"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[wserra]

In the end, the result is, "Well, you lost your case, may have gotten sanctioned, had to pay penalties to the IRS, your "redeemed lawful money" is still taxable and you just might have to do some time. Buy hey, you got it all on the record, with a Federal Court Clerk!

Moreover, the wackos think that somehow, just because they've filed some garbage, it magically becomes admissible as a "public record". They only think that because, as usual, they don't bother to read the law before favoring us with their learned opinions. Just a brief look at the relevant provisions of the FRE, Rules 803(8) and 803(9), makes it clear that some gibberish someone has managed to get in a docket is in no way a "public record" for purposes of admissibility.

And then there's relevance to consider, and a hundred or so other issues.

[notorial dissent]

Along those same lines is the unrebutted affidavit nonsense, that seem to be popular for just about everything.

Just because they have submitted an affidavit of collected legalistic mumbo jumbo and gibberish they think that it suddenly acquires some mystic significance.

What is the correct response to something like this other than that the court isn't required to accept what is patently nonsense as unrebutted fact?

[NYGman]

I just love the use of out of context, out of place latin words.

Back on topic, I was looking at some of the sample 1040's posted by David in support of his "position." One sucess claimed about 1k on 20k of income as a lawful money negative other income item. The support schedule showed some payments recieved by the filer as being exempted from income due to demand for lawful money. Out of 3k collected, this amount was excluded.

The presentation of this information looked like the person was selling items online (ebay??), and excluded some items as being paid in Lawful Money.

What is interesting here is that 1) The return did not seem to pick up the balance of that income, unless itemized somehow in line 1. 2) This "taxpayer" got exactly $25 in dividend income, which I seem just a bit ficticious. 3) the 3k was probably hobby related income, although if it was a legitimate business, I am sure there would be some expenses to offset the income.

I guess, at the end of the day, tax on 1k (on total Income of 20k) would be a few hundred dollars, and there is a chance that this is below their threshold. I can't see this filed return as proof of your theory working. Furthermore, even if I accept this return was filed and refund issued, that is no proof that the IRS wont still come after you at a later date.

In the end, even the so called proof you post on other boards, is not proof. Come on David, answer my question, post your tax returns for the last 5 years, lets see your tax positions, and how you claim this credit.

David, in case you can't tell, I have been doing my reading, and watching your videos, and asking you questions, but yet you still fail to provide an answer to those questions or proof of your position. If you are right, you shouldn't fear the truth...

[Pottapaug1938]

I just love the use of out of context, out of place latin words.

Back on topic, I was looking at some of the sample 1040's posted by David in support of his "position." One sucess claimed about 1k on 20k of income as a lawful money negative other income item. The support schedule showed some payments recieved by the filer as being exempted from income due to demand for lawful money. Out of 3k collected, this amount was excluded.

The presentation of this information looked like the person was selling items online (ebay??), and excluded some items as being paid in Lawful Money.

What is interesting here is that 1) The return did not seem to pick up the balance of that income, unless itemized somehow in line 1. 2) This "taxpayer" got exactly $25 in dividend income, which I seem just a bit ficticious. 3) the 3k was probably hobby related income, although if it was a legitimate business, I am sure there would be some expenses to offset the income.

I guess, at the end of the day, tax on 1k (on total Income of 20k) would be a few hundred dollars, and there is a chance that this is below their threshold. I can't see this filed return as proof of your theory working. Furthermore, even if I accept this return was filed and refund issued, that is no proof that the IRS wont still come after you at a later date.

In the end, even the so called proof you post on other boards, is not proof. Come on David, answer my question, post your tax returns for the last 5 years, lets see your tax positions, and how you claim this credit.

David, in case you can't tell, I have been doing my reading, and watching your videos, and asking you questions, but yet you still fail to provide an answer to those questions or proof of your position. If you are right, you shouldn't fear the truth...

There's a greater likelihood of Michael Savage endorsing the Obama-Biden ticket than there is of Van Pelt doing as you request. You'll get nothing but excuses, evasions and irrelevancies, larded with statements which he thinks are very droll.

[The Observer]

In the end, the result is, "Well, you lost your case, may have gotten sanctioned, had to pay penalties to the IRS, your "redeemed lawful money" is still taxable and you just might have to do some time. Buy hey, you got it all on the record, with a Federal Court Clerk!

In short, this is the "Wizard of Oz" defense where you hope to flimflam the stooges by dazzling them with lights, colors, and illusions, while all the while telling them to not pay any attention to the man behind the half-opened curtain. The "repository" of David is simply that, a tool to fool and delay his marks into thinking that something has happened or will happen. Of course, he never provides any detail as to how the existence of the repository is suddenly going to cause the IRS to issue refunds to "suitors." Thus, his theory resembles the business plan of the Underwear Gnomes from South Park:

• (1) Create "repository"
  (2) ?
  (3) Refunds!

I have no idea what the legal requirements are on the courts for having to "maintain" these "repositories". If I was a judge and it was permitted to clear these things out after a period of time, it would be a standing order to the clerk to eliminate this garbage whenever possible.

[Quixote]

Kris, at LostHeads, has questions about redeeming lawful money. I'm curious myself. Where on the slippery slope of federal entanglement is the point of no return? I'm fairly certain a federal tariff was paid when my piggy bank was imported. Are all the coins in Mr. Porkers tainted?

I rarely write a check anymore, and whats worse, I am forced to be paid by direct deposit. I don't even get a check to endorse anymore.

So how does all this Electronic Banking affect all this? Is it when you open the account with the bank that you are screwed or when you write/deposit a check? Or when you swipe your debit/atm card?

The other question I have is how does/or does it affect Credit Unions? They are not 'banks' per se, although I know they still have to deal with the Fed Reserve as far as processing their items. (Or I think they do?)

Does having an account with a credit union change any of this?

[NYGman]

I think Kris needs the special enchantment you cast against the electronic transfers that magically convert $1 of non-lawful money to $1 of lawful money, and with this chant, all tax obligations are lifted.

Seriously, David, do your really believe this stuff you are spewing, or are you just trying to mess with other people? You still haven't provide teh basis for why this magical conversion for value makes lawful money non-taxable, especially as you don't earn lawful money, you have to redeem for it.

[Pottapaug1938]

I do! All the time! You have to remember that Wserra is moderating my posts here.

No, you do not. You only post links, pictures and redacted images that provide no proof whatsoever. That is why you are being moderated. Believe me, the day you provide actual proof, it will be allowed to see the light of day here.

legal requirements" are called Rules of Court and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I find it hard to believe that these rules would allow your "respository" to be maintained into perpetuity.

Whether or not they do, the fact remains that the so-called "evidence repository" contains only a few fragmentary papers in connection with a case which is closed forever. Dr. Frankenstein has a greater chance of reanimating dead human tissue than Van Pelt or any of his acolytes have of reviving any case such as this, or getting any court (at least, any court which doesn't meet in the back room of the local Denny's, in a room at some church or in a room inside a warehouse in some industrial park) to seriously consider any future claims based on his fantasies.

That won't stop Van Pelt, though. It never has. He is counting on the gullibility and credulity of people who can be told that an "evidence repository" at a US District Court contains the papers he shows them, and that the papers therefore Must Be Of Great Legal Weight And Must Be Destined To Succeed In Upholding Van Pelt's Claims Or Those Of His Acolytes.

[grixit]

Some antiquitarian researchers have developed a method for recovering writing on charred parchment. They're current transcribing scrolls from Herculaneum. I'd be surprised of David's "repository" turned out to be anywhere near as relevant as whatever is on those scrolls.

[David Merrill]

I think Kris needs the special enchantment you cast against the electronic transfers that magically convert $1 of non-lawful money to $1 of lawful money, and with this chant, all tax obligations are lifted.

Seriously, David, do your really believe this stuff you are spewing, or are you just trying to mess with other people? You still haven't provide teh basis for why this magical conversion for value makes lawful money non-taxable, especially as you don't earn lawful money, you have to redeem for it.

It is funny to me how long the sentiment of certain facts take to settle into my heart. Listen to this:



They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand…



Plain English says that Federal Reserve notes are not the same thing as lawful money! Wow! I know you all are a bit surprised at my frame of mind but what I just realized is that with the way Congress has worded that sentence there, is that the DoJ would never touch our cause in any criminal prosecution because they can never ever prove intent.



It is impossible to convince anybody that someone never filed or evaded paying the obligation because of any kind of malicious intent! The law says what the law says.

[David Merrill]

Mr. Van Pelt has been bestowing his (ahem) wisdom on others:

http://www.dailypaul.com/254983/redeemed-lawful-money

That's actually pretty funny. I mean, David has been writing things like "I guess you have discovered that these cases are quite effective and successful" on Q; God knows how outrageous the brags get on his own board. Then, the day after I post proof that "these cases" are completely ineffective and notably unsuccessful, David posts the following (in the above link): "The Libel of Review gets dismissed out leaving the suitor with an evidence repository in the USDC under the responsibility of the US clerk of court." In other words, the dismissal is actually part of the plan.

We know you're making this up as you go along, David, but this is embarrassing.

In the end, the result is, "Well, you lost your case, may have gotten sanctioned, had to pay penalties to the IRS, your "redeemed lawful money" is still taxable and you just might have to do some time. Buy hey, you got it all on the record, with a Federal Court Clerk!

I feel so slow here! It has taken so long to understand what is so very frustrating about this topic, especially for attorneys reading here. There is no way to prove intent. There will never be any criminal prosecution about redeeming lawful money because of the way the law is worded.

In other words, even if you all are correct about the Fed Act, which you are not; Congress left a key sentence in the law that is easily misconstrued!

[David Merrill]

Seriously, David, do your really believe this stuff you are spewing, or are you just trying to mess with other people?

Seriously NYGman;

You seem mature enough to understand that your opinion of my stuff is nothing more than your opinion. The people who spend $350 to file a Libel of Review obviously have a much different opinion about things than you do.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Famspear]

I feel so slow here! It has taken so long to understand what is so very frustrating about this topic, especially for attorneys reading here.

What you're telling us, without your realizing it, is that you're frustrated with your inability to persuade the regular posters here that your scam isn't a scam. You're projecting, David.

There is no way to prove intent. There will never be any criminal prosecution about redeeming lawful money because of the way the law is worded.

The way the law is worded? OK, David, tell us how the law is worded. No, I'm not going to go back through the thread or anywhere else to find it.

"Intent" is something that is proven in court every day.

Excerpt from Texas Penal Code section 19.02:

Sec. 19.02. MURDER.

[ . . . ]

(b) A person commits an offense if he:(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual.....

Do you really think that no one in Texas can be convicted of intentionally causing the death of an individual?

David, you don't even identify which criminal statute you're referring to. What's the citation to the statute? Does the statute require that the prosecution prove "intent"? Do some analysis, David. Put in some effort.

As another poster said, David, do you really believe this stuff you're spewing? You seem to be just going through the motions at this point. Do everyone a favor, David. Put some effort into this.

[Gregg]

In other words, even if you all are correct about the Fed Act, which you are not; Congress left a key sentence in the law that is easily misconstrued!

Just ask Pete Hendrickson!

[Famspear]

.......your opinion of my stuff is nothing more than your opinion. The people who spend $350 to file a Libel of Review obviously have a much different opinion about things than you do.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Wow. Someone's opinion is nothing more than that person's opinion. Brilliant, David.

OK, so different people have "much different" opinions about your nonsense, David. Wow, thanks for clearing that up.

Guess what, David? Your opinion doesn't count. Here's why: No one will win a court case based on your opinion.

The opinions of those who are dense enough to spend $350 for your junk don't count either. Why? Because no one will win a court case based on their opinions, either.

Come on David. Put in some effort here.

[Chados]

What is the correct response to something like this other than that the court isn't required to accept what is patently nonsense as unrebutted fact?

I wish it was that easy! I've had a situation where I actually got tasked by a judge to find a case on point to rebut the argument the sovereign was making, with an admonishment not to call what the sovereign believes in "patent nonsense" in the future! That one dealt with a challenge on jurisdictional grounds and I dealt with it by resort to state statutes and some of the federal tax cases where federal judges called those arguments "ridiculous" rather than me . The sovereign response to my brief was along the lines of "statutes don't apply to me because I'm a free man on the land" and even the most sympathetic judge won't buy that argument.

By the way, guys, I really appreciate whoever put this board up and started these discussions. I've been mining Quatloos for info leading me to cases I can cite in briefs for the last 18 months. I'm a state prosecutor, and when the economy's down these guys come out of the woodwork. Over the last two years I've seen the "Restore America Plan," fake Indians (the Little Shell Pembina Band), "de jure" grand juries, "common law" courts, adverse possession scams, redemption scams, mortgage scams, you name it. None of it works in the end, but these guys keep trying and the judges often want me to give them a solid legal basis to say "no" that doesn't rely on common sense, so they don't have to worry about appeals. Y'all have been a bigger help than you realize.

[LPC]

By the way, guys, I really appreciate whoever put this board up and started these discussions. I've been mining Quatloos for info leading me to cases I can cite in briefs for the last 18 months.

I assume you've seen my Tax Protester FAQ.

At the end, you'll find some links to some other useful resources, such as Bernie Sussman's "Idiot Legal Arguments."

[Chados]

I did come across it about a week ago and it looks great. I just haven't read it all the way through. Yet.

[David Merrill]

In other words, even if you all are correct about the Fed Act, which you are not; Congress left a key sentence in the law that is easily misconstrued!

Like I said above, the sentence that can be easily construed to mean in plain English that Federal Reserve notes are distinct from lawful money is:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

If you can redeem one thing in something else, that means that there are fundamental differences between the two items. Furthermore Congress changed that to accomodate FDR's gold seizure in 1933-1934 and has had plenty of time to abolish, repeal or amend that particular sentence if it were indeed unclear or misleading.

"Intent" is something that is proven in court every day.

Excerpt from Texas Penal Code section 19.02:

Sec. 19.02. MURDER.

[ . . . ]

(b) A person commits an offense if he:(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual.....

Do you really think that no one in Texas can be convicted of intentionally causing the death of an individual?

David, you don't even identify which criminal statute you're referring to. What's the citation to the statute? Does the statute require that the prosecution prove "intent"? Do some analysis, David. Put in some effort.

As another poster said, David, do you really believe this stuff you're spewing? You seem to be just going through the motions at this point. Do everyone a favor, David. Put some effort into this.

I tried to understand why you make my point quoting a statute about murder. You quoted the word "intentionally". Did you mean to do that? I think you missed that word.

You keep imploring that I put effort into it and I have indeed done so over the last seven years. More posts are rejected for "proof or silence" than you get to read here so this post is duplicated with links to examples on the other echo chamber. I am sure you have learned to read there too if you are really interested, which I doubt that you are Famspear.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Dr. Caligari]

More posts are rejected for "proof or silence" than you get to read here

David,
Don't think of it as your posts being "rejected"; they are being refused for cause.