOOOO.

DMVP is one of the reason why i visit Quatloos, please unban him.

I suspect this is one lone voice in the wilderness. Certainly doesn't reflect my position on VP. Now I only have to block Lawdog.

[wserra]

I suspect sarcasm.

[Chados]

And if that "default judgment" directed to Secretary Geithner was filed in state court in my jurisdiction and brought to my attention, local law enforcement would have been called in to investigate it as a criminal felony violation of our state's paper terrorism statute.

It appears that was actually done in Polk County, TN. It will likely have no effect, since Geithner probably has no property or other assets there.

Still, Polk County, TN, law enforcement, you appear to have a bogus judgment against the Secretary of the Treasury in your records. And Donna Bramlett, Register of Deeds there, should be more careful what she files and then certifies.

I agree wholeheartedly. It is amazing what the clerks of court think they have to file. I've had at least two similar orders stricken from the official record by order of our local judges in cases where I prosecuted folks like this for doing precisely this kind of thing.

[Parvati]

Crazy or prevaricator, he's gone. There was a last straw (on top of the other 5,000,000), but it's not worth going into.

Yay, mods! I'm amazed that you hung in there this long. (If it keeps even one person from trying his "remedy" it was well worth it.)

[Pottapaug1938]

I suppose that I will miss Van Pelt, in a way; but he kept on pushing the same old stuff, the same old way, one too many times. The man, for whatever reason, is incapable of understanding the degree to which he has embarrassed himself, over the years; and he will remain incapable of understanding how dangerous he is to his acolytes on Saving to Suitors and other forums of the sort. I found myself struggling between trying to counteract his efforts, and knowing that I shouldn't because I knew that the man was unable to respond in any rational manner.

At least, we will no longer be complicit in his self-destruction.

[Kestrel]

Thanks to all the mods for putting up with him and filtering the bulldada so we didn't have to know about it.

I think that on Saving to Suitors and similar websites he'll be known by the company he keeps. The truly delusional will encourage him, but the depth of their collective lunacy should be readily apparent to most sane folks.

The only drawback to DMVP being officially gone is that I can't "ignore" a non-member. All his posts are now exposed, instead of being masked by

This post was made by David Merrill who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks to all the mods for putting up with him and filtering the bulldada so we didn't have to know about it.

I think that on Saving to Suitors and similar websites he'll be known by the company he keeps. The truly delusional will encourage him, but the depth of their collective lunacy should be readily apparent to most sane folks.

The only drawback to DMVP being officially gone is that I can't "ignore" a non-member. All his posts are now exposed, instead of being masked by

This post was made by David Merrill who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

My problem too. All of a sudden there they all are, exposed like an eruption of warts. Time will cure the problem, they'll eventually get buried with the detritus of the past.

[LPC]

The only drawback to DMVP being officially gone is that I can't "ignore" a non-member. All his posts are now exposed, instead of being masked by

This post was made by David Merrill who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

My problem too. All of a sudden there they all are, exposed like an eruption of warts. Time will cure the problem, they'll eventually get buried with the detritus of the past.

So I'm not alone in my confusion or chagrin.

[wserra]

I had no idea that would happen.

We could have easily deleted all Van Pelt's posts when booting him. But, given how much he is quoted and criticized here, that didn't seem right. If there is a way to boot someone and retain his posts but still respect "ignores", I don't know what it is (though webhick might). We don't do this often.

[webhick]

All banned user posts are effectively assigned to the Anonymous user and you can't ignore Anonymous. Sorry, folks. The only way to have kept David on your ignore lists would have been to "back-door ban him" which would have allowed him to continue to log into the forum, but would have prevented him from posting and/or sending PMs. It might be possible for me to revert to this kind of ban by manhandling the database, but I won't be able to do it until I get home tonight. That's assuming I have power (landlord is replacing the breaker panel AND the storm is going to get bad after 2PM).