"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[wserra]

providing verifiable information about somebody, against their consent

See, that's the part I just don't get, David. I've written this before, but you ignored me. I'll try it again in different words.

Why wouldn't people consent? I mean, they're right, no? You've discovered a legal, righteous way not to pay taxes. Brave patriots everywhere are "redeeming lawful money" to beat the govt. Why are they so shy? I mean, they've already done it, right? They sent the stuff to the govt, with their names on it. Why not now take credit for their accomplishments?

And how about you? Do you practice what you preach? Why don't you provide us with verifiable proof that you successfully use your own stuff?

Repeating the caution about the meaning of "verifiable": in about two minutes, I could go to the online 1040, and fill it in complete with my name to show $10,000,000,000 in income and $0 in taxes. I'm sure you'll agree that doing so wouldn't prove much. And photoshopped docs - even assuming that they were real before being shopped - prove only that someone has something to hide.

[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... 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.

And I'll call you a coward a third time, Van Pelt. You claim that " have the evidence redeeming lawful money works like say"; but you have done nothing except repeat the same old assertions which prove NOTHING. You have not provided one scintilla of evidence that your "redeeming lawful money" fantasy is anything BUT a fantasy. You don't have the guts to admit that you have NO independently verifiable evidence of that fact.

I have no hope that you will respond any better to future challenges than you have to past challenges, from me or anyone else; but here's a simple one for you: please provide the citation to any appellate court decision which holds that you, or anyone else, has "redeemed lawful money" in the way that you allegedly have, and has produced the legal benefits which you claim that the "redemption" produces. Only an appellate court decision will suffice, Pal. YouTube videos, pictures of law dictionary entries, stand-alone citations of laws, and mystery links just won't cut it.

[David Merrill]

providing verifiable information about somebody, against their consent

See, that's the part I just don't get, David. I've written this before, but you ignored me. I'll try it again in different words.

Why wouldn't people consent? I mean, they're right, no? You've discovered a legal, righteous way not to pay taxes. Brave patriots everywhere are "redeeming lawful money" to beat the govt. Why are they so shy? I mean, they've already done it, right? They sent the stuff to the govt, with their names on it. Why not now take credit for their accomplishments?

And how about you? Do you practice what you preach? Why don't you provide us with verifiable proof that you successfully use your own stuff?

Repeating the caution about the meaning of "verifiable": in about two minutes, I could go to the online 1040, and fill it in complete with my name to show $10,000,000,000 in income and $0 in taxes. I'm sure you'll agree that doing so wouldn't prove much. And photoshopped docs - even assuming that they were real before being shopped - prove only that someone has something to hide.

I successfully use my own stuff. Whenever I link sensible people, especially those who have gotten refunds of withholding here, their reactions is usually:

YIKES!!

That's the thing about assholes like you. You don't even realize what assholes you are!

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.

And I'll call you a coward a third time, Van Pelt. You claim that " have the evidence redeeming lawful money works like say"; but you have done nothing except repeat the same old assertions which prove NOTHING. You have not provided one scintilla of evidence that your "redeeming lawful money" fantasy is anything BUT a fantasy. You don't have the guts to admit that you have NO independently verifiable evidence of that fact.

I have no hope that you will respond any better to future challenges than you have to past challenges, from me or anyone else; but here's a simple one for you: please provide the citation to any appellate court decision which holds that you, or anyone else, has "redeemed lawful money" in the way that you allegedly have, and has produced the legal benefits which you claim that the "redemption" produces. Only an appellate court decision will suffice, Pal. YouTube videos, pictures of law dictionary entries, stand-alone citations of laws, and mystery links just won't cut it.

Using that particular descriptor for me says you know people get the refunds Poppycock. It tells us that you understand I have the evidence you are after and am frightened of pissing good people off by using their tax information online. I am not reading your posts though; I am executing a summary abatement for misnomer. In the explanations though, I may go into the METRO CODE and my heritage a bit for you all. It has to do with IN GOD WE TRUST and the Golden Rectangle. To avoid a stroke or something though, I suggest you might want to put me on the Ignore List.

Do you practice what you preach?

Yes I do. Whenever I buy something like at the hardware store that goes back for a refund, when they ask me to sign for it I sign Lawful Money. Whenever anybody wants me to sign a list of signatures though I usually pull out my camera and photograph the list. Often they say, Nevermind and want their list back.

I am a court of record. I keep the authority to decide. I redeem lawful money. No need to apply for a refund because I have no Social Security Number anyway. That means I have no Taxpayer ID Number. The IRS would not be able to identify me - kinda like Poppycock calling me Van Pelt.

You bring up a subject though Wserra. Most people who redeem lawful money are self employed so I suggest that after two or three years they fill out a tax return anyway just to avoid the IRS assessing them on 1099 and other Information they gather from clients/customers. It is a lot easier to avoid a radical and erroneous assessment than it is to get rid of one once made.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Duke2Earl]

I suspect the only use of this thread was to prove yet again how deranged this person really is. Obviously the voices in the head are very loud with this one. I feel very sorry for him but I, for one, have had enough of this insanity.

[wserra]

I suspect the only use of this thread was to prove yet again how deranged this person really is.

No, it wasn't. As I posted above, the purpose was to have a rational source appear on a search of "redeeming lawful money". As you'll see if you try it, such sources are woefully lacking. I dislike seeing such a void filled only by bullshit. This thread is now prominent.

I do agree that it has about run its course, however. David has had multiple opportunities, politely posed, to provide any verifiable proof that his stuff does anything at all. He has had more opportunites, politely posed, to provide any legal basis for it. Zip on all counts. That was the point. Perhaps a couple of days more. With David unable to provide any proof, the thread will degenerate to invective.

[The Observer]

With David unable to provide any proof, the thread will degenerate to invective.

We have already reached that point. I was hoping that participants would focus their posts on whether David met the criteria you had set forth without having to take random potshots at him personally. As you stated, this would have been a great thread to show that "redeeming lawful money" is meaningless. I stubbornly pursued David on another thread several years ago about "curing liens" and finally got him to admit that "suitors" were going to have to end up going to federal district court to address the "lien curing." So much for simply filing the UCC paperwork that he claimed would work. In that moment, David had to admit that his process didn't work like he claimed it would.

Instead, this thread has been diluted with personal criticisms, all of which will appear to the casual reader to be motivated by personal hatred of David. So they may end up thinking that there *might* be something after all to getting "lawful money" stamped on their greenbacks.

[Randall]

Do you practice what you preach?

Yes I do. Whenever I buy something like at the hardware store that goes back for a refund, when they ask me to sign for it I sign Lawful Money.
So even you are confused by what your name is

I am a court of record.No you're not.

I keep the authority to decide. Only the courts decide what is lawful. They use facts not bullshit.

I redeem lawful money. A total waste of time but go ahead, knock yourself out.

No need to apply for a refund because I have no Social Security Number anyway. That means I have no Taxpayer ID Number. Sounds like you have no job

You bring up a subject though Wserra. Most people who redeem lawful money are self employed so I suggest that after two or three years they fill out a tax return anyway just to avoid the IRS assessing them on 1099 How do they assess them if they have no taxpayer ID number? I thought your plan worked?and other Information they gather from clients/customers. It is a lot easier to avoid a radical and erroneous assessment than it is to get rid of one once made.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Randall]

The plain English is only a beginning to understand.

Ignoring that that sentence is anything but plain English... Mr Lawful Money, please clearly tell me what is step one in redeeming money?
We'll take this one clear step at a time so don't go racing ahead.
Step one is....................?

[David Merrill]

I suspect the only use of this thread was to prove yet again how deranged this person really is. Obviously the voices in the head are very loud with this one. I feel very sorry for him but I, for one, have had enough of this insanity.

I think he is right, disturbing avatar and all. I feel very maligned by your thread Wserra! Something about that avatar tells me he has special insight and seems to believe in "voices".

Just the same though; thank you so much for the referrals. This must be why Poppycock's blood pressure is so elevated lately. He realizes that people actually are getting full refunds of their withholdings. I think many readers understand clearly that I might actually get into legal trouble if I were to expose other people by giving out Wesley's verifiable information.

In the explanations though, I may go into the METRO CODE and my heritage a bit for you all.

For now though, it is suffice to say that Title 12 USC §411 while not positive law is common law. It offers a common law remedy as described in the 1789 Judiciary Act, page 77, the 'saving to suitors' clause.

Like your slogan about death and taxes you Quatlosers fail to see remedy when it is right in front of you. The only argument you have presented here is that Congress is off-kilter with their dicta and plain English based on a presumption that Congress could impose an elastic currency on banks (1913-1933; like the banks weren't passing that currency on to people) without giving those banks remedy back to lawful money with an inelastic character. In 1933 as I have shown you from the Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt FDR notified the States that people could now participate in that Federal Reserve trust directly by signing their paychecks into the new trust.

It is sad that some of you Quatlosers would choose a financial system based in false balances that chattelizes human flesh and bone, and in your rendition Congress offered you no remedy.


Regards,

P.S. David Merrill.

The plain English is only a beginning to understand.

Ignoring that that sentence is anything but plain English... Mr Lawful Money, please clearly tell me what is step one in redeeming money?
We'll take this one clear step at a time so don't go racing ahead.
Step one is....................?

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

You find that English too complicated?

Step 1 is make your demand. It seems an experienced tort attorney like Wserra could explain it better than me.

My videos (you have to follow Wserra's suggestion and Google to view those) are based around simple paper paychecks so there is quite a bit of confusion about electronic transfers. If I show you the sanitized examples though they might get this post scrapped. Better yet though here is what I have suggested:

Draft your demand (notice and demand) for lawful money and have it notarized. Get a Commission Certificate on the notary from the Secretary of State. Publish it at the County Clerk and Recorder or Register of Deeds. Take that original and publish it in your federal evidence repository at the US courthouse then serve a certified copy on the nearest Federal Reserve Bank. Accompanied now by a Return of Service on the Federal Reserve system serve copies on your personal bank.
Or change your Signature Card to reflect your demand. Sometimes the bank president does not agree with your "restricted endorsement" blanketed on the Signature Card. The above instructions are for when you don't feel like changing banks.

[Pottapaug1938]

Van Pelt says: "I am not reading your posts though; I am executing a summary abatement for misnomer." That's the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and loudly yelling "la-la-la-la...."

He further says" "(t)o avoid a stroke or something though, I suggest you might want to put me on the Ignore List."

That is all too tempting; but I just can't help seeing that your fantasies do not go unchallenged. I do think, though, that I will refrain, in the future, from direct challenges, since it's obvious that you either can't or won't respond to them in any useful manner. All you ever offer us is your repeated and regurgitated fantasies. You do not offer one shred of proof that your fantasies have ever worked for you or anyone else. You claim that people have successfully received refunds by using your techniques; but as in the case of Peter Hendrickson you don't say anything about those refunds being clawed back once the IRS catches on that shenanigans are being pulled.

By the way, my blood pressure is just fine. I suspect that it's yours which is a tad elevated, judging from the increasing hysterical tone of your responses to me.

[wserra]

I was hoping that participants would focus their posts on whether David met the criteria you had set forth without having to take random potshots at him personally.

I was too. Perhaps that could be the case from here on. I addressed the issue already.

[Famspear]

No, David, you are continuing to be evasive. We are not asking you whether your scheme works. We know that it does not work. And your telling us that it works means nothing.

And we also are not asking for your explanation of how you believe the law works.

We are asking you to provide a legitimate citation to an actual court case where a court ruled that your scheme is correct, as a matter of law.

And, as always, you cannot come up with such a citation. There is no such court case.

[Randall]

The plain English is only a beginning to understand.

Ignoring that that sentence is anything but plain English... Mr Lawful Money, please clearly tell me what is step one in redeeming money?
We'll take this one clear step at a time so don't go racing ahead.
Step one is....................?

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

You find that English too complicated?

Step 1 is make your demand. It seems an experienced tort attorney like Wserra could explain it better than me.

It's your method and you can't explain it?

Better yet though here is what I have suggested:

Draft your demand (notice and demand) for lawful money and have it notarized.

One step at a time. Get it?
I'll accept this as step one. Now tell me what the demand should say so that I have the correct words. I don't want to mess it up and have it refused because I used the wrong magical word(s). So, tell me the what the correct wording is for the demand. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Burnaby49]

I could use a basic "Lawful Money for Dummies" primer here. I've followed this, and similar threads, and I think I understand the basic point. Merrill claims that "redeemable for lawful money" on US bills means that the current US currency is not actually lawful money since, if it was, it would not need a redemption right. Wssera and others say (and I agree) that his interpretation is wrong. What I miss in all of this is how Merrill's position can be turned into a tax scam.

[David Merrill]

I could use a basic "Lawful Money for Dummies" primer here. I've followed this, and similar threads, and I think I understand the basic point. Merrill claims that "redeemable for lawful money" on US bills means that the current US currency is not actually lawful money since, if it was, it would not need a redemption right. Wssera and others say (and I agree) that his interpretation is wrong. What I miss in all of this is how Merrill's position can be turned into a tax scam.

Great point!

Nobody will be getting in trouble for redeeming lawful money - or at least ordering it such on Signature Cards and paychecks.

Wserra and others fear that people who report zero income on 1040 Forms will get into trouble like Pete HENDRICKSON has done to dozens of people with Cracking the Code.

[Pottapaug1938]

I could use a basic "Lawful Money for Dummies" primer here. I've followed this, and similar threads, and I think I understand the basic point. Merrill claims that "redeemable for lawful money" on US bills means that the current US currency is not actually lawful money since, if it was, it would not need a redemption right. Wssera and others say (and I agree) that his interpretation is wrong. What I miss in all of this is how Merrill's position can be turned into a tax scam.

Well, one of the things to do is look at online images of pre-1963 US Federal Reserve Notes. They contain versions of the clause which David cites. However, since then, FRNs have not mentioned any redeemability; and this is because gold and silver certificates were either obsolete or obsolescent; gold had long since been demonetized and silver was soon to follow; and the issuance of United States Notes was about to cease. Since "redeeming" FRNs would then essentially mean that you could take your FRN to a bank and get a new one in exchange, or currently circulating coins if that was your preference, the idea of "redeeming FRNs is essentially pointless today. You can check out past Quatloos threads on this subject for much more information.

[wserra]

What I miss in all of this is how Merrill's position can be turned into a tax scam.

David has claimed - with neither verifiable proof nor legal support, of course - that endorsing paychecks "redeemed for lawful money" makes them non-taxable, in the exact same manner as sprinkling them with pixie dust would. Good luck ascertaining from David just how that works.

[Burnaby49]

What I miss in all of this is how Merrill's position can be turned into a tax scam.

David has claimed - with neither verifiable proof nor legal support, of course - that endorsing paychecks "redeemed for lawful money" makes them non-taxable, in the exact same manner as sprinkling them with pixie dust would. Good luck ascertaining from David just how that works.

I guess I miss out on this golden opportunity since I get my pension payments as direct deposits, no place to scrawl gibberish. Hold on, I get paid in Canadian funds anyhow . . . . never mind.

[Burnaby49]

I could use a basic "Lawful Money for Dummies" primer here. I've followed this, and similar threads, and I think I understand the basic point. Merrill claims that "redeemable for lawful money" on US bills means that the current US currency is not actually lawful money since, if it was, it would not need a redemption right. Wssera and others say (and I agree) that his interpretation is wrong. What I miss in all of this is how Merrill's position can be turned into a tax scam.

Well, one of the things to do is look at online images of pre-1963 US Federal Reserve Notes. They contain versions of the clause which David cites. However, since then, FRNs have not mentioned any redeemability; and this is because gold and silver certificates were either obsolete or obsolescent; gold had long since been demonetized and silver was soon to follow; and the issuance of United States Notes was about to cease. Since "redeeming" FRNs would then essentially mean that you could take your FRN to a bank and get a new one in exchange, or currently circulating coins if that was your preference, the idea of "redeeming FRNs is essentially pointless today. You can check out past Quatloos threads on this subject for much more information.

I got all that part from prior postings. I was missing an explanation of Merrill's claim that this could be turned into a tax scam.

[Pottapaug1938]

I could use a basic "Lawful Money for Dummies" primer here. I've followed this, and similar threads, and I think I understand the basic point. Merrill claims that "redeemable for lawful money" on US bills means that the current US currency is not actually lawful money since, if it was, it would not need a redemption right. Wssera and others say (and I agree) that his interpretation is wrong. What I miss in all of this is how Merrill's position can be turned into a tax scam.

Well, one of the things to do is look at online images of pre-1963 US Federal Reserve Notes. They contain versions of the clause which David cites. However, since then, FRNs have not mentioned any redeemability; and this is because gold and silver certificates were either obsolete or obsolescent; gold had long since been demonetized and silver was soon to follow; and the issuance of United States Notes was about to cease. Since "redeeming" FRNs would then essentially mean that you could take your FRN to a bank and get a new one in exchange, or currently circulating coins if that was your preference, the idea of "redeeming FRNs is essentially pointless today. You can check out past Quatloos threads on this subject for much more information.[/quote]


I got all that part from prior postings. I was missing an explanation of Merrill's claim that this could be turned into a tax scam.[/quote]

Okay. Well, don't bother looking for the explanation. For one thing, you will have trouble making sense of it; for another, it's without any verifiable legal veracity; and finally, it gets depressing when you see the author's mind hard at work producing this stuff.