"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[David Merrill]

Unless he provides objectively verifiable proof, in the form of documents from a court showing that the court has directly considered his claims and found them to be legally valid, this site should not waste any more space on his fantasies.

Speaking for myself, I'm not doing it for David. I'm doing it so that Google picks this thread up in a search of "redeeming lawful money", and that readers can then see how completely unable David is, not only to prove that it works, but even to explain what it means. After only a couple of days, it's already #3 on the hit parade.

Goodness Wesley! Not just Google but the other search engines as well!


I have so many threads to bump. I had not realized the keywords to my videos are "redeemed lawful money".

[wserra]

I have proven it through the law and courts.

By posting an image of an old version of 12 USC 411? That's proof? And how about those questions, David? Perhaps I ought to repeat them, making them harder for you to ignore.

I can show you plenty of sanitized evidence that it works reliably.

I can show you plenty of sanitized evidence that I'm the President of the Universe. "Sanitized evidence" is an oxymoron. Evidence which isn't verifiable isn't evidence, David. It's garbage.

I honestly don't feel it worth trying to find somebody who would subject themselves to your verification.

I'm sure you're right. Funny, isn't it? People who have really proven something want their findings verified. They want their names front and center. On both counts, it's those who have proven nothing - and in fact have something to fear - that don't.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I have proven it through the law and courts.

Only in Van Pelt's own mind.

[Pottapaug1938]

Just as I thought -- the Coward from Colorado is still offering the same old horse droppings that he has offered in the past.

He'll never change; so we need not bother asking him to do so.

[David Merrill]

I have proven it through the law and courts.

Only in Van Pelt's own mind.

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

That's the law; §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411. And the courts fully support the law as I have interpreted it.

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

But you are correct Judge; in my mind (even though Van Pelt is a misnomer) you and Wesley have lost this escapade to slur remedy severely. This has backfired miserably because I will bump every hit on all the search engines and we people will be redeeming the national debt more than ever very quickly.

Even the people who read here will understand it clearly. You Quatlosers are such flunkeys! You get concerned about the actual currency when it is the process that is guaranteed by law. Redemption frees one from guilt. The guilt comes from elastic currency.

5115(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

US notes are not elastic. Look at Title 31 USC §5115. What matters is if you make your demand. People can simply add a few paystubs or a Notice and Demand served on the Fed with their 1040 Form to prove that they have been making the demand for lawful money. From there, not to boast, you allow the IRS attorney to decide, not JRB and Wserra.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

I answered your questions already. Jesus warned the central bankers about the children.

...FDR was Governor of NY and for the other global municipal jurisdiction reasons around METRO, that we will go into later if I am allowed to explain this much here, he was the guy for the job of saving the Fed.

He did that by allowing the private citizens of America to endorse the private credit from the Fed as though they were the pre-1933 banks Fortinbras is speaking about above. The primary Notice was issued to the State Governor's Conference.

After the quote there was a picture of some text talking about getting people to buy government bonds.

1. Please explain what is meant by "allowing the private citizens of America to endorse the private credit from the Fed as though they were the pre-1933 banks"
Sorry for my ignorance, but the phrase "endorse the private credit" means nothing to me.
What, if any, significance is there in the phrase "as though they were the pre-1933 banks" as it implies or suggests, to me, that endorsing private credit [which you will hopefully define for me] was somehow changed in 1933.

2. Please help connect and contrast the "endorse the private credit" and "redeemed in lawful money on demand" phrases. What does one have to do with the other?
How are these two phrases realated (how are they similar, different, or the same) ?

As difficult as it may be, this is a genuine attempt for me, and perhaps others, to know what is meant by these phrases as being used in your comment.

Here is some context.

I suppose the simplest way to explain it is that the bankers were not hoarding gold - and the Federal Reserve was not hoarding gold either. It was the American people who were hoarding the gold.

In the past weeks the country has given a remarkable demonstration of confidence.

Listen to the audio clip - confidence in the Fed. That was of course with an armed guard at the doors of the sanctuary.

Redemption is redemption is redemption. That is the latest stir in patriot mythology; Plead Guilty to the Facts ONLY! They are like little kids though.

I don't care! I didn't do anything wrong! What are you going to do about it?

How do you arraign a guy like that? He can never understand the nature and the cause of the accusation if he does not understand that he did something wrong. He pleads guilty to the facts but does not feel like he did anything wrong! He is not fueling the oath-mongering machine with guilt! Our priestcraft is useless! He is immune to our spell! [Did we spell his name wrong?]This fellow is not holding up his support brick in our zigurat! Could it be that he has been redeemed of sin? How can we monetize sin if he found redemption from his sins somewhere else? How do we make him feel guilty, pretend we are Jesus and we un-forgive him?

Redeem lawful money by the same model. After all Jesus warned them about little kids.

[Lambkin]

"Sanitized" proof = no proof. Names, dates, and case numbers or it didn't happen.

[David Merrill]

"Sanitized" proof = no proof. Names, dates, and case numbers or it didn't happen.

That is the standard of globally accepted Rules of Evidence. This is the Internet. Because I explain success stories graphically it makes them more believable. It is up to you to judge what you read and see for yourselves...

Oh wait! It is up to Wserra; I forgot.

[wserra]

"Sanitized" proof = no proof. Names, dates, and case numbers or it didn't happen.

That is the standard of globally accepted Rules of Evidence.

That's right, David, it is. If you want to prove that something works, you show in a way that the reader can verify that it has worked in the past, and you make that showing in sufficient detail that the reader can duplicate the results; you do this in conjunction with an explanation of the underlying mechanism of the process. I realize that you likely believe you have accomplished the last of these. Even that part - the explanation - is a joke to anyone who understands the law. You cite snippets of statutes, interspersed with images of old law books, pictures of doors, and maps with certain functions graphed on them. That isn't a legal explanation; it's an exhibit in a competency hearing.

And the other part - the verifiable proof of how "redeeming lawful money" has in fact insulated from the income tax - you don't even attempt. Allow me to show you how such proof would appear. First of all, you would have to show in a verifiable manner that someone had filed "redeeming lawful money" and had not paid taxes based on the filing. Just receiving a refund - or even having zero tax - is hardly enough. Those things happen routinely, for a myriad of legitimate reasons. The redeemer of lawful money would have to show a return that zeroed out his income on this theory, plus the W2s/1099s that show he had actual income to begin with. And it would have to be verified that this was an actual, filed return. After all, it would take me about ten minutes to fill out a blank 1040 with any numbers I wish, then scan it and post it, claiming falsely that it was my real return.

Finally, the redeemer would have to show that the govt actually accepted his reasoning, and not just blindly processed a return in the well known way it did with various Hendrickson victims. You remember - those poor schmucks who originally got refunds, but then had to pay interest and penalties on top of the taxes they owned once the govt clawed the erroneous refund back. Hendrickson claimed all of them as proof that his bullshit worked, too. I think the victims likely disagree with that. Fortunately, it's not that hard to prove this. The courts write hundreds of cases dealing with taxation every month, and have been doing so for decades. Find one in which a court - any court - that says that "redeeming lawful money" currently accomplishes anything at all, other than getting you new bills for old.

Now go ahead, David, post some more pictures.

[Pottapaug1938]

David, to help you further in your quest to supply verifiable proof for your allegations, I offer this:

You are quite good at picking quotes out of appellate court opinions; but not all quotes in such opinions are of equal value. Some quotes set forth the holding in the case -- in other words, they set forth the court's decision on the question put before it. Most quotes, though, are included in order to explain the reasoning behind the holding; and these are often referred to as dicta (dictum, in the singular).

A good example can be found in the case of Zorach v. Clauson (343 US 306), decided by the US Supreme Court in 1952. In it, Justice William O. Douglas says:

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being...."

This quote has been repeatedly abused by those who wish to promote officially-sponsored and offically-mandated religious observances in our public institutions. However, Justice Douglas's words above are not the holding in this case; they constitute only one of its many dicta. The holding in the case was that school systems are legally permitted to release their students for the purpose of attending religious instruction elsewhere, during normal school hours.

So, David, we do not need any more out-of-context quotations from court opinions, we do not need any pictures of entries in long-outdated legal dictionaries, and we do not need any more citations of statutes. We need complete citations of cases, and the holding in those cases, before any of us will acknowledge that your fantasies about "redeeming lawful money" are of any legal weight whatsoever.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. I think that there's a better chance of Barack Obama selecting Rush Limbaugh as his 2012 running mate.

[The Observer]

...and you make that showing in sufficient detail that the reader can duplicate the results...

That is a very interesting remark, in the sense that David is on record actually in support of developing a remedy program that will have reproducible results.

Of course there is the little problem of David not being able to demonstrate that any one can simply use his various remedies and have the same results that David claims he has achieved.

[David Merrill]

"Sanitized" proof = no proof. Names, dates, and case numbers or it didn't happen.

That is the standard of globally accepted Rules of Evidence.

That's right, David, it is. If you want to prove that something works, you show in a way that the reader can verify that it has worked in the past, and you make that showing in sufficient detail that the reader can duplicate the results; you do this in conjunction with an explanation of the underlying mechanism of the process.

David, to help you further in your quest to supply verifiable proof for your allegations, I offer this:

You are quite good at picking quotes out of appellate court opinions; but not all quotes in such opinions are of equal value. Some quotes set forth the holding in the case -- in other words, they set forth the court's decision on the question put before it. Most quotes, though, are included in order to explain the reasoning behind the holding; and these are often referred to as dicta (dictum, in the singular).

A good example can be found in the case of Zorach v. Clauson (343 US 306), decided by the US Supreme Court in 1952. In it, Justice William O. Douglas says:

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being...."

This quote has been repeatedly abused by those who wish to promote officially-sponsored and offically-mandated religious observances in our public institutions. However, Justice Douglas's words above are not the holding in this case; they constitute only one of its many dicta. The holding in the case was that school systems are legally permitted to release their students for the purpose of attending religious instruction elsewhere, during normal school hours.

So, David, we do not need any more out-of-context quotations from court opinions, and we do not need any more citations of statutes. We need complete citations of cases, and the holding in those cases, before any of us will acknowledge that your fantasies about "redeeming lawful money" are of any legal weight whatsoever.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. I think that there's a better chance of Barack Obama selecting Rush Limbaugh as his 2012 running mate.

You both fail to understand my objective has been met. I worry though that Wserra will realize his mistake and throw the thread in the five-day trash pile (urinary contests). I would like Quatloos to remain on the Redeeming Lawful Money hit parade as Wserra calls it.

People reading here for example can see plainly that my citations are in proper context.


"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being...."

That is a lovely example describing the distinction of redeemed contrasted with not redeemed. Every note you are handling says:

IN GOD WE TRUST

There you have it. When America went on fiat currency that was the sentiment. If you don't believe in God fine; I am speaking of the confidence and the metaphysics produced by the priestcrafters. You have to believe in God to get in the Order. The custodians of the record agree with the Order of Archelaus, (dunking initiation) John the Baptist's brother. The fiat currency started on the SW corner of the Golden Rectangle here.



Masonic Bible in the Colorado Springs Mason Museum.


IN GOD WE TRUST is a symbol of redemption. US notes are not elastic currency, like I have shown you from 31 USC §5115 above. FRNs are elastic, like I have also shown you. I might get around to your verifiable proof yet but I think it better before somebody tries this with a 1040 Form, that they understand why it works. If it becomes obvious they are doing it from example then they might get slapped with a $5K Frivolous Filing Fee.

Congress could not allow elastic fiat currency into circulation without providing the remedy found in §16 of the 1913 Fed Act.

[Pottapaug1938]

Once again, the guy from Colorado subjects us to a pile of heaped-up balderdash instead of the kind of proof which I have repeatedly requested from him. Typically, he manages to take Justice Douglas's dictum in the Zorach case and, in a breathtaking example of verbal contortionism, twist it far beyond any rational meaning; and once again he offers us citations to this or that law without providing us with one single holding in one single appellate court case which interprets the law (and such an interpretation is necessary, as shown by the countless court cases, past and present, which deal with disputes on interpretations of our laws). Silly me -- why should I have expected anything different? This guy fears the truth the way that the Kardashian sisters fear the "where are they now?" columns.

I have to question whether any purpose is served by permitting him to offer more of the same useless drivel in this or any other thread.

[jg]

we people will be redeeming the national debt
They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...
If you make your demand clear with proper record-forming, then you have redeemed lawful money. It is as simple as that. Just make your demand

Please help connect and contrast the "endorse the private credit" and "redeeming the national debt" and "redeemed in lawful money on demand" phrases. What does one have to do with the other?
How are these phrases related (how are they similar, different, or the same) ?

Where do the courts, or where does the law, say anything about the effect of making a demand on any other statute (such as taxes)?

So, I make a demand. How is that significant or different than if I do not make the demand?
Why is it different?

What affect does making a demand have on my liability for income tax?

As difficult as it may be, this is a genuine attempt for me to know what is meant by these phrases and why they are useful. Please take it step by step and do not just present context or an image.

[David Merrill]

Once again, the guy from Colorado subjects us to...

That's Poppycock for you! I am not subjecting him or anybody else to anything. I suggest you just quit reading my posts. My blood pressure is fine; I suggest you might take care of your own.

we people will be redeeming the national debt
They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...
If you make your demand clear with proper record-forming, then you have redeemed lawful money. It is as simple as that. Just make your demand

Please help connect and contrast the "endorse the private credit" and "redeeming the national debt" and "redeemed in lawful money on demand" phrases. What does one have to do with the other?

How are these phrases related (how are they similar, different, or the same) ?

Where do the courts, or where does the law, say anything about the effect of making a demand on any other statute (such as taxes)?

So, I make a demand. How is that significant or different than if I do not make the demand?
Why is it different?

What affect does making a demand have on my liability for income tax?

As difficult as it may be, this is a genuine attempt for me to know what is meant by these phrases and why they are useful. Please take it step by step and do not just present context or an image.

I have so many ways to answer your questions that I select the one that feels most productive at the moment. This will not make any sense to you unless you consider the oath of office for any official a fungible fidelity bond. It is a financial instrument. It represents a financial liability. If you think of an oath as just a ceremony then you might as well ask again tomorrow so that can have a different explanation.

I am continuing from the post above with the pretty map and Golden Spiral for a reason... Poppycock is done reading here on this thread. We wont have him claiming that I am subjecting him to any garbage anymore and he is done whining.

This bogus oath of office gives us an example and contrast demonstrating my point. It is accompanied by a bond for $5K by Traveler's Insurance.



District Attorney Daniel MAY does not swear by anything, especially since his monetary compensation must tie with the general bond:

IN GOD WE TRUST

Instead he is hoping that if he is adjudicated culpable (no immunity) for a wrongful conviction that the $5K is going to cover compensation. That is right there in front of you, the two different oaths and forms, with the AG's even looking like a bond or stock certificate! However the AG's oath as a bond is open-ended as to the amount of compensation available from the Colorado Comptroller's office.



Read that annotation too. It looks like Dan is trying to be clever but it does not justify breaking the statutes he is swearing to uphold. So the opinion cannot apply to a District Attorney in Colorado. It is for affidavits by private individuals I am certain - but may get around to reading the case tomorrow. This is the Notaries guideline on that.

Hopefully you are starting to get a light on this. Elastic currency is not lawful money until the stretchy increase is covered. The Treasurer and Secretary do not bond the increase caused by the fractional lending, that is covered by the endorser. I can probably get more into that tomorrow if you still don't understand.


Regards,

David Merrill

[Famspear]

......Elastic currency is not lawful money until the stretchy increase is covered. The Treasurer and Secretary do not bond the increase caused by the fractional lending, that is covered by the endorser......

Or, as my Uncle Ted used to say (in much the same spirit, I might add), "Two hamsters do not make a sandwich......"

[grixit]

Of course not, that would be uncivilized. Now two hamsters, a slice of cucumber, some creme fresh and raspberry vinegrette on a min baguette-- that's a sandwich!

[Pottapaug1938]

No, Mr. Van Pelt, I'm not going away; and I'm not whining either. I'm expressing my frustration and my disgust at the way that you are too cowardly to offer us any objectively verifiable proof that your fantasies have ANY legal weight or validity. Instead, you offer us more bafflegab, more out-of-context quotes, more incomprehensible gibberish. Time and time again, I and others have challenged you to offer the stated proof; and earlier today, I even suggested the way that you could do so, in a format which we could all accept. Instead (surprise, surprise) you give us nothing. You're not even coming up with very much in the way of original stuff, either.

In other words, you completely waste our time. If you disagree, then prove me wrong in the format which I have specified. Anything else will be taken as your admission that you have no proof whatsoever that your fantasies are legally valid.

[JamesVincent]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7rFYbMh ... re=related

Just because.....

[David Merrill]

No, Mr. Van Pelt, I'm not going away; and I'm not whining either. I'm expressing my frustration and my disgust at the way that you are too cowardly to offer us any objectively verifiable proof that your fantasies have ANY legal weight or validity... Anything else will be taken as your admission that you have no proof whatsoever that your fantasies are legally valid.

Speaking of admissions;

You have called me a weasel and now twice, a coward. Supposing you mean it and have some mastery of English vocabulary you admit that I have the evidence redeeming lawful money works like I say. Furthermore you insinuate that providing verifiable information about somebody, against their consent would be redemptive; an action of courage?

If you gave me some instructions I did not read them. Sorry about that Poppycock.