"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[David Merrill]

No matter how long you stretch out the "carefully regulated release" you still don't have enough "Lawful Money" to redeem all the FRNs. You never will...


If I did my math right, that means there are currently $24 in FRNs for every available $1 of Lawful Money. That's not going to change.

They are redeemed by making the demand.

It is already set what the value of the gold will be when introduced back into the system. Look at the footnotes - $42.22/troy ounce and read on about Special Drawing Rights. I was telling you about SDR's already!




Here is the full bulletin. This is the "secret" Jamaica Rambouillet Accord.

[David Merrill]

As you have done before, David, you leave out the rest of the case:

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender."

Emphasis supplied. You claim that a court says that FRNs are not lawful money when the court actually says, quite clearly and explicitly, that they are. And you omit the part of the decision that says so. That's dishonesty.

You deserve to have your say. You even deserve the opportunity to misrepresent the law, if only so that readers can see you do so. You don't deserve the opportunity to repeat the same bullshit over and over.

No. It is you who repeat the same bullshit over and over Wserra.

Gary RICKMAN made no demand for lawful money with his paychecks. Show us where he made a demand for lawful money Wserra!

He did not demand lawful money.

[morrand]

I think that is the most cogent explanation of David's theory ever attempted by someone not from Planet Merrill. Not that it means that David's theory actually makes sense now, since it never has and never will, but you seemed to be able to express what David was never able to up to now.

Thanks. If I could only get confirmation or correction from him, my night would be complete, but that does not seem to be forthcoming. Oh well.

[ashlynne39]

On the way home from work today I passed a bank called "Sovereign Bank." I've never heard of them before but the first thing that popped into my mind was whether that was where all the sovereign citizens bank and whether they allow you to redeem lawful money.

On another note, allow me to say that of all the bogus nonsense that gets posted by these folks, this redeeming lawful money business is some of the bogustest nonsense I've ever seen. I appreciate the attempts to make sense of David's theories but even the step by step explanation just makes my eyes glaze over. As I read at David's board and Lost Horizons, it becomes clear that there is some deficiency in these people to believe this sort of nonsense. It's not just that it is wrong but it is that they go through such machinations and look to such archaic and irrelevant information to make their belief system work and even when they by chance hit on some applicable law or case, they still manage to so twist the meaning that they still get it wrong. I find it exhausting the lengths these people will go through to make the unworkable work in their small minds.

[wserra]

As you have done before, David, you leave out the rest of the case:

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender."

Emphasis supplied. You claim that a court says that FRNs are not lawful money when the court actually says, quite clearly and explicitly, that they are. And you omit the part of the decision that says so. That's dishonesty.

You deserve to have your say. You even deserve the opportunity to misrepresent the law, if only so that readers can see you do so. You don't deserve the opportunity to repeat the same bullshit over and over.

No. It is you who repeat the same bullshit over and over Wserra.

Gary RICKMAN made no demand for lawful money with his paychecks. Show us where he made a demand for lawful money Wserra!

He did not demand lawful money.

Ah. So if he had just intoned the magic words, all would have been different. Had he just said, "I demand lawful money!", then the Court of Appeals would have written, "The Court notes that Rickman demanded lawful money. Well, that makes all the difference. Y'know how we just wrote that FRNs are lawful money? Never mind." Anyone who believes that is beyond reasoning. Pottapaug challenged you to cite any appellate opinion that says that "redeeming lawful money" makes any difference. I'll broaden that, to include trial courts, even though such decisions lack substantial precedential authority. That gives you literally tens of thousands of cases to choose from, David. Find one.

And none of this changes the fact that you cited RIckman for the proposition that "the courts agree with me that Federal Reserve notes are not lawful money". You pulled a sentence from the context that makes it clear the case actually holds the opposite. That's dishonesty, David.

[Pottapaug1938]

It is already set what the value of the gold will be when introduced back into the system. Look at the footnotes - $42.22/troy ounce and read on about Special Drawing Rights. I was telling you about SDR's already!

So dollars backed by $42.22 per ounce gold will be introduced into a world in which the spot price of gold is north of $1500? We don't need Gregg's background in economics to envision the resulting worldwide fustercluck....

By the way, I remember reading about SDRs, Rambouillet and the rest, all when they were first mentioned in the 60s and 70s. Some secret!

[Kestrel]

So dollars backed by $42.22 per ounce gold will be introduced into a world in which the spot price of gold is north of $1500? We don't need Gregg's background in economics to envision the resulting worldwide fustercluck....

Exactly right!

Gold at $1567.90 per ounce means there are $24 in FRNs for every $1 of "Lawful Money," which locks out more than 95% of FRN holders. Gold at $42.22 per ounce means there would be $891.50 of FRNs for every $1 in "Lawful Money," which would prevent 99.9% of FRN holders from converting their FRNs to "Lawful Money."

By the way... Special Drawing Rights are not what David thinks they are. Special Drawing Rights are IMF-allocated claims on other countries' money, they are NOT available for cash-out to private individuals, and they wouldn't even come close to making up the difference. And suggesting those be distributed to FRN converters also assumes that a run on US banks WON'T perpetrate a run on other countries' banks.

Even at floating market rates, US-allocated SDRs are worth far less than the US Gold Reserve valued at $42.22 per ounce. Twice nothing is still nothing.

But thanks, David, for the links which prove you wrong.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...You pulled a sentence from the context that makes it clear the case actually holds the opposite. That's dishonesty, David.

And we're all surprised?

The troubling thing about people like Van Pelt is they not only know they're being dishonest, they're also delusional enough not to understand the consequences of being proven to be untrustworthy.

Trapped in lies, they retreat into their delusions as if the world is supposed to be coming around to their way of thinking.

Without dedicated professional help and treatment, they cannot find their own way out of the construct on their own.

In Van Pelt's case, lacking a penchant for physical acting-out or grotesque violence that would have him behind bars, it has become a weird kind of entertainment for rational people as he endears himself to the gullible who enable him.

After all these years, even with the ignore function, the whole Van Pelt saga has become kind of sad.

[David Merrill]

Wserra says;

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender."

Emphasis supplied. You claim that a court says that FRNs are not lawful money when the court actually says, quite clearly and explicitly, that they are. And you omit the part of the decision that says so. That's dishonesty.

The court is not saying that there is no distinction between Federal Reserve notes and lawful money. The court is saying that it finds no validity in the distinction that RICKMAN draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender". The court actually claims, like I have shown you and in agreement with Congress that Federal Reserve notes are redeemable in lawful money. The RICKMAN court says:

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

If something is redeemable in lawful money then it is not itself lawful money. That is simple English. The court would have said "Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money." If that were true. That is why I was the first one here to link you to the opinion. If you understand my Signature below my posts then you can read the opinion with the correct interpretation.

That is also why I showed you the comment from the Treasury above. You might be able to discern that I am the honest one in this debate if you study it closely. FRNs in your hand cash are lawful money for all intents and purposes. What remains is the bonding behind the increase in currency caused by fractional lending. If you non-endorse (restricted endorsement is what the banks call it) you have withdrawn your consent and therefore your substance you increase with your pay does not contribute to the national debt nor does it hold a first lien from the Treasury.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that it's been said before that we challenge David's delusions not because we have any realistic hope of getting to see the error of his ways, but because we do not want them to go unchallenged when other people see his writings, or to allow him to feel comfortable that he can offer his delusions with impunity.

[David Merrill]

...You pulled a sentence from the context that makes it clear the case actually holds the opposite. That's dishonesty, David.

And we're all surprised?

The troubling thing about people like Van Pelt is they not only know they're being dishonest, they're also delusional enough not to understand the consequences of being proven to be untrustworthy.

Trapped in lies, they retreat into their delusions as if the world is supposed to be coming around to their way of thinking.

Without dedicated professional help and treatment, they cannot find their own way out of the construct on their own.

In Van Pelt's case, lacking a penchant for physical acting-out or grotesque violence that would have him behind bars, it has become a weird kind of entertainment for rational people as he endears himself to the gullible who enable him.

After all these years, even with the ignore function, the whole Van Pelt saga has become kind of sad.

Thank you Wserra for the thoughtful thread. I doubt you and I will be agreeing about Rickman anytime soon. Especially with you ignoring my various renditions of explaining and interpreting as "repetitive".

And thank you Judge Roy Bean. That kind of comment gets people curious and all the other hits in favor of redeeming lawful money and getting full wittholdings refunded are picking up quite nicely, thank you! So I will help the people you are sending out now, to understand how to go about it correctly. It is a little frustrating to get so many of my posts deleted.

Great thread Wserra!!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender."

Emphasis supplied. You claim that a court says that FRNs are not lawful money when the court actually says, quite clearly and explicitly, that they are. And you omit the part of the decision that says so. That's dishonesty.

The court is not saying that there is no distinction between Federal Reserve notes and lawful money. The court is saying that it finds no validity in the distinction that RICKMAN draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender".

Therefore if Joe says something, it's true; if Harry says exactly the same thing, it's not true. If Mary says something, it's true; if Cathy says exactly the same thing, it's not true. You're right, David, that's not dishonesty. It's insanity.

Having reached this stage, I really don't see the point in continuing the thread.

[LPC]

The court is not saying that there is no distinction between Federal Reserve notes and lawful money.

Actually, it is what the court said.

Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

(Emphasis added.)

[David Merrill]

The court is not saying that there is no distinction between Federal Reserve notes and lawful money.

Actually, it is what the court said.

Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

(Emphasis added.)

But he acquired the lawful money through endorsement. He endorsed private credit from the Fed and therefore had to file a return on his income - a Tax Return. If he had demanded lawful money at the cash transactions then he would have gotten his withholdings refunded.

[Pottapaug1938]

If FRNs are legal tender, as the Rickman case acknowledges that they are, and if there is no distinction in the law between lawful money and legal tender, the third side of that logical triangle is clear: there is no distinction between FRNs and lawful money.

"Redeeming lawful money", then, in today's world, means that you can take your FRNs to the bank and get other legal tender in return. You may get FRNs, you may get coins, or you may get a combination of the two; but the exercise hardly seems worth the effort, especially given the fact that you will identify yourself to your local bank as a screwball who merits being closely watched. Even 50 years ago, when silver coins and silver certificates were still a part of our coinage, the exercise was pointless because the silver coins which you could get in return for your FRNs had a bullion value which was less than their face value.

To put it more simply, "redeeming lawful money", like the Third Amendment, is essentially a legal dead letter -- despite fantasies to the contrary. It has no more legal significance than the laws we periodically read about which were enacted but have never been formally repealed (like the one which says that anyone operating an automobile must have someone precede the auto on foot with a red flag, to warn riders or drivers of horses so that the horse wouldn't be spooked ).

[David Merrill]

David Merrill Van Pelt wrote:
"...your endeavor to find a case opinion is Talmudic - Oral Tradition in writing."

No, my endeavor to have YOU find a case opinion which supports your fantasies is my foolish attempt to encourage and enable YOU to shut US all up for good, by citing a case opinion which fully supports your fantasies as valid law. You never will find such an opinion, because there aren't any; and thus you subject us all to the meaningless word and picture salad which constitute your posts. And, without a valid appellate court opinion supporting your fantasies, you cannot show that those fantasies have any legal validity, because that's the way that things work in the world of legal jurisprudence.

If you could produce such an opinion, I would become your strongest supporter; but I'm not worried about that ever happening.

You keep making a fool of yourself instead.

There are no case opinions because when people get their refunds they are happy, not mad. The IRS, giving these refunds is not going to take people to court for accepting what they deserve.

No, David, it is YOU who repeatedly makes a fool of himself.

Of course, no one who wrongfully received a refund from the IRS will bring a court case over the issue of their tax liability; but once the IRS auditors catch on to the fact that a refund was wrongfull requested, they most certainly will bring an action against the person(s) who requested the refund, and will demand interest and penalties as well as a clawback of the refund. Past threads of Quatloos list many such cases; and the currently practicing lawyers and accountants on Quatloos, as well as Dan's tax Protestor FAQ and the IRS web site itself, will provide more case citations on top of those.

In every single case where the IRS has sought to claw back erroneous refunds, they have WON. If the defendants are lucky, they may escape frivpens; but they lose their refunds, and have to pay additional money besides.

Certainly, if the IRS tried to claw back a refund from someone who had received one, and the defendant had prevailed in court by offering one of your legal fantasies to support their position, there would be at least one un-overturned appellate court opinion setting forth the facts of the case, and the court's holding. You can't cite one, david, because they don't exist. All you ever offer us is an increasingly boring word and picture salad, liberally seasones with excuses and evasions.

This is why when a suitor files he will include copies of paychecks to validate his demand. The objective is to get the IRS agent to bump the Return up to an IRS attorney in Legal.

You should try finding anything in the Memorandum/Notices that the IRS agent studies.

Notice February 12, 2012 for example.

[Pottapaug1938]

You should try finding anything in the Memorandum/Notices that the IRS agent studies.

No, I'll try finding "anything" once you supply a trial or appellate court decision supporting your fantasies. NOTHING ELSE IS AUTHORITATIVE.

[wserra]

David, in over fifty posts you have yet to produce any evidence at all that "redeeming lawful money" is anything more than the delusion of someone starved for attention. If your next post doesn't contain either legal or factual proof, it will be your last to this thread. Legal proof is a court decision that "redeeming lawful money" does anything to relieve one's tax burden. Factual proof is verifiable evidence that someone, when contested by the IRS, has succeeded with your theory. No more hundred year old documents, no more redacted documents, no more pictures of old statutes, no more spirals on maps.

Proof or silence.

[Cathulhu]

The Delusional One said

This is why when a suitor files he will include copies of paychecks to validate his demand. The objective is to get the IRS agent to bump the Return up to an IRS attorney in Legal.

Where there are indeed District Counsel IRS attorneys, there is no "IRS attorney in Legal" in the processing of tax returns. The return filed in such a illegal fashion gets bumped over to Questionable Returns, and the people processing it aren't attorneys. They're IRS personnel who get briefings on the scam of the day.

Just as accurate as all your other ravings, David.

[David Merrill]

David, in over fifty posts you have yet to produce any evidence at all that "redeeming lawful money" is anything more than the delusion of someone starved for attention. If your next post doesn't contain either legal or factual proof, it will be your last to this thread. Legal proof is a court decision that "redeeming lawful money" does anything to relieve one's tax burden. Factual proof is verifiable evidence that someone, when contested by the IRS, has succeeded with your theory. No more hundred year old documents, no more redacted documents, no more pictures of old statutes, no more spirals on maps.

Proof or silence.

But... but...

None of the people who get refunds of all their withholdings are complaining and taking the IRS to court. And nobody who has received a refund has had the IRS come after them to return the funds.