"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[David Merrill]

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.

My claim is the opposite. This is not a tax scam. Here is the Canadian rendition of redeeming lawful money:

[Famspear]

No, David, you are continuing to be evasive. I am asking you to provide a legitimate citation to an actual court case where a court ruled that your scheme is correct.

[David Merrill]

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.

Look at it this way then; Title 12 is the code for banks and banking. It is not the Internal Revenue Code - Title 26.

[Cathulhu]

So, let me get this straight--David, you are contending that by demanding (I can just see the face of the drive-through kid at Burger King when confronted by your nonsensical demands regarding both payment and change!) "Lawful Money" or stamping your Magic Words on bills to deface them, you make them magically nontaxable. Of course, you can't cite any clear law or cite a court case to support your contentions, but of course we should all just take it on faith.

[Pottapaug1938]

You can't cite what doesn't exist.

[David Merrill]

No, David, you are continuing to be evasive. I am asking you to provide a legitimate citation to an actual court case where a court ruled that your scheme is correct.

I don't think you understand the common law and stare decisis (case law) very well. Very seldom if somebody got a full refund of withholdings would they take the IRS to court, much less appeal their win there so that an opinion could be published.

So, let me get this straight--David, you are contending that by demanding (I can just see the face of the drive-through kid at Burger King when confronted by your nonsensical demands regarding both payment and change!) "Lawful Money" or stamping your Magic Words on bills to deface them, you make them magically nontaxable. Of course, you can't cite any clear law or cite a court case to support your contentions, but of course we should all just take it on faith.

No need to cite law on that one. If you have cash in hand that is lawful money. The question remains did you endorse private credit from the Fed or demand the FRNs in your had be redeemed lawful money?

Maybe you got confused with the cash refund part. Why would they need a signature on cash you receive back? Why would they care that you acknowledge it? They have their merchandise back in acceptable condition. [Well, they pretend it is so that you don't come back tomorrow demanding another refund but then tomorrow, you will not have the receipt and merchandise to return so that lacks sense or logic too.]

The reason they want you to sign is to endorse private credit on the funds. They are like a bank too - the hardware store or whatever. The returned merchandise with a receipt is like cashing a paycheck and they want you to endorse private credit just like on a paycheck. So I write Lawful Money as my signature.

[David Merrill]

So, let me get this straight--David, you are contending that by demanding (I can just see the face of the drive-through kid at Burger King when confronted by your nonsensical demands regarding both payment and change!) "Lawful Money" or stamping your Magic Words on bills to deface them, you make them magically nontaxable. Of course, you can't cite any clear law or cite a court case to support your contentions, but of course we should all just take it on faith.

No. That is what Wserra is constructing and I think he failed to be very convincing.

You can't cite what doesn't exist.

Exactly! Whenever the IRS refunds withholdings there is no complaint and no court case to cite.

No, David, you are continuing to be evasive. I am asking you to provide a legitimate citation to an actual court case where a court ruled that your scheme is correct.

There are no such court cases that I am aware of. Suppose you found a case like Rickman but Rickman had been redeeming lawful money instead of claiming that the FRNs he had bonded by endoresement were no lawful money?


Somebody has to complain before there is a court case.

[wserra]

So, let me get this straight--David, you are contending that by demanding (I can just see the face of the drive-through kid at Burger King when confronted by your nonsensical demands regarding both payment and change!) "Lawful Money" or stamping your Magic Words on bills to deface them, you make them magically nontaxable. Of course, you can't cite any clear law or cite a court case to support your contentions, but of course we should all just take it on faith.

No. That is what Wserra is constructing and I think he failed to be very convincing.

Actually, that is exactly what David claims. See this thread (quotes from multiple posts, all David's) on Sui Juris:

Redeem lawful money and have no tax liability

A banker in NYC was at a party when he overheard an IRS attorney say, There is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay Income Tax; they are doing it right. . . . He began redeeming lawful money in mid-2009 and got full refunds for federal and two states where he works

if you redeem lawful money you do not have a tax liability.

"Convincing" enough? David has written this stuff all over the place, anywhere he could get people to read it. Wonder why he belatedly (fourth page of the thread) denies it here?

[Famspear]

don't think you understand the common law and stare decisis (case law) very well. Very seldom if somebody got a full refund of withholdings would they take the IRS to court, much less appeal their win there so that an opinion could be published.

Baloney.

You, David, are well aware that I understand the common law and stare decisis quite well. You are also well aware that you are some guy in Colorado with no legal training or expertise.

You are blowing smoke, David, and no one is buying your phony rhetoric.

[Famspear]

David wrote:

There are no such court cases that I am aware of.

Thank you for being honest, David.

[Famspear]

David, no IRS attorney at some party in New York City has ever said that there is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay Income Tax, or that such people are "doing it right". No IRS attorney at any party in New York City has ever said that anyone -- or someone -- began redeeming lawful money in mid-2009 and got full refunds for federal and two states.

And no banker at any party in New York City overheard any such IRS attorney say any such thing.

Now, I just made several negative statements that contradict what you apparently have written in other places on the internet about what some IRS attorney supposedly said, and what some banker overheard. I don't have to prove that my negative statements are correct. If you have evidence that my statements are wrong, if you have evidence of all this, you should be able to provide that evidence.

Let's see the evidence.

.....if you redeem lawful money you do not have a tax liability....

Baloney. That is blatant nonsense. Now, prove that it's not blatant nonsense, David.

To your credit, David, you have admitted that you know of no court cases where the courts have ruled that your nonsensical blather is correct. I credit you with being forthright on that point.

[David Merrill]

So, let me get this straight--David, you are contending that by demanding (I can just see the face of the drive-through kid at Burger King when confronted by your nonsensical demands regarding both payment and change!) "Lawful Money" or stamping your Magic Words on bills to deface them, you make them magically nontaxable. Of course, you can't cite any clear law or cite a court case to support your contentions, but of course we should all just take it on faith.

No. That is what Wserra is constructing and I think he failed to be very convincing.

Actually, that is exactly what David claims. See this thread (quotes from multiple posts, all David's) on Sui Juris:

Redeem lawful money and have no tax liability

A banker in NYC was at a party when he overheard an IRS attorney say, There is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay Income Tax; they are doing it right. . . . He began redeeming lawful money in mid-2009 and got full refunds for federal and two states where he works

if you redeem lawful money you do not have a tax liability.

"Convincing" enough? David has written this stuff all over the place, anywhere he could get people to read it. Wonder why he belatedly (fourth page of the thread) denies it here?

So, let me get this straight--David, you are contending that by demanding (I can just see the face of the drive-through kid at Burger King when confronted by your nonsensical demands regarding both payment and change!) "Lawful Money" or stamping your Magic Words on bills to deface them, you make them magically nontaxable.

Then Wserra says:

Actually, that is exactly what David claims.

Thank you for getting that cleared up.

You are saying that I said exactly the above when I said:

A banker in NYC was at a party when he overheard an IRS attorney say, There is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay Income Tax; they are doing it right. . . . He began redeeming lawful money in mid-2009 and got full refunds for federal and two states where he works

if you redeem lawful money you do not have a tax liability.

[David Merrill]

David, no IRS attorney at some party in New York City has ever said that there is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay Income Tax, or that such people are "doing it right". No IRS attorney at any party in New York City has ever said that anyone -- or someone -- began redeeming lawful money in mid-2009 and got full refunds for federal and two states.

And no banker at any party in New York City overheard any such IRS attorney say any such thing.

Now, I just made several negative statements that contradict what you apparently have written in other places on the internet about what some IRS attorney supposedly said, and what some banker overheard. I don't have to prove that my negative statements are correct. If you have evidence that my statements are wrong, if you have evidence of all this, you should be able to provide that evidence.

Let's see the evidence.

.....if you redeem lawful money you do not have a tax liability....

Baloney. That is blatant nonsense. Now, prove that it's not blatant nonsense, David.

To your credit, David, you have admitted that you know of no court cases where the courts have ruled that your nonsensical blather is correct. I credit you with being forthright on that point.

I do not have to prove it. People who understand it though are very happy with the results of that understanding. For example Wserra has linked you all to some convincing examples on SuiJurisClub. I suggest rather that you might redeem lawful money and then get a full refund of your withholdings. There are no cases where anybody gets penalized or in trouble for following the law as legislated by Congress.

We have been doing this for over six years now. The IRS has yet to complain about the refunds. Unlike with Pete. Actually many of Pete's victims are settling years of his zero income process; multiples of $5K frivolous filing penalties by redeeming lawful money. They are getting new bills for those tax years with the $5K penalties magically withdrawn anyway.

You might be right about the NY IRS attorney. My banker pal was very convincing when he described it over the phone. He did some legwork for me about my Patroon heritage too. He is a great guy to know.

I disagree with your negative averment process, even on the Internet. You just have the option of not believing me and jockeying your mouse elsewhere. Instead you get all upset because people are getting withholdings back and you are not.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Famspear]

David wrote:

I am a court of record.

No, David. You’re not a court of record. You’re not a court at all. You’re some guy in Colorado.

No need to apply for a refund because I have no Social Security Number anyway.

Yes, David, you almost certainly do have a Social Security Number. A social security number was almost certainly assigned to you many years ago. Whether you accept that number as being "yours" or whether you use that number or not does not change the fact that you have a number that has been assigned to you.

The IRS would not be able to identify me - kinda like Poppycock calling me Van Pelt.

No, David. When someone calls you “Van Pelt,” that someone is identifying you. And there is nothing to be afraid of when someone identifies you by calling you "Van Pelt" or "David Van Pelt" or "David Merrill Van Pelt" or "Mr. Van Pelt," etc., etc.

[Famspear]

I disagree with your negative averment process, even on the Internet. You just have the option of not believing me and jockeying your mouse elsewhere. Instead you get all upset because people are getting withholdings back and you are not.

Now you're being silly.

No, David. I don't get "all upset." I'm not concerned about people "getting withholdings back." Get real, David.

You, David, are now engaging in a process that psychologists called projection.

You "disagree" with my "averment process"? Too bad.

You have admitted that you know of no court cases where your theories about "lawful money" and taxes have been ruled to be valid. (And there are no such court cases.)

And you have failed to provide any evidence that your theories about "lawful money" and taxes are valid.

You "just have the option", David, of taking your toys and going home to play by yourself. Instead, you continue to engage with us here at Quatloos. And as long as you continue to spread your nonsensical falsehoods here in this forum about "lawful money" and the federal income tax, you are going to continue to have these feelings of discomfort.

[David Merrill]

I disagree with your negative averment process, even on the Internet. You just have the option of not believing me and jockeying your mouse elsewhere. Instead you get all upset because people are getting withholdings back and you are not.

Now you're being silly.

No, David. I don't get "all upset." I'm not concerned about people "getting withholdings back." Get real, David.

You, David, are now engaging in a process that psychologists called projection.

You "disagree" with my "averment process"? Too bad.

You have admitted that you know of no court cases where your theories about "lawful money" and taxes have been ruled to be valid. (And there are no such court cases.)

And you have failed to provide any evidence that your theories about "lawful money" and taxes are valid.

You "just have the option", David, of taking your toys and going home to play by yourself. Instead, you continue to engage with us here at Quatloos. And as long as you continue to spread your nonsensical falsehoods here in this forum about "lawful money" and the federal income tax, you are going to continue to have these feelings of discomfort.

Actually I am here for entertainment. You might not have noticed but Wserra started the thread. Not me.

I think his project has failed in its objective miserably as reflected in the anxiety level exhibited by his cronies. He has even resorted to linking readers here to the exhibits I post of people getting thousands of dollars back from the IRS! The same images he will not allow me to post here?

This is really quite entertaining indeed!

I am curious how long until he deletes the thread.

[jg]

In the Sui Juris thread at http://www.suijurisforum.com/redeeming- ... 98-20.html linked above:

If you like driving up the national debt and having a tax liability on your income Bean, go right ahead. You are the problem, not the solution. From the article in my first video:

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money...

In that thread "the article" was a link to http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

At that page:

In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459. Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation. The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59. The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself. Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment. However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title.

David you have not given any reason that making a demand changes the affirmative legal duty to file and pay income tax; but had linked to and quoted from the article above that claims: "Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit." and "It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income."

Apparently the article had enough merit to you, David, to link it to one of your videos.
Do you agree that this claim is how making a demand removes imposition of an income tax?

[Famspear]

Actually I am here for entertainment. You might not have noticed but Wserra started the thread. Not me.

The issue is not "who started the thread." And yes, you are here for entertainment (in part).

I think his project has failed in its objective miserably as reflected in the anxiety level exhibited by his cronies.

Anxiety level? Yes, a few regulars have gotten riled up, but you're also projecting a bit (again).

If the objective is to illustrate that you are unable to provide evidence that your scheme works, then the objective has been met. You've provided no evidence.

If the objective is to illustrate that you have found no legal authority for your scheme, then the objective has been met. You've provided nothing but your usual rhetoric.

If the objective is to pin you down, David, then the objective has been met. You've admitted that you can't find any court decisions that uphold your nonsense.

This is really quite entertaining indeed!

[Pottapaug1938]

I wrote: "You can't cite what doesn't exist."

Van Pelt wrote: "Exactly! Whenever the IRS refunds withholdings there is no complaint and no court case to cite."

Nice try, guy; but as usual you either missed or ignore my point. As has been mentioned in this and many other threads, the IRS has been known to refund withholdings, as you say; and of course the purveyors of whichever fantasy they used to justify the return of the withholdings are not going to complain about getting their refunds.

However, this situation is like the one I mentioned earlier, about a fictional dispute between us in court where you prevailed at trial. That would have been a victory, to be sure; but it was subject to being turned into a loss by an appellate court. It's like if the Rockies score six runs in the bottom of the fourth inning and lead the Marlins, 4-0 -- to be sure, the Rockies can claim to be winning as the top of the fifth begins; but if the Marlins then score eight runs in the top of the ninth and then retire the Rockies in order, the Marlins win the game.

In the same way, your pals who get refunds from the IRS have won an initial victory; but then the IRS eventually hauls them into court and demands the return of the refunded money, with interest and penalties. To my knowledge, the IRS has NEVER lost a case like this. My challenge, then, is for you to provide us with a citation of one case at the trial level which supports your fantasies, if such case was never appealed by the IRS, or at least one citation of an appellate court case where the holding in the case was that your legal fantasies are valid.

I don't expect you to ever do so, though, because again, you can't cite what doesn't exist.

And, by the way, you aren't very entertaining. In fact, your posts are depressing, because they signify that the author is either incapable of understanding what other people write or too narcissistic to value any opinion other than his own.

[David Merrill]

You believe in guilt and monetizing sin. You keep protecting a non-redemptive system of thought. Your endeavor to find a case opinion is Talmudic - Oral Tradition in writing.

Imagine the national debt like a huge pile of guilt. If you redeem lawful money instead of endorsing all that national debt then you climb out from under it. You are trapped in a system of thought where you cannot possibly think there is an alternative.


Regards,

David Merrill.