Another bonded promissory note scheme perp charged

[fortinbras]

FRNs are NOT "promissory notes". DVP's homebrew documents, whether he calls them BPNs or something else, are NOT "legal tender".

This has been explained to DVP on the SuiJuris websites, for example by me, more times than I care to count. I can only suppose it is some organic defect that prevents him from remembering all the times he's been set straight.

[LaVidaRoja]

As long as anyone with an IQ higher than room temperture (and givent he current heat, that does include almost half the population) deigns to respond to him, DMVP will continur to put his theories to the public. The best response is for all of us to put him on 'ignore' and whenever he posts, a moderator to place the comment "This poster has been put on 'ignore' status for consistently posting irrelevent/ignorant/incomprehensible/illogical material"

[David Merrill]

I don't really see a point in showing it to you again.

I explained it to Prof who seems to think I believe there is an account, the standard Patriot Nutjob line. If you don't think of Fed notes as promissory notes then you just don't understand money at all.

You folks are a lot of fun... Thanks!

[David Merrill]

http://www.sunherald.com/2011/07/21/329 ... arges.html

About a week after the fine was past due, the city received a certified letter containing a document that falsely appeared to be a “bonded promissory note” for $175, the indictment said. The document allegedly instructed the city to redeem the note through the U.S. Department of Treasury in Washington, D.C.

Check into that link?

In case anyone is wondering what David is babbling about now - it does have to do with "bonded promissory notes", which is why it hasn't migrated to Flames.

United States v. Donald McDowell, docket 07-mc-583 (MOED) was a proceeding to enforce an IRS summons. The DJ overruled the unintelligible objections McDowell filed and ordered him to comply. McDowell didn't. The Court fined him, then incarcerated him, until he complied. After he was released, the govt moved to reduce the fine to judgment - total $14,400 - which motion the Court granted on July 28, 2008. As you can see from the segment of the docket David copied, on November 4, 2008, one Kennedy M. Russell sent the clerk a "bonded promissory note" in that amount. It sat there.

But do you see the "Letter to Court from Kennedy M. Russell, Sr. re: Bonded Promissory Note" docketed December 7, 2009? Here it is. Russell contritely, yea sheepishly, apologizes, and writes that he has since learned that this item "was and is invalid". Never mind. Please.

But, David wonders, "All that while the federal judge did not Order the fellow to pay up "properly" out-of-pocket or refer the matter to the AG for prosecution?" Well, David, having been reduced to judgment, this situation is similar to a credit card debt also reduced to judgment. Until paid, it operates as a lien, and gives the judgment creditor - the govt - the ability to execute on assets. Have they done so? Who knows? Judgment execution doesn't require court approval; for all we know, the govt has collected. If not, perhaps it has concluded that you can't get blood from a stone.

As for "prosecution" - for a judgment debt - well, David, I guess you advocate the reinstitution of debtors' prison. And I thought you were in favor of freedom.

That is just your guesswork Wesley. The thoughts of the court are right there. Well, absent the very interesting Doc 20, of course. If the bank or in this case the US courthouse fails to accept the legal tender, then the debt is waived. Like I said already - Trebilcock v. Wilson.



I imagine that some of the readers will let you read your stuff into it. The court accepted notice that the debt has been paid in full. But then, the Teller clerk never acknowledged setoff in writing either... I think it was another fine where I started to write out another POMC; she said I don't owe them any money at all - ever! But that was verbal. - Like the county attorney was afraid I would write more POMCs so they just cleared all fines and penalties.

Suppose you refuse to accept some bonded promissory notes in the value of $10 for a bag of vegetables at the Farmer's Market. Per custom I have already filled the bags with my choice of which kind at that advertized price. I could walk away with the $10 on the countertop I suppose but there is a ten-year old, nothing to do with our business already eyeballing the bill you refuse to accept. Trebilcock states in translation to modern money principles that you are required to accept the $10 note. But you keep refusing to accept it. You have waived the debt and rather than giving the $10 to the ten-year old there, I can grab that too.

David, your docket entry talks about a "Memorandum/Notice" of payment in full. Could you also show us the docket entry in which the accepts your whatever-it-was and orders that your debt be recognized as paid in full?

Memorandum and Order was a document filed by a fool named Kennedy-Mike:Russell; the order was never entered by the Court. Later, the whole thing was withdrawn by Russell in a letter in which he told the Court he was very sorry. The case was then closed, with the defendant McDowell still indebted, one supposes, the the US of A.

DVMP is an idiot; if he has PACER, he should read the documents. And, DVMP, the Judge was Hon./Ms. Jean C. Hamilton. And, there are former federal judges who lurk on this forum.

Prof;

You are an idiot! I read the docs - especially as posted (again) the docket report. It says what it says. If the court refuses to accept legal tender, the debt is waived. It accepted the BPN. Period. It made no action to collect after acceptance.

But my point is that you seem to think I hang around here because I enjoy your insults? That is what I mean - You are the idiot! Not me.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I don't really see a point in showing it to you again.

You're right there isn't because we all know you are talking nonsense and you live in your own little world where you are right. In the real world, where everyone else lives, you are 100% wrong, the fact that it doesn't bother you says a lot about your mental health.

[David Merrill]

I don't really see a point in showing it to you again.

You're right there isn't because we all know you are talking nonsense and you live in your own little world where you are right. In the real world, where everyone else lives, you are 100% wrong, the fact that it doesn't bother you says a lot about your mental health.

I can't blame you all for being upset. The bond part of our favorite bonded promissory notes is no good.

Rubin Predicts Default.
Geithner Predicts Default.

If I had not been seeing it all the while, I might be a little stressed too. BBC World News describes a Game of Chicken.

Note the date on this bonded promissory note. You might want to compare that to the date of this Offering and the day that the Subprime Mortgage Crisis (Global Financial Crisis) began. - All on the exact same day! My point being you should note the word - Offering. If the note is offered as legal tender and refused, the obligation is waived. Just think it through and you know I am right.

That is what Trebilcock v. Wilson determined early on about fiat currency. Milan says so too.

How about that link - JRB? Look how they handled that situation - truthful comments. RAYNER is being persecuted like that over $4.50 that he inadvertently (not being fraud then) created by being sure to cover the $171.50 with $175. At trial, Drew Allen should be sure to make that clear - he was expecting the City to keep the change.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[fortinbras]

Here's a little more information on that BPN that DVP just linked ....

http://www.ocala.com/article/20080508/n ... l&tc=pgall

It was posted by some strangers in the Wesley Snipes tax case -- except Snipe's lawyers immediately repudiated it and emphatically denied that they, or Snipes, had anything to do with this. Moreover it tries to pretend that Wesley Snipes is a boat!

[Pottapaug1938]

As long as anyone with an IQ higher than room temperture (and givent he current heat, that does include almost half the population) deigns to respond to him, DMVP will continur to put his theories to the public. The best response is for all of us to put him on 'ignore' and whenever he posts, a moderator to place the comment "This poster has been put on 'ignore' status for consistently posting irrelevent/ignorant/incomprehensible/illogical material"

To that, I would add "Whenever he is challenged on any of his assertions, he responds with more of the same type of material, or else ducks the question completely".

[David Merrill]

No. I don't dodge. The BPN was issued on the exact same day; like I said. That is what I was saying. It was received and if not accepted, the debt was waived. SNIPES was not convicted of not paying, he was convicted for not filing. If his attorneys offered payment out of his own pocket instead of the BPN, Wesley Lynn should probably stick to acting...

What I keep saying is not a dodge - it is direct. You can listen to Wserra's commentary if you like. But it is just not there, as of the other day, on the docket report. The BPN was tendered, received and accepted as payment for the $14K. The judge did not refuse it. I think that Doc 20 would have been a very revealing read though!

Wserra is trying to convince you about stuff he likely believes true. But I think that knowing what I know, that the bond is already in circulation and can be called in for redemption in lawful money by demand, the BPN is good. So I will not read a bunch of stuff into the docket report that is just not there. The best thing for you JRB is to start making stuff up too.

[David Merrill]

http://www.sunherald.com/2011/07/21/329 ... arges.html

About a week after the fine was past due, the city received a certified letter containing a document that falsely appeared to be a “bonded promissory note” for $175, the indictment said. The document allegedly instructed the city to redeem the note through the U.S. Department of Treasury in Washington, D.C.

This is a wildly entertaining development. If you have been looking at the comments you might as well presume that my shedding a little light, truth and fact about RAYNER's $4.50 persecution got the US Attorney all upset and whining for the Sun Herald to change the security format?

[Nikki]

Attempting to convince David that any part of his world view is totally contrary to fact is significantly less productive than attempting to teach a mule to fly.

David has assembled an immense storehouse of legal excerpts, photographs, and other documents and carefully used them to construct a logical (to him) structure which supports his unique view of how the world works. We call that Planet Merrill.

David consistantly removes all identifying information (which would allow verification and full research) from most of the documents he displays as evidence in support of his arguments.

He also refuses to answer some simple, direct questions and flat-out lies in response to others.

David is mentally ill. His problems caused the break-up of his marriage, caused him to be arrested for elder abuse, and have made it impossible for him to interact with others in other than very impersonal situations.

He is convinced that he is right about absolutely everything and no amount of discussion or facts will make him change his mind.

The only possible reason to reply to his posts is to refute them so others won;t believe them.

[Pottapaug1938]

Attempting to convince David that any part of his world view is totally contrary to fact is significantly less productive than attempting to teach a mule to fly.

David has assembled an immense storehouse of legal excerpts, photographs, and other documents and carefully used them to construct a logical (to him) structure which supports his unique view of how the world works. We call that Planet Merrill.

David consistantly removes all identifying information (which would allow verification and full research) from most of the documents he displays as evidence in support of his arguments.

He also refuses to answer some simple, direct questions and flat-out lies in response to others.

David is mentally ill. His problems caused the break-up of his marriage, caused him to be arrested for elder abuse, and have made it impossible for him to interact with others in other than very impersonal situations.

He is convinced that he is right about absolutely everything and no amount of discussion or facts will make him change his mind.

The only possible reason to reply to his posts is to refute them so others won't believe them.

For a long time, I believed that; but since David is an attention whore, and since he is constitutionally incapable of seeing or understanding a viewpoint other than his own, I am trying to wean myself off of responding to him. Anyone capable of seeing that David is delusional will soon see enough, on Quatloos, to show them that David's writings fall of their own weight, and are almost self-refuting. On the other hand, anyone who believes what David writes is probably too gullible (or mentally impaired) to be confused by the facts which we present.

Another reason for putting him on the "no comment list" is that the many irrelevancies he injects into threads (so that they can be about him, not the original subject) often baits us (guilty as charged) into engaging him on the irrelevancies. If we stop rising to the bait, David's hijack attempts will simply sit alone out in cyberspace, twisting in the wind.

[fortinbras]

The BPN was issued on the exact same day; like I said. That is what I was saying. It was received and if not accepted, the debt was waived.

A promissory note, bonded or otherwise, cannot be forced on anyone. It is a form of indebtedness and entirely subject to negotiation about the details - amount, interest, due date - if the creditor wants to accept it at all. And the creditor need not accept it.

And DVP is creating his own fantasies by supposing that refusal of a promissory note, especially one entirely un-negotiated, waives any debt. The mere suggestion of a promissory note, in fact, demonstrates that the underlying debt is not being paid, but rather that it is being prolonged.

I have already cited the UCC § 2-511 to the effect that a creditor can reject every sort of paper and insist on payment in legal tender. This applies to a rejection of an unrequested promissory note.

DVP cannot cite any legal authority to support his assertion that rejection of his un-negotiated promissory notes somehow erases the debt. I wonder how many people have hurt themselves by believing his assertion.

[David Merrill]

You are the perfect example - the reason you retaliate so!

The Court had a reasonable amount of time to respond to the method of payment. Ergo the scrubbed Doc 20. That was Setoff - acknowledgement of receipt of payment in full. Or maybe it was an order for the defendant to pay up out-of-pocket by traditional means? Possibly it was Information forwarded to the AG for a prosecution?



JRB has left us to infer he knows the judge and knows what was on her mind. It amuses Planet Merrill how it took three months to figure out that was the wrong file. More likely they learned a thing or two about redeeming lawful money from circulating BPNs.

I am telling you that you are looking at Setoff and even RUSSELL got confused by his own patriot mythology - not being able to prove the Treasury Direct account fungible or whatever. What you see there though is that the Court received the Payment in Full and made no objection in any timely manner.

I co-authored a Coupon Redemption method that works every time. The Setoff is blatant or sometimes disguised but when any debt scavenger tries to bill on the toxins the suitor just sends in the Setoff to the Reporting Agencies - presuming the suitor still cares. When you get ahead (Planet Merrill) you typically despise debt and credit. The funny part is that when I went to pull the Google Doc rendition, I got an unprecedented prohibition!



The one shared above is the one under the forbidden file.

Imagine that! I am prohibited from sharing my own file with you? Planet Merrill is an interesting place. You can go on what is there - available on PACER - which is advisable. The interpretations are subjective, I agree. You can take NY tort attorney Wserra's interpretation to heart of you can look at it from Planet Merrill.

After a while though, it becomes obvious that Planet Merrill is an exciting and profitable place to be. And that Nippy and Poppycock spend their days at the keyboard awaiting my next post...

[fortinbras]

What I see is a typescript argument a few pages long -- with a glaring typo on the very first line! Then a "coupon" which DVP has so completely blanked out that the only recognizable text is the Chase Bank logo.

For some reason, he won't provide an identifiable sample of his "works every time" funny money.

I might add that using bogus promissory notes such as DVP touts is a sufficient demonstration of dishonesty and bad faith to send a parolee back to the slammer. US v. Kearns (5th Cir. 2007) 218 Fed.Appx 373. And, no, refusing to accept this funny money does not extinguish the underlying obligation. US v. Banks (3d Cir 2008) 269 Fed.Appx 152.

[The Dog]

Am I right in thinking that even if somebody did accept one of these notes, if payment were not forthcoming s/he could sue the issuer of the note without having to prove the underlying debt?

[Pottapaug1938]

After a while though, it becomes obvious that Planet Merrill is an exciting and profitable place to be. And that Nippy and Pottapaug spend their days at the keyboard awaiting my next post...

If things weren't so slow around here lately, I wouldn't have bothered with you; and I await your posts like I await a root canal without anesthesia. Rest easy, though. Trying to get through to you is like trying to explain mutual funds to my 15-month-old neighbor. I have better things to do.

[David Merrill]

Am I right in thinking that even if somebody did accept one of these notes, if payment were not forthcoming s/he could sue the issuer of the note without having to prove the underlying debt?

That is the only way to avoid being stung by a typical BPN. I have docs where the recipient followed the instructions and got a letter back from the Treasury saying there is no account like that to draw upon. Then you could use that for a judgment and bill again, followed by a lien - or sue.

[The Observer]

Then you could use that for a judgment and bill again, followed by a lien - or sue.

And there it is again - the unintended blurt from David when you least expect it! Once more David is telling suitors that they have to go to the lawyer in black robes in order to make his remedy work. But that statement should give all suitors pause - why does remedy require further remedy; furthermore why does remedy require that you need the assistance of the very people whom David is telling you are behind the fraud in the first place?

This is what I find so entertaining about David and why I enjoy seeing him participate in Quatloosia without being censored: it is these little blurts that tell me that David knows that remedy really doesn't work and that he just hopes that the suitors don't see through the nonsense he is peddling.

[David Merrill]

Then you could use that for a judgment and bill again, followed by a lien - or sue.

And there it is again - the unintended blurt from David when you least expect it! Once more David is telling suitors that they have to go to the lawyer in black robes in order to make his remedy work. But that statement should give all suitors pause - why does remedy require further remedy; furthermore why does remedy require that you need the assistance of the very people whom David is telling you are behind the fraud in the first place?

This is what I find so entertaining about David and why I enjoy seeing him participate in Quatloosia without being censored: it is these little blurts that tell me that David knows that remedy really doesn't work and that he just hopes that the suitors don't see through the nonsense he is peddling.

I doubt The Dog is a suitor Observer;


I pointed out the remedy to receiving a BPN simply because Judge What's-Her-Face already exercised that - Doc 20 and then it slowly dawned on her after three months, she better scrub that off the record!





That is just too hilarious to leave be!