If a word salad post claims that we need not pay taxes, it goes in the appropriate TP forum. If its author claims that laws don't apply to him/her, it goes in the appropriate Sov forum. Only otherwise unclassifiable word salad goes here.
Curatola wrote:Mr. Van Pelt please pardon me for being blunt but who are you kidding?
You've never tried (AFAIK) this "Redeeming lawful money" yourself, this shows to me that you know it's not working. So why do you keep defending this?
David doesn't need to for at least two reasons.
First, his only income is a government benefit and he doesn't make enough money to owe any taxes.
And second, he has been declared mentally incompetent to strand trial in a previous case, making it unlikely he could be prosecuted.
Easy to shout it when you have a get out of jail free card.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
That's actually pretty funny. I mean, David has been writing things like "I guess you have discovered that these cases are quite effective and successful" on Q; God knows how outrageous the brags get on his own board. Then, the day after I post proof that "these cases" are completely ineffective and notably unsuccessful, David posts the following (in the above link): "The Libel of Review gets dismissed out leaving the suitor with an evidence repository in the USDC under the responsibility of the US clerk of court." In other words, the dismissal is actually part of the plan.
We know you're making this up as you go along, David, but this is embarrassing.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Curatola wrote:Mr. Van Pelt please pardon me for being blunt but who are you kidding?
You've never tried (AFAIK) this "Redeeming lawful money" yourself, this shows to me that you know it's not working. So why do you keep defending this?
It's very easy. Without his fantasies about "remedy" and "redeeming lawful money", Van Pelt is just an insignificant blip on the human radar scope. But, thanks to his fantasies and especially to the Internet, he is able to expound upon his fantasies at exhaustive length, and is able to sit back and see his name spread near and far, as he posts his "expert opinions" on any site which will have him. Having a bunch of acolytes who have bought into his fantasies (and will go down in legal flames, if they have not already done so) only feeds his ego even more.
As for Van Pelt's "evidence repositories", the rest of us have another name for them: "closed case files".
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
I have considered Davids comment that the judges in these lawful money cases must NOT be a taxpayer and I believe I have come up with a solution. The proper venue for filing a case to ensure the judge is not a taxpayer is obvious . . .it is the court of Dennys. The judges in the Dennys sovereign courts are mostly not taxpayers so problem solved.
I've come to believe that David thinks reality is a consensual illusion, and that if he can only lie convincingly enough, he can change it to something he likes better. And we keep insisting on things he cannot understand, such as proof. Why, if we were less skeptical, he'd be the revered leader he really knows he should be.
Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to. T. Pratchett
Always be a moving target. L.M. Bujold
That's actually pretty funny. I mean, David has been writing things like "I guess you have discovered that these cases are quite effective and successful" on Q; God knows how outrageous the brags get on his own board. Then, the day after I post proof that "these cases" are completely ineffective and notably unsuccessful, David posts the following (in the above link): "The Libel of Review gets dismissed out leaving the suitor with an evidence repository in the USDC under the responsibility of the US clerk of court." In other words, the dismissal is actually part of the plan.
We know you're making this up as you go along, David, but this is embarrassing.
It is explained in the instructions for the Libel of Review.
Van Pelt stwikes me as the Elmer Fudd of pwotesters. He endwesswy wepeats things like "Siwwy wecused judge" and "Siwwy cwerk" and wonders why his "ewidence wepository" never weawwy wefwects anything but "dismissed with pwedjudice." Wedeeming fuwiouswy, he newer gets the wabbit.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Or the clue despite being hit repeatedly over the head with the cluebyfour.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Curatola wrote:Mr. Van Pelt please pardon me for being blunt but who are you kidding?
You've never tried (AFAIK) this "Redeeming lawful money" yourself, this shows to me that you know it's not working. So why do you keep defending this?
Whenever somebody wants me to sign for cash I sign "Lawful Money".
Signing "Lawful Money" doesn't make it a "Lawful Money" redemption, any more than signing "Bugs Bunny" would make it a rabbit redemption.
Got any other ideas?
Oh -- he has ideas, by the bushelful. It's just that not one of them has any shred of validity as far as the law is concerned, and he has long since proven that he is incapable of providing the tiniest bit of verifiable proof (except in his own misperceptions) that his fantasies accomplish anything except making a fool of himself.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Curatola wrote:Mr. Van Pelt please pardon me for being blunt but who are you kidding?
You've never tried (AFAIK) this "Redeeming lawful money" yourself, this shows to me that you know it's not working. So why do you keep defending this?
Whenever somebody wants me to sign for cash I sign "Lawful Money".
Signing "Lawful Money" doesn't make it a "Lawful Money" redemption, any more than signing "Bugs Bunny" would make it a rabbit redemption.
Got any other ideas?
Maybe you have to write on the cash "This is not a dollar". There again, maybe the remedy only works if it is in the original French, "Ceci n'est pas un dollar".
David tried posting some of his "evidence" over at SuiJurisClub, and was met with this reaction by a regular poster there named Banja:
Banja wrote:
I have to thank you though, when I read this part I laughed so fucking hard. I mean tears were flowing, snot coming out my nose. (I am not kidding) Absolutely god damn hilarious. Priceless.
Later, Banja posted this:
Banja wrote:
One must sit in awe of your imagination.
I honestly don't know what to say David. If anybody is following this nonsense, and putting this into practice by filing the type of Tax Returns you are holding out as examples, they are going to need a lot of help. Lemmings and cliffs come to mind. Think..... section 7203. I have noticed that you never show YOUR returns filed in this manner. Always some other guniea pig's.
If anything positive can come from this exchange it is, hopefully, that one use's a rational and disciplined process of thought before going down this path. If one goes down this path, especially in filing the type of Tax Returns that David is promoting, I don't think it's going to end well for you. Hopefully, if you have ventured down this path, I'm wrong.
A hint to David: If you can't persuade the folks at Sui about your de-taxing scheme, you're not going to persuade anyone.
That's actually pretty funny. I mean, David has been writing things like "I guess you have discovered that these cases are quite effective and successful" on Q; God knows how outrageous the brags get on his own board. Then, the day after I post proof that "these cases" are completely ineffective and notably unsuccessful, David posts the following (in the above link): "The Libel of Review gets dismissed out leaving the suitor with an evidence repository in the USDC under the responsibility of the US clerk of court." In other words, the dismissal is actually part of the plan.
We know you're making this up as you go along, David, but this is embarrassing.
In the end, the result is, "Well, you lost your case, may have gotten sanctioned, had to pay penalties to the IRS, your "redeemed lawful money" is still taxable and you just might have to do some time. Buy hey, you got it all on the record, with a Federal Court Clerk!
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
That's actually pretty funny. I mean, David has been writing things like "I guess you have discovered that these cases are quite effective and successful" on Q; God knows how outrageous the brags get on his own board. Then, the day after I post proof that "these cases" are completely ineffective and notably unsuccessful, David posts the following (in the above link): "The Libel of Review gets dismissed out leaving the suitor with an evidence repository in the USDC under the responsibility of the US clerk of court." In other words, the dismissal is actually part of the plan.
We know you're making this up as you go along, David, but this is embarrassing.
In the end, the result is, "Well, you lost your case, may have gotten sanctioned, had to pay penalties to the IRS, your "redeemed lawful money" is still taxable and you just might have to do some time. Buy hey, you got it all on the record, with a Federal Court Clerk![/quote]
... and your "evidence repository" is in a file cabinet with other closed cases, to remain there undisturbed until someone scans it and puts it on a DVD (maybe) so that the originals can go into the shredder and the DVD (if it exists) into dusty archives somewhere.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
