"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[Quixote]

The currency that is not taxable is equivalently US notes and coins. I have been showing you more examples but am equivalently banished around here. Wserra is performing like a litigating attorney with opening and closing statements and he is a judge pre-approving any objections too. I suggest that you Google "redeemed lawful money" and surf around to see the many great examples

He didn't ask for examples, David. He asked for an explanation. Gross income is all income from whatever source derived, unless specifically excluded under Subtitle A. Where in Subtitle A is income received in the form of lawful money excluded from gross income?

[The Observer]

I have been showing you more examples but am equivalently banished around here. Wserra is performing like a litigating attorney with opening and closing statements and he is a judge pre-approving any objections too.

To paint a more accurate picture than David's statement above, David's posts are being moderated because of the following reasons:

(1) His continuing to post images of buildings, rooms, maps, books, portraits and anything else that he hopes will pass off as evidence that supports his theory. The result is you get a bunch of snapshots of objects but no logical presentation that shows why these images are "evidence" or "proof."

(2) His continuing to post links to texts and/or files of old texts, old legislation, old legislative reports, old Gnostic gospels, old court citations and anything else that is old. Not only are they old, but they are outdated, repealed, overturned, voted down, or just plain irrelevant to proving David's theory. Needless to say, these documents are also subject to distortions and twisting of the actual intent or point of the original author.

(3) His continuing to keep claiming success without any proof or chain of evidence to point to success. He will cite unconnected events or facts and claim that these are conclusive if accepted as one being consequences of the other - even though logic demands further evidence to show definite linkage. f you have been following this thread, you already know that David is trying to claim that the "suitor" under discussion has "won" her case by virtue of the government "sealing" her case and "awarding" her a secret refund so that it doesn't have to admit that "redemption" works. Of course, this means that David has to ignore the more obvious and logical conclusion of what is actually happening with the plaintiff's garbage filings in order to claim success.

(4) His continuing to try to get the last word in the discussion regardless of how many times he has to post and waste bandwidth. He also just keeps repeating the above 3 items in conjunction with his stubbornness. This is his way of pretending that he has won.

Despite David receiving warnings before about his perpetual intellectual dishonesty, he has failed to control himself in his posting here and thus the management of Quatloos has imposed moderation on David.

David chafes under the moderation rules, since he cannot get a post through without providing proof or omitting his "repository of evidence". It will also mean that David will not provide an explanation of his theories here, simply because he will not do so in terms of complying with the moderation rules (of course, it also means he can't provide proof simply because it does not exist - a fact that has not stopped David before in claiming the impossible). Proof of this is that despite several pages devoted to this thread, David has failed to prove in any reasonable and acceptable manner that "redemption" works.

[Pottapaug1938]

(5) David will also avoid answering a direct question, concerning his hypothesis, with a direct, on-point answer. All we ever get from him are evasions, excuses, and more of Observer's #1-#4.

[NYGman]

The currency that is not taxable is equivalently US notes and coins. I have been showing you more examples but am equivalently banished around here. Wserra is performing like a litigating attorney with opening and closing statements and he is a judge pre-approving any objections too. I suggest that you Google "redeemed lawful money" and surf around to see the many great examples

He didn't ask for examples, David. He asked for an explanation. Gross income is all income from whatever source derived, unless specifically excluded under Subtitle A. Where in Subtitle A is income received in the form of lawful money excluded from gross income?

Very good reply, Quixote, Couldn't have put it better. David, I don't want' examples, unless they are current code sections, or legally binding case law, however, as your attempts as posting this have, by your words, been banished, I just want a plain English answer to a question I put to you in simple terms, summarized well by Quixote above.

You keep stating that the currency that is not taxable is equivalently US notes and coins, and I am guessing this is the heart of your argument, but what I am trying to understand then is that if Lawful Money is not taxable because it is equivalently US notes and coins, and these equivalent US notes and coins do not really exist anymore, then how can I exchange my FRN’s for something that no longer exists. Further, when my employee pays me, isn’t the payment in FRN’s which you later convert to Lawful Money? Otherwise how are you getting paid? If you take your endorsed check to a bank, you are cashing it with a demand for legal money, however, you have already constructively received FRN’s already by accepting the check. The fact that you accepted the check in lieu of cash means you accepted the FRN’s and you are now taxable. I suppose you could receive something from another follower of this train of thought, that represents a transfer of legal money, but I believe all US checks specify dollars as currency, and all banks fulfill these with FRNs, regardless of how you endorse them. Is your bank account somehow noted in equivalently US notes and coins or USD? Every statement you get specifies US Dollars, unless you have GBP, EUR, CAD accounts.

Back to my main point, the check represents receipt of the value of those FRN’s, which is taxable, regardless of form. If I pay you one South African Krugerrand, One Pirate Doubloon, heck even a Quatloos, the fact that I got something of value, which I can exchange for something else of value, makes what I received intrinsically valuable, and therefore valid consideration, pay, income, etc. This is, unless you can explain to me better, Taxable, to the extent of its value. As I stated before, the equivalently US notes and coins seem to be freely convertible to and from FRN’s and clearly have value, so why is it not taxable?

You seem to be the acknowledged expert here on this topic, and I just want to understand how your legal argument works with respect to the taxability of Gross Income no matter its form (Unless specifically exempted ). If it is indeed supported with law, I would love to take advantage of this, as lord knows between the IRS, NYS. NYC, property tax, sales tax, I am taxed to the hilt. I am sure everyone here would love a valid way of paying less tax. I do this now in the confines of the law, and many other tax experts like me work on minimizing tax impact, but we have yet to find a simple way to just eliminate the requirement in total.

[David Merrill]

My examples from NY on Page 1 have been removed.

[The Observer]

My examples from NY on Page 1 have been removed.

Another perfect example of David ignoring the question.

[NYGman]

My examples from NY on Page 1 have been removed.

without examples, just answer the question, it isn't that hard. :ninja: Please explain your theory here in a way that I can understand it, because I didn't get an answer from your video or anything else I googled, because if I did I wouldn't keep asking.

[David Merrill]

I like to use examples. The reason that they are unverified is for privacy reasons.

Denise is a fine example of why I like to keep people insulated from the insulting infantile mudslinging around here. If you take a look at the last couple pages Wserra has managed to defile her intellectual reputation here on Quatloos simply for actually doing what you propose you would like to do, if only you understood better. It is of course a good thing that Quatloos' reputation proceeds it and that people visiting quickly get a taste for the general mentality here and leave. Otherwise Wserra's slur campaign might actually be actionable. Judging by the traffic lately, Wserra has managed to put this website into quite the slump.

I have given explanations with my examples all over the Internet. I am getting a lot of new examples lately and going through the trouble of redacting them. You can find them on the first page of any search engine around.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Something occurred to me: why only one of these nonsense lawsuits? I mean, David has been blasting this BS all over the place, and likely encouraging/helping the lame and the halt file suits predestined for failure. How to find them? You could search PACER for Geithner as a defendant, but then - between the legit cases and those by other stripes of wackos - you would find hundreds of cases. Then the key search hit me: saving to suitors, libel of review, I bet (per David's advice) they file as marine cases. And they do. Searching for Geithner, then looking for NOS (nature of suit) 340, yields interesting results. For example:

(1) Michael David [Cress - these guys don't believe in last names] v. Geithner, 12-cv-3442 (CAND). The complaint looks a whole lot like Lam's - virtually identical, in fact, down to the "refused for cause" notice of levy and the insistent "I am not pro se" and signature "Lawful money" on the civil cover sheet. With no proof that he had even served the summons and complaint, Cress tries to file a "default judgment". Judge Chesney of course refuses, and sua sponte directs him to show cause why she shouldn't toss the sorry mess into the trash (alright, alright, she said "dismiss"). Cress refuses the Court's order for cause. Dismissed, sua sponte, about two months after Cress filed the action. Short and sweet:

By order filed August 9, 2012, the Court directed plaintiff Michael David (“David”) to show cause, in writing and no later than August 31, 2012, why the above-titled action should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim against defendant Timothy Franz Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury.

On August 15, 2012, David filed a copy of the Court’s August 9, 2012 order, on which copy David had written “Refused for Cause.” David has not otherwise responded to the Court’s August 9, 2012 order, and, in particular, has not shown cause why the above titled action should not be dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Court’s order of August 9, 2012, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Bye.

(2) Todd Donald [Weiss - see above] v. Geithner, 12-cv-4493 (CAND). Same gibberish complaint, same notice of levy refused for cause, only filed about three weeks ago. Weiss has already "refused for cause" two orders - discovery schedule and referral to M-J. Nothing more yet. Maybe Judge Illston's chambers can speak with Judge Chesney's. Hint to wackos: you don't get to refuse orders, for cause or not for cause.

(3) Scott Daniel [Macneilage - see above] v. Geithner, 12-cv-1781 (CACD). Same gibberish complaint and RfCs. This is a biggie - the total (tax, interest, penalties) is $175K. Macneilage appears to be a cut above the others - at least he actually served Geithner. Of course, he also RfCs everything in the docket. Dismissed, July 5, 2012, four months after Macneilage filed it. Macneilage files eight RfCs after the dismissal. Maybe they're his grocery lists.

(4) Jesus Victor [Rodriguez - see above] v. Geithner, 09 -cv-1091 (CASD). I'm not linking to any more docs - all the same anyway. Dismissed April 2, 2010.

(5) Alvin Ruiz v. Geithner, 09-cv-1332 (CASD). Dismissed less than four months after filing.

(6) Patrick Teruo [Walsh - see above] v. Geithner, 09-cv-1644 (CASD). Dismissed about six months after filing. In the order dismissing, the Court noted that "Mr. Teruo’s complaint is a frivolous, stock complaint that he downloaded from the internet, and that other federal courts have summarily dismissed." The complaint is the same as the others.

So, David, your "libel of review" - "refused for cause" nonsense is 0-for-everything, a "frivolous, stock complaint ... downloaded from the internet". The unredacted proof in this post shows abject defeat in every case that's been decided.

[Cathulhu]

Prediction: David will ignore the specific cases exactly as he has ignored NYGman's question, and come up with some idiocy completely off topic (with redacted grocery lists) to try and get the last word.

[NYGman]

I have given explanations with my examples all over the Internet. I am getting a lot of new examples lately and going through the trouble of redacting them. You can find them on the first page of any search engine around.

David, I am Dead Serious, I want to understand, I watched your video and have read your posts on multiple sites, and still have my unanswered question. There should be a simple legal explination that reflects your position. Given your knowledge you should be able to explain it to me, with legal terms, if need be, as I do have a full understanding of the law, and am quite good at conducting research. I just can't get around the issue of recieving something of value, and exempting it from income, no matter the form. I can find no support for this possition in the code, regs, or in court cases that can be relied upon. Any cases I have found have, in context, seemed to say this is not a valid arguement, yet you have based your non-reporting on this theory, I would expect to see some analysis, and for you to be able to explain it to me.

If you can't explain it here, I would be happy to go to another site to hear your explaination (not examples, I don't need examples unless I can understand the law behind them). I just fear that other sites may not embrase my posts, as it may be taken the wrong way. I honestly want to understand your position here, and am waiting.

[David Merrill]

You are emotionally stunted. You do not recognize the spirit of what you are doing by slurring these good people on Quatloos. You have driven interest in Quatloos away. Which is a good thing! Thank you for that. Also, you have shown me how wonderfully the echo chamber concept functions at restoring lawful remedy to American jurisprudence.

I will just bet that every one of those judges dismissing Libels of Review is a taxpayer!

[Famspear]

......I honestly want to understand your position here, and am waiting.

I have been waiting for David to come up with something for five and a half years, now.

[NYGman]

......I honestly want to understand your position here, and am waiting.

I have been waiting for David to come up with something for five and a half years, now.

I am hopeful, although it may be a hopeless cause, at this point. I would like to better understand his position, I sat through a 30min Youtube video, read his posts here and on other forums, and still can't figure out why earning Lawful Money is not subject to tax. I saw this issues with David’s prior answers on other forums, and thought, although probably wrongly, that by breaking his position down to its components, he could just focus on the crux (for me at least) of the position, that Lawful money is not taxable.

More specifically, why if not taxable, as it isn't Lawful money, how is distinguished from the receipt of Property which is taxable. Call it what you like, to me it still seems to have value, and as it has value is still taxable. Call it Lawful Money, Dollars, Euros, Pounds, Credits, Quatloos, Dinars, leaves, chits, doubloons, Loonies, Pence, FRN’s they all represent value, for which is taxable upon receipt, actual or constructive.

[notorial dissent]

WES, fwiw, if you look through that collection of drivel, you can find proof of Merrill's not so fine hand in it on the Metro nonsense, and the documents that they included in their filings that could only have come directly from him. Not that it wasn't apparent from the level of nonsense, but it is also nice to have concrete confirmation.

So, as you say, still 0 for all.

[The Observer]

I think the most interesting part of Wes' list of cases is that none of these cases ever made it to trial - that is how bad this "redeeming lawful money" nonsense is. There is no substance to it, there is nothing logical about it. It just plain smells bad.

...and still can't figure out why earning Lawful Money is not subject to tax.

That point was made several months ago here on another thread (I think). Basically, even you agreed that "redeeming" was possible under David's interpretation, nothing about that "process" invalidated the fact that you still received value for your exchange and thus was subject to taxation under the IRC. David ignored that point as well and went on a grand spree of obfuscation, whistling past the graveyard, unsupported claims of success and attempting to get more worthless images and nonsense links past the moderators.

[Pottapaug1938]

Van Pelt is also oblivious (or chooses to be) regarding the legal difference between FRNs and United States Notes. That's part of what got him into truble on the PCGS forum.

[David Merrill]

Lam is about to find out that games don't work.

A couple of days ago, the Court rejected this bunch of "refused for cause" stuff, refusing to docket it. It is kind of amusing (in a frickentard way) that among the documents RFC'ed was one that she had filed (the one she signed "Lawful Money"). Others were the court notice of mandatory ADR (alternative dispute resolution) and the order referring discovery issues to the M-J.

My impression of Judge Snyder leads me to believe that this chapter of "redeeming lawful money" isn't going to last long.

The court has docketed it because it is on the docket. Additionally there is no rule about the clerk rejecting documents or passing them before filing to the judge so the clerk wrongly classified the R4C as a Letter to the Judge (ex parte). The clerk instruction is to the clerk, not the judge.

[LPC]

On another website, on another subject, is a reference to a discussion that is like "administering a Turing Test to a computer designed to impersonate an acute schizophrenic."

That's what you guys are doing here.

[Pottapaug1938]

Mr. Van Pelt has been bestowing his (ahem) wisdom on others:

http://www.dailypaul.com/254983/redeemed-lawful-money

And yet:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm