"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[Prof]

As Wes said, gibberish. Were I the Court, I would simply dismiss the entire matter. This sort of stuff does not even merit a hearing. And, if I made the rules, just one of these pleadings would be sufficient to bar filings in this or any subsequent case without the permission of the Court or an assigned US Magistrate Judge.

Pleadings like this illustrate the problem of allowing DVMP to post on this or any other forum, for that matter. It just invites others to move into Cloud Cukoo Land with DVMP.

In other words, and to quote the great Nero Wolfe, "Pfui."

[David Merrill]

As Wes said, gibberish. Were I the Court, I would simply dismiss the entire matter. This sort of stuff does not even merit a hearing. And, if I made the rules, just one of these pleadings would be sufficient to bar filings in this or any subsequent case without the permission of the Court or an assigned US Magistrate Judge.

Pleadings like this illustrate the problem of allowing DVMP to post on this or any other forum, for that matter. It just invites others to move into Cloud Cukoo Land with DVMP.

In other words, and to quote the great Nero Wolfe, "Pfui."

You sound like a terrible dictator JRB! If you had your rules your way then there would be no filing for remedy in America. That means rioting in the streets as a result of denying people access to the court system.

But I believe it is Wserra who is the more thoughtless and cruel here. Time will show us why.

[Judge Roy Bean]

As Wes said, gibberish. ... "Pfui."

How about yet another attempt by Van Pelt to lure the ignorant into their ultimate demise.

Perhaps it is time for the district rules to punish persons responsible for supplying idiocy to these kinds of defendants - the bozos cannot make this stuff up on their own, they have to have been given it by the Van Pelts of the world.

[wserra]

What really matters when the rubber hits the road is what the courts, IRS and Congress think of the law.

Absolutely right. And you can't come up with a single verifiable instance of your "redeeming lawful money" nonsense making any difference at all.

But you're about to see one dismissed.

[.]

So, on line 12 of her CA return, the pre-printed text is lined out and handwritten are the words "Demand for ?a?bul?nacy," the question marks representing letters that are unclear or illegible, although the 1st letter kind of looks like an "l," the 2nd an "r" and the 7th an "i."

The amount on line 12 appears to be (57,715) -- the right paren didn't make the copy -- which conveniently zeroes out her income.

"Demand for ?a?bul?nacy" seems to be at the heart of Van Pelt's nonsense relating to "redeeming lawful money," as apparently she didn't get her "?a?bul?nacy" and therefore magically had no taxable income.

Obviously this gibberish is going nowhere but what the heck word is "?a?bul?nacy"?

[ashlynne39]

A few observations on Van Pelt's first moron guinea pig.

1. Wes wanted a case where a claim of lawful money was made . . . well here it is and all there is to do is sit back with popcorn and watch the fall out

2. I could not make it through the entire gibberish pleading (I can only stomach so much in one sitting) but I enjoyed the citation to the Credit River decision and I also saw the hand of David in there with a cite to Rickman. Other than those two cases, what the heck was with all the other citations. If credit river and rickman aren't on point the others are in a completely other stratosphere of nonsense.

3. I am finally breaking down and asking: what is the purpose of refused for cause? What about an evidence repository? Somehow I missed both of those things in law school and I've never been able to figure out David's gibberish enough to make sense of these concepts.

All in all, David's first guinea pig will in my opinion prove to be an epic fail. Sure, David will blame it on her not using magic words. If I had my guess it will be because she confessed in her pleading that she hadn't been using lawful money since the beginning of time. I wonder how many "suitors" will turn on David. It will also be interesting to see how harvey reacts given that he's been touting David's lawful money tax avoidance scheme all over lost souls website.

[The Observer]

I think of more immediate interest is whether David will try to inject himself into the case by attempting to file an amicus curiae due to his expansive "knowledge" regarding the redemption of lawful money nonsense. I seemed to recall David either tried to do this in another case or at least wanted to do this but got shot down before ever getting out of the starting gate.

Will David's need to be in the center ring outweigh any careful consideration of distancing himself from this trainwreck so that he can try to claim that the arguments weren't properly put forth?

[webhick]

Obviously this gibberish is going nowhere but what the heck word is "?a?bul?nacy"?

Lawful money.

[Kestrel]

So, on line 12 of her CA return, the pre-printed text is lined out and handwritten are the words "Demand for ?a?bul?nacy," the question marks representing letters that are unclear or illegible, although the 1st letter kind of looks like an "l," the 2nd an "r" and the 7th an "i."

The amount on line 12 appears to be (57,715) -- the right paren didn't make the copy -- which conveniently zeroes out her income.

"Demand for ?a?bul?nacy" seems to be at the heart of Van Pelt's nonsense relating to "redeeming lawful money," as apparently she didn't get her "?a?bul?nacy" and therefore magically had no taxable income.

Obviously this gibberish is going nowhere but what the heck word is "?a?bul?nacy"?

I agree with Webhick. Again!

The handwriting on line #12 says "Demand for Lawful Money." Come on - you've been around David long enough and you didn't recognize this?

[Pottapaug1938]

A few observations on Van Pelt's first moron guinea pig.

3. I am finally breaking down and asking: what is the purpose of refused for cause? What about an evidence repository? Somehow I missed both of those things in law school and I've never been able to figure out David's gibberish enough to make sense of these concepts.

I missed both of those things in law school, as well; but as best as I can make out, an "evidence repository" is that you and I would call the record of a case (pleading, etc.). In this case, the best "repository" for this "evidence" is the well-known "circular file".

As for "refused for cause", this is authentic sovrun gibberish. They have taken the Uniform Commercial Code and, by deciding that any court proceeding is a commercial transaction (don't try to follow their reasoning -- it will drive you to drink), they invoke the provisions of the UCC to respond to court documents. These people view the UCC as if it had been graven on stone tablets and handed down from Heaven on Mt. Sinai.

[notorial dissent]

Merrill’s magical “evidence repository” is actually a Misc file, that he has conned some dim court clerk in to opening for him at the local USDC. Those files are only supposed to be opened if there is a case pending, or for certain other specific reasons, none of which applies to Merrill or any of his nonsense.

He thinks, that by having them in aforesaid magical file that they attain some significance that they heretofore had not, in this, as in all other things, he is wrong and confused. He has, however, managed to convince a few other people of this and they are imitating him in this waste of court time.

He had the same delusions about things he had filed for recording with his local recorder, but as I understand it, the new clerk put a stop to that and has been refusing his filings and defiled a bunch of his other nonsense for not meeting state requirements.

So if you see Merrill referring to “his clerk” in any of his maunderings, he is referring to whichever hapless newbie got stuck with dealing with him.

[notorial dissent]

Yeah, Webhick got it in one, it is lawful money, in really poor handwriting.

This thing has Merrill scrawled all over over it, in red crayon, particularly since a lot of it comes from his files in El Paso county, including the mis-statements of Rickman and Ware, and his ongoing attempts to make them say something they don't.

I really do feel sorry for the MJ who is going to have to slog through that mishmash, but maybe we'll get one that will toss it, or at least recommend it to the DJ, like it deserves and be done with it.

[David Merrill]

More than likely the Treasury will move to have it sealed because of you nutjobs. Forgiveness is execution of law, not how the IRS or judge feel about it. I hope she waits to serve the summons so that you get a good load of yourselves before that happens.

[grixit]

"refusal for cause" is another magic formula that's supposed to allow the adept to control reality. In this case it means that they are not subject to the bill for taxes owed because they refused it. It's kinda like hiding from the process server.

[The Observer]

More than likely the Treasury will move to have it sealed because of you nutjobs. Forgiveness is execution of law, not how the IRS or judge feel about it. I hope she waits to serve the summons so that you get a good load of yourselves before that happens.

Sealed? When was the last time the Department of Treasury filed a motion to have a tax case "sealed?" And on what basis? And can you explain why a judge would rule in favor of such a motion merely because people are expressing their opinion about the case?

It may just be me, David, but you sound a tad nervous. Could it be that you actually fear that your theory is going to get this case tossed because the judge will rule it lacks merit?

You hope? You aren't going to contact this suitor and assist her with the best possible advice? You are going to allow her to make mistakes? I really thought you believed in your redemption theory. Now you are treating it like some used car you tricked someone else into buying and wishing them good luck.

[David Merrill]

I am guessing the Treasury wants to seal the case before they forgive her because they don't want you all to see it. Let's get a closer look at Christina A. SNYDER. Here is her oath of office.


Oops! I betcha she is a taxpayer! Can you say, Conflict of Interest? Can you say auto-executing recusal?

She will probably dismiss the case just to avoid being audited by the IRS. I wonder if an IRS agent has called her yet.

[The Observer]

I am guessing the Treasury wants to seal the case before they forgive her because they don't want you all to see it.

I didn't ask you to guess, David. I asked you to give us a precedent for Treasury to file a motion in this public trial to have the results sealed. So now you are telling us that you are just pulling stuff out of your ass. Sounds to me like you are whistling past the graveyard. Admit it, David, you are not guessing, you are hoping because you never wanted your theory to appear in the light of day in an open courtroom.

What are you going to do when Treasury doesn't file the motion?

Oops! I betcha she is a taxpayer! Can you say, Conflict of Interest? Can you say auto-executing recusal?

Are you trying to tell us that judges, in order to be considered a neutral party, actually have to be lawbreakers? All judges who try murder cases should have murdered people as well in order to avoid conflict of interest charges? How does the the judge then avoid a conflict of interest charge from the prosecution? Please don't tell me, David, that you are going to stupidly make this argument.

She will probably dismiss the case just to avoid being audited by the IRS. I wonder if an IRS agent has called her yet.

Why would the IRS need to contact her if Treasury is going to get the case sealed? Or are you already giving up on that explanation?

And why are you not contacting the suitor and doing all you can to make sure that you win this case for her? You keep avoiding that question. Have you considered filing an amicus? It would make sense for the number one expert on redemption to be there to defend it. Or are you going to hide and hope no one notices what happens when the suitor goes down in flames?

So at this point, your defense of redemption is going to fall back on these three lame and baseless excuses:

(1) The judge was intimidated into ruling against or dismissing the suitor's case by the IRS/Treasury,

(2) The judge ruled against the suitor because she is biased towards the tax system.

(3) The government came back later and refunded the money secretly to the suitor so as not to publicly reveal that redemption really works.

I will not be surprised to see you later blame the suitor for losing the case and failing to follow your specific instructions.

[notorial dissent]

More than likely the Treasury will move to have it sealed because of you nutjobs.

In a pig's eye.

Why should the Treasury even consider such a thing when it will be ever so much more satisfying, not to mention entertaining, to watch the court shred that silly filing and send it on down the disposal chute where it belongs?

There is nothing in that rendering of tripe that will pass even cursory scrutiny, even for a "not pro se" filing. The fact that you continue to misquote and misconstrue Rickman and Ware will just add to the entertainment value.

What is going to happen is the same thing that has happened every time you have darkened a court clerk's office, the DJ, or more likely the MJ, will wade through your offering of tripe, gag at the smell emanating from it, and consign it to the juristic round file it so richly deserves, once again laughing at you delusions and sending them on down the road to well deserved oblivion, for the simple fact that there is not one valid point of law or fact contained therein.

[.]

Obviously this gibberish is going nowhere but what the heck word is "?a?bul?nacy"?

Lawful money.

I ignored the obvious, assuming that there was some magic esoteric term in admiralty law that Van Pelt had stumbled upon. Silly me.

So, Van Pelt's theory, for those who have never "redeemed lawful money" is that you can 1) strike a random line on a tax form, and 2) make up your own deduction for "demanding lawful money" in the amount of your gross income, insert that on the struck line and everything will be fine.

Yeah, that'll work.

Ever since he started flogging his nonsense, I've wondered just exactly how "redeeming lawful money" would have any effect on any line on any tax return. Now it is known -- you just make it up.

I'll guess that in the case of someone who has "redeemed lawful money" such as he claims to have done himself, you just make up your own deduction, say, for "lawful money redeemed," insert it somewhere on the return and then watch your return go straight to Ogden.

So simple. So stupid. But a great way to pick up your very own $5K frivpen.

[David Merrill]

I am just stating the obvious.

The counterclaimant must have figured this out already from the template.

"...saving to suitors in all cases, the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it,"

If all the "judges" are taxpayers, then they cannot be competent to rule in tax matters! If they rule against the IRS then they can expect to be audited or worse.

Everybody expects that "They" in the Fed Act means "Federal Reserve notes" like found two sentences earlier:



"They" are people like this counterclaimant. She has made her demand and Congress has redeemed her by law from her obligation to perform for the Fed. She never made the endorsements of her substance. The judge, being a taxpayer, will jump on the earliest opportunity to dismiss the case. I think it was Prof who said Rules dictate that Judge Christina cannot just dismiss the case without giving a counterclaimant a chance to amend the countercomplaint. So there you have it.

Notice the clerk is either admitting that the "Secretary" is a UN employee - US Governor for the International Monetary Fund or maybe the clerk is incompetent?



Interestingly this shows contemplation - the way the clerk first wrote 20 days, and then changed it to 21 days. [See the clerk instruction right there by the signature and seal?] Government employees get 60 days according to the rules. I presume that the co-defendant is an agent of GEITHNER's, or the clerk would have posted 60 days on there. But there you have it - diversity of citizenship.



So the "judge" has every right to be a taxpayer without being a lawbreaker. It is just a blatant conflict of interest and it recuses the judge from being on the case. The clerk has already recused the judge and admits that this is a diversity issue. Remember like Wserra points out in the opening post that this filing took three hours (at least that is how I heard it) and three days to post on PACER. So let's not presume that the clerk did a sloppy job. I think it safer to presume that the "judge" has been mulling over the details and has determined the Rules say, this is how it has to be.

Service to the agent is service to the principal. So it is a mystery why this woman adopted the Libel of Review naming two co-defendants rather than the principal GEITHNER alone.


Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. Somebody suggested it absurd that the judge would seal a case because people are discussing it? That is not what I said. The judge, being a taxpayer might seal it because there are nutjobs being incited by tyrants like Prof who will be outraged when the IRS is compelled to forgive all the alleged debts and even refund withholdings. Wserra is a thoughtless flamer on a warpath against American remedy. It will be sad if it gets sealed because you dopes wont get to see a genuine success story. It is likely the parties do not surf Quatloos though, so you likely will see no motions to seal.