"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[wserra]

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

No, David, that won't happen. There is no provision of law for "sealing" an entire ordinary docket.

I hope she waits to serve the summons so that you get a good load of yourselves before that happens.

Per FRCvP 4(m), she has 120 days. Following that, the action is subject to summary dismissal. 'Course, if it's an action at all, it's already subject to dismissal on multiple grounds. What's one more?

If all the "judges" are taxpayers, then they cannot be competent to rule in tax matters!

And, since every judge in the country is a taxpayer, no judge anywhere is competent to rule on tax matters. Brilliant.

[LPC]

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.

I was talking yesterday with a lawyer who is the court-appointed guardian for an elderly and incapacitated woman, and the lawyer was trying to describe the insanity she was going through trying to recover money that relatives had stolen from her ward. The lawyer said that the relatives had filed several actions to try to get her removed as guardian, and that they seemed to be relying on the UCC, which didn't make any sense to her and which she didn't even bother to look up to try to figure out.

She also said that in one of their pleadings they identified the four sources of law as common law, equity, maritime, and admiralty. She was pretty sure that "statutes" should also be in there. (Notice also that relying on the UCC while refusing to recognize statutory law doesn't make a lot of sense.) I told her that she was dealing with "sovereign citizen" gibberish.

[LPC]

If all the "judges" are taxpayers, then they cannot be competent to rule in tax matters!

And, since every judge in the country is a taxpayer, no judge anywhere is competent to rule on tax matters. Brilliant.

I read once that there is a recognized legal principle that, if *all* judges have conflicts of interest, then *any* judge can hear the case. (The issue comes up from time to time in cases involving the compensation of judges or other matters affecting all judges.)

[wserra]

I read once that there is a recognized legal principle that, if *all* judges have conflicts of interest, then *any* judge can hear the case.

United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).

[David Merrill]

If all the "judges" are taxpayers, then they cannot be competent to rule in tax matters!

And, since every judge in the country is a taxpayer, no judge anywhere is competent to rule on tax matters. Brilliant.

I read once that there is a recognized legal principle that, if *all* judges have conflicts of interest, then *any* judge can hear the case. (The issue comes up from time to time in cases involving the compensation of judges or other matters affecting all judges.)

Remember that you admitted to that here.

[The Observer]

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

...so you likely will see no motions to seal.

And you have managed to contradict yourself within three posts. Have you decided which event is more likely?

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

Looks like David is planning to blame the suitor for the loss in this case.

[The Observer]

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.

I don't know that David has ever specified that this is the way to use "redemption" to avoid taxes. But then again, David and specifics are typically strangers to each other. I always surmised, based on David's admonition to not appearing before the "lawyer in black robes" that his "remedy" relied on filing the useless gibberish which would somehow the IRS would take note of and not purse the "suitor" for taxes. That seems to be the way that David claims his method is "successful". I hounded him for several days on a thread about what suitors needed to do if the IRS ignored the filed garbage, and finally David blurted out that the suitors would have to appear before the "lawyer in black robes" to get relief. I doubt that David ever advises his marks about that particular step in "remedy" since, like a vampire, his methods cannot stand the light of day.

Which is why I think David is really rattled now by this suitor doing what David has never done in the first place - file a suit in court based on his garbage. He knows that it can't win because it is absolutely devoid of merit and will be tossed out. Hence his frantic attempt at tapdancing his way through this mess.

[Prof]

Regarding DVMP's comments about me, Wes, his "process," judges, etc: "Pfui!" I would also add, for clarity, "gibberish."

First, federal judges are not intimidated by the IRS. Note the number of times the IRS has lost cases and the number of times it has been sanctioned even by lowly bankruptcy judges.

While evidence in civil cases is sometimes sealed in federal courts, the cases are never sealed and, except on rare occaisons, the courtroom itself is open to spectators (sometimes sensitive testimony is taken and sealed; the newspapers generally go nuts and the issue is splashed all over the news and editorial pages-- been there, done that).

Publishing pleadings in a federal case on this site or in a newspaper is perfectly proper; those are public documents.

The "saving to suitors" clause should not save this suitor from summary dismissal of gibberish. Judicial resources are thin and strained; cases like this should be dismissed out of hand. Again, been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

[Pottapaug1938]

The "saving to suitors" clause applies only to admiralty or maritime (note for those who don't understand big words: that means on the oceans or on rivers where big ships can sail) matters; so only by using legal contortions beyond any realm of sanity or reality can anyone make an income tax case, or a case involving redemption privileges concerning FRNs, into a case in which this clause applies.

[ashlynne39]

David, I've given your situation here some thought and really the only way for you to prove that your redeeming lawful money method is right is if you do file an amicus curae brief. Clearly you feel this woman hasn't done things 100 percent the way you would so you simply must step in and inform the judge of the correct way to see this. You should be sure to include exhibits such as pictures, dictionary definitions and other vital documents such as what you have posted online. Be sure to also inform the judge of his/her conflict of interest. Surely this woman using your method should be able to stand on her own, but your intercession as the foremost expert on redeeming lawful money can only demonstrate the credibility of your argument.

[David Merrill]

David, I've given your situation here some thought and really the only way for you to prove that your redeeming lawful money method is right is if you do file an amicus curae brief. Clearly you feel this woman hasn't done things 100 percent the way you would so you simply must step in and inform the judge of the correct way to see this. You should be sure to include exhibits such as pictures, dictionary definitions and other vital documents such as what you have posted online. Be sure to also inform the judge of his/her conflict of interest. Surely this woman using your method should be able to stand on her own, but your intercession as the foremost expert on redeeming lawful money can only demonstrate the credibility of your argument.

You assume my objective is to prove that redeeming lawful money is right. I think more correctly my objective is to figure out what motivates you to insist that it is wrong.

I doubt that she would have signed such a paper and spent the $350 redeemed lawful money to file if she had no clue what the real objective is.

[notorial dissent]

Actually, with regard to why Merrill's protege filed that pile of steaming gibberish, I think pure stupidity and utter gullibility are probably the closest and best answers.

[Pottapaug1938]

Actually, with regard to why Merrill's protege filed that pile of steaming gibberish, I think pure stupidity and utter gullibility are probably the closest and best answers.

Couple that with an intense, passionate need to believe in whatever theory will get her out of the mess she's in, and you've got it. To reiterate Charlie Pierce's Third Great Premise of Idiot America: "(f)act is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it." This woman's fervor is second to none; therefore, the premises underlying her "pleadings" (if they can be dignified as such) MUST be true.

[Pottapaug1938]

Just now, I was looking at the "Libel of Review" when I noticed the words "Filed On Demand" at the top, evidently written by the court clerk. This reminds me of the bills which are filed, by members of the legislature in Massachusetts, on behalf of their constituents. If the Senator or Representative likes the bill him/herself, it will say something like "filed by Harold Hawkins
(D-Dana). However, if the bill is filed only because of the right of free petition here in[color= Massachusetts, and the legislator wishes to make that clear, it will say "Filed by Harold Hawkins (D-Dana), by request."

Those words "by request" is almost always the kiss of death for the bill. I wonder if "Filed On Demand" works the same way with "pleadings" such as this.

[wserra]

I noticed the "Filed on demand" also. Almost certainly, this means that the filing clerk told Lam that her papers contained facial defects that should be corrected before filing, and she refused to do so. For example, she apparently refused to sign her name to the civil cover sheet, signing instead "lawful money" and insisting in writing that she was not "pro se" (which, of course, she is by definition). She also claimed to be filing a class action (with a "class" of one). I'm not sure (and it may depend on local practice) whether a clerk would also look at the papers as a whole, and tell someone like Lam that she was about to piss away $350 on the merits.

In any event, the notation means that the filer insisted on filing something that the clerk suggested she not file (at least not as is).

[notorial dissent]

That, along with the number of really fatal errors within the filing itself, is a pretty sure guarantee that she has indeed, "piss(ed) away $350", all thanks, to all appearances, to the legal genius from Colorado Springs.

Aside from the painfully obvious fact that the filing is basically a steaming pile of caca, and makes next to no, if any, sense, isn't it going to get smacked with the anti-injunction act and that it should be heard in tax court since it is basically a tax issue, despite our resident genius's blatherings about lawful money, which really have no basis in reality to begin with? Since the main statement of the filing is that she is looking for injunctive relief, and the only coherent thing she is asking that can be isolated out of the mess is an injunction against Tim Geithner, i.e. the IRS, I would say that is where it is going to die big time, unless I have totally misread it.

[.]

Since when has relying on gibberish, nonsense and legal garbage prevented true believers from throwing away much more than $350?

More than one CrackHead has run up frivpens that total over $100K.

This idiot, between the waste of $350 in filing fees and one $5K frivpen and many thousands more in penalties from CA and probably thousands more from the feds has only just begun. She might even be so lucky as to garner herself a penalty or two from various courts if she persists.

Bankrupting yourself on a tax and/or "lawful money" cross ain't easy, but, by golly, it can be done.

[notorial dissent]

No one, and certainly not me, ever said they couldn't / wouldn't, just commenting on the fact that she had with a dead bang certainty.

Never underestimate the power of fools to find even more new and entertaining ways to part themselves from their money, hard earned, lawful, or otherwise.

Why, I will bet that if she tries real hard, she can get herself another two or three friv pens to go with the one she already has, and maybe even go for the big one to have a matching set.

[LPC]

Denise Elizabeth v. Timothy Geithner, 12-cv-7719, CACD. The complaint is exactly what you would expect from a "suitor" of David's. It varies between laughable and incomprehensible.

If you strip away the foreign agent, admiralty, and other jurisdictional and procedural nonsense (although I have to say that, if it takes almost two pages to explain why a federal district court has jurisdiction, you're in trouble), the essence of the complaint seems to be this, extracted from "cause of action" on page 3:

Denise is owed a full refund of withholdings because she was demanding lawful money for the entire tax year.

That's it. Never mind what the tax laws say, if you demand a refund in "lawful money," then they have to give it to you. End of story.

Hey, at least it's simple.

Procedurally, if I were the judge I would treat the action against Geithner as an action for a refund, and would dismiss it without prejudice for failing to pay the full amount of tax owed (and, to the extent it seeks declaratory or injunctive relief, for lack of jurisdiction because of the anti-injunction act). The action against Selvi Stanislaus (who is the executive officer of the California Franchise Tax Board) should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, being a suit against a state and barred 28 USC § 1341 ("The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.") and the pesky 11th Amendment.

[.]

If you strip away the [miscellaneous crap] the essence of the complaint seems to be this, extracted from "cause of action" on page 3:

Denise is owed a full refund of withholdings because she was demanding lawful money for the entire tax year.

That's it. Never mind what the tax laws say, if you demand a refund in "lawful money," then they have to give it to you. End of story.

Something approximating what I wrote about 20-25 posts ago:

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.

Hey, at least it's simple.

We again agree.

So simple. So stupid.

You, as a talented lawyer dug down deeply into Van Pelt's gibberish to get to the nub of his idiocy (you have my sympathy,) and I as a layman found the same truth simply by looking at line 12 of her CA return.

I guess that proves that TP BS is astonishingly easy to demolish. Nonetheless, I salute you for your doggedness in the interest of totally obliterating, in a legal sense, anything that Van Pelt claims with regard to "redeeming lawful money."