A New York GMan in King David's Court

[wserra]

Our new colleague NYGman has undertaken the Herculean task of cleaning the Augean stables of the DMVP forum. Many of us have tried similar things in the past in similar places. My own experience is that such efforts yield similar results to preaching the benefits of surgery for appendicitis at a Jehovah Witness meeting. But the effort is honorable.

In the very first response, David says something funny:

Wserra has a slur campaign on American remedy going and I will be a bit brutal with a reality check, he has revealed that there are many intelligent people who have filed Libels of Review and more importantly, he will not tell you how many PACER hits his search inquiries reveal because it is likely he knows of maybe a thousand identical cases.

Now, on the board and in the blog entry I wrote, I listed seven cases. Five of them have already crashed and burned, and the remaining two are awaiting that fate. I wrote on the board how I found them: taking the cue from the first case I found, I searched Geithner as a party; given David's fixation on admiralty, I thought it likely that he had told his "suitors" to file as Type 340, "Marine". The result:

1 Geithner, Timothy F. (dft) casdce 3:2009-cv-01644 340 07/29/2009 02/04/2010
2 Geithner, Timothy (dft) casdce 3:2009-cv-01332 340 06/19/2009 10/05/2009
3 Geithner, Timothy F. (dft) casdce 3:2009-cv-01091 340 05/19/2009 04/02/2010
4 Geithner, Timothy Franz (dft) cacdce 2:2012-cv-01781 340 03/02/2012 07/05/2012
5 Geithner, Timothy Franz (dft) cacdce 2:2012-cv-07719 340 09/10/2012
6 Geithner, Timothy Franz (dft) candce 3:2012-cv-03442 340 07/02/2012 09/05/2012
7 Geithner, Timothy Franz (dft) candce 3:2012-cv-04493 340 08/27/2012

Looks a lot like the seven cases about which I wrote. Moreover, unlike the stuff David posts, it's completely verifiable. Anyone with PACER access can confirm this. Perhaps David could identify for us a few of those "thousand identical cases".

There really is not a lot of point in going through all the gibberish NYGman has received in response, but there is some very funny stuff. One groyse chochem believes that the key distinction is between "redeem in lawful money" and "redeem for lawful money", and that without 12 USC § 411 taxation would be involuntary servitude. Another plaintively insists - ignored by the others - that s/he is exempt from federal law. A couple of others claim that the income tax needs to be apportioned. Another tries the old "answer the following questions yes or no". Harvey (as "JohnnyCash") chimes in with his usual "Oh, yeah?" Throughout David presents his customary assortment of century-old newspaper clippings, irrelevant (and redacted) documents, stories about what his cousin's wife's friend's husband said about him and photos of parking lots. Plenty of others make arguments that defy any attempt at rational summary. None of them cite relevant law except for § 411.

But NYGman keeps his cool. Man, you got heart.

[The Observer]

The other funny things in David's reply to NYGMan are these:

The law says that Federal Reserve notes may be redeemed in lawful money by demand. Actually it uses a pronoun "They" when Congress is otherwise very specific so I believe that "People" works as well in that pronoun. I do not say that FRN's can be redeemed for lawful money.

Really? After all these years of preaching that you can redeem FRNs for lawful money, now David is telling us that you can't redeem for lawful money?

I should address that putting a stamp on a bill does nothing at all except teach people, get them curious and I imagine that hundreds of people have looked up the law just due to the stamp circulating on money.

So stamping "redeemed for lawful money" was David's way of trying to attract attention, advertising if you will, to sell his theory. David, here's a tip: don't try getting a job on Madison Ave.

So in two sentences, David has essentially said that none of what he has been proposing has any practical value for the redeemer. It's just smoke and mirrors, then cross your fingers and hope you fool the IRS, the AUSA, DoJ, and the courts.

[notorial dissent]

It's just smoke and mirrors, then cross your fingers and hope you fool the IRS, the AUSA, DoJ, and the courts.

You could have added blather and gibberish to the list to be complete, but that's Merrill and his fantasies to a T.

[webhick]

So stamping "redeemed for lawful money" was David's way of trying to attract attention, advertising if you will, to sell his theory.

You mean that he's defacing US currency for his own personal gain?

[Pottapaug1938]

As much as I admire NYGman for trying, I don't think that he will have the least bit of success on Planet Van Pelt. Not only is Van Pelt no more forthcoming with verifiable proof of his fantasies than he is here, most of the other inmates have the same problems when it comes to understanding the law.

A perfect example is the inmate who quotes the tax apportionment clause of the Constitution, follows it with the text of the 16th Amendment, and then, capping the pile with the dictum from Brushaber about how the Amendment created no new power of taxation, opines that the income tax doesn't apply to people like him. He forgets to note that his cherished quote is dictum for the case, and not the holding; and that it must be read in its context, which is that the federal government ALREADY had the power to tax income.

Perhaps NYGman's attempt will at least, serve as a warning for some StS newbie; but most of the inmates there are too emotionally invested in the "redeeming lawful money" daisy chain to ever be able to break away; and as for Van Pelt himself, he cannot let go of any portion of his fantasy without realizing how much of a horse's hindquarters he has made of himself over the years.

[The Observer]

So stamping "redeemed for lawful money" was David's way of trying to attract attention, advertising if you will, to sell his theory.

You mean that he's defacing US currency for his own personal gain?

Perhaps more accurate that he was vainly defacing US currency hoping for personal gain.

But still, could it be that David recognizes that claiming you can "redeem lawful money" and using rubberstamps on FRNs might give the people the impression he is part of the tinfoil hat club? Is he trying to sidle away from his more obvious nonsense in the effort to appear sensible and reasonable to the average Joe who wanders into David's website? Ingenuous at best, deceitful at least.

[LightinDarkness]

I don't even understand the premise of DMVP's "there are tons of cases on PACER that wserra is hiding from you!" Obviously, as a matter of fact, thats just a lie - but so what if it were true? What if there were 10,000 cases - all getting on PACER means is that you've done the initial filing and paid the fee, right? So I could pay the fee and file a suit against Purple Unicorns for the sum of $23 quadtrillion. The number of cases - be it 1 or 1 million - using DMVP's insane theory has nothing to do with its validity.

As per usual, even if he was right, his arguments still wouldn't make any sense....

[notorial dissent]

The corollary being the number of deluded idiots who have not only filed, but repeatedly filed, and let's not forget, LOST, cases based on the BS Prattlin' Pete the ex-jailbird has been peddling for years.

If the number of cases had any bearing on it then there might be something there to what he is claiming, as it is, all it shows is the incredible loss record of 0 for all that both Pete and the gibberish generator have engendered. The thing that he refuses to accept is that it is not the number of cases, it is the number of wins, and so far he is zip all, despite his really really wishing to the contrary.

[NYGman]

I actually need to follow up over there, I have been slammed at work and at home, with little time to respond to all the replies. I don't like posting on that board from Work. I will be responding to all the posts I can, and find it interesting to read their positions.

I have told them I have an open mind, and if they can prove it to me, I will be their biggest supporter, and shout it from the rooftops, but so far, I have not seen anything persuasive. Last check we were over 7 pages, so there is a lot for me to respond to. I will let you all know if they provide anything new. I am sure if they have the legal support, and can substantiate this position, I can put together a legal opinion, that we would all be interested in reading. This may be the magic bullet that renders us untaxable, although so far, I am no nearer to validating this as I was posting her for just David.

At some point I guess the arguments may start to repeat after being debunked, and then I will give up, but until then, I will continue over at Davids site, until I get frustrated. I have twin 2yr old boys, so it take a while for me to get frustrated . Feel free to join me over there if you wish, or just watch from afar. Either way, I think it will be interesting...

If you have been reading I will add, my "Wealhy Clients" are waiting for the outcome of this too

[The Observer]

If you have been reading I will add, my "Wealhy Clients" are waiting for the outcome of this too

That has been pointed out to David, as well as the other TP proponents, that if their theory really worked, then everyone, including the wealthy, would already be using their method to detax themselves. The excuses made at this point are:

• (1) The evil (lawyers, judges, legislators, government employees - take your choice) are keeping this a big secret or will never rule in our favor,
  
  (2) The "method" is very complex and difficult, thus most people screw it up and invalidate their detaxation,
  
  or
  
  (3) it does work, it's just that the government won't admit to it and we can't afford to expose ourselves to the inevitable government persection if we reveal the details.

It is precisely because of these responses that David got put on the "proof-or-silence" rule. Maybe he will come up with a new excuse over on his site.

[Prof]

To follow up on Observer's comments, on another thread, "Is there such a thing as TP/Soverigns common characteristics," started by LightIndarkness, the subject of commonality has been discussed. However, I do not think that anyone has suggested that many of the folks in the TP/Sovereign movments actually believe and want to show that they are much smarter than the educated, rich, and successful folks who "foolishly" or "stupidly" pay taxes, obey laws, etc. Like DMVP and Erasmus of America, they are brilliant -- so brilliant that there is a huge conspiracy to keep their knowledge from the rest of us. See, e.g., Peter Hendrickson, and other "gurus."

Just an observation; your results may vary.

[notorial dissent]

(the primary TP excuses)

• (1) The evil (lawyers, judges, legislators, government employees - take your choice) are keeping this a big secret or will never rule in our favor,
  Then how did you find out about it if it is such a great dark secret, and if "they" will never rule in favor of it, what is the point?
  (2) The "method" is very complex and difficult, thus most people screw it up and invalidate their detaxation,
  If it is so complex and difficult, then how have you managed to get away with it, oh, wait, you haven't either have you?
  or
  
  (3) it does work, it's just that the government won't admit to it and we can't afford to expose ourselves to the inevitable government persection if we reveal the details.
  Again, if you can't really use it, then what is the point, except to practice beating your head against the inevitable wall?

It is precisely because of these responses that David got put on the "proof-or-silence" rule. Maybe he will come up with a new excuse over on his site.

Merrill's "my super secret sure fire guaranteed method works, I just can't show you any proof of it or they'll lie about it" excuse is just a variant of all the other whys their goofy ideas don't work, and exactly why he belongs on the put up or shut up list. Originality not being his long suit, don't hold your breath.

Prof, I think your point is spot on and needs to be added to the list. From what I have seen, the majority of the TP/guru crowd are inconsequential non-entities, and by making their claims they can therefore claim a status as being smarter than everyone else, and thereby give themselves some semblance of significance they will never ever otherwise have.

[Gregg]

except to practice beating your head against the inevitable wall?

For those of you who insist, and don't have a brick wall handy to beat your head against, I now offer a service in which I will bring a portable brick wall substitute (a brick) to you at home or work, and beat you about the head with it until you pass out or the brick wears out.

Just $5999, plus expenses..... call 1-800-BRICKME

[notorial dissent]

Can I buy stock???

[David Merrill]

You folks are not being very observant. NYGman is not at all the Quatlude you suppose he is. Being a NY tax attorney he is simply exploring for better ways to get better refunds.

[The Observer]

You folks are not being very observant. NYGman is not at all the Quatlude you suppose he is. Being a NY tax attorney he is simply exploring for better ways to get better refunds.

Yet there is this:

I have told them I have an open mind, and if they can prove it to me, I will be their biggest supporter, and shout it from the rooftops, but so far, I have not seen anything persuasive.

It would appear by my observation, David, that NYGman is a lot closer to becoming a Quatloosian than a suitor. He has been at your site for for seven pages worth of "explanation" and still does not see a thing yet to convince him that you guys know what you are talking about. I suspect that NYGman could walk into any tax attorney's or CPA's office and view several pages of a prospectus on a tax shelter and walk away knowing on some level if they had a legal basis for what they are selling. But you guys can't even get to first base with him.

I would think after several years of dealing with your theory, you would be able to communicate and explain very clearly how redemption works. Instead, you deal in vagueness, invoke irrelevant or outdated laws, imprecisely quote court rulings or twist the context of dicta, provide pictures of meaningless buildings, texts, books and pictures that have no possible connection to what you are preaching, and provide heavily redacted correspondence from the government that cannot be verified to mean what you are telling us it means. Any tax attorney/CPA trying to sell a tax shelter program via the David Merrill method would be laughed off Wall Street in a hot minute.

So I am betting NYGman is going to have to give up after several more pages of your nonsense because, well, he is going to have conclude that it is really indeed nonsense.

[David Merrill]

I keep explaining in the simplest terms over and over; to the point of being censored for being redundant. The law says what the law says and the courts describe and define the law in my favor and interpretation.

I believe you have NYGman convinced that there will be some kind of case law in support of a prosecution that will never happen. Absurd!

[The Observer]

I keep explaining in the simplest terms over and over;...

I would ask them to explain which application they were using, from the Instructions:
.
.
.
Somehow they could never explain it to me. Instead it resulted in my never hearing from that particular guru again.

Starting to see the irony, David?

...to the point of being censored for being redundant.

Being censored? Who is threatening to censor you at your site? You? From what I saw, the "several pages" that NYGman was referring to was at your site, not here. If you do end up having to censor yourself for being redundant, I think the "proof or silence" angle will cover most of your posts on your site.

I believe you have NYGman convinced that there will be some kind of case law in support of a prosecution that will never happen. Absurd!

I believe you have simply have failed in convincing NYGman of your nonsense, much like the OID supporters failed to convince you of their nonsense

[David Merrill]

The irony is that you demand here that I would show you case law citations when the IRS attorneys will never prosecute anybody for redeeming lawful money. That is the hipocracy Wserra brings to the plate here. He knows how case law is generated, or is expected to anyway.

Even the frivpens are missapplied by agents who are misled by the IRS attorneys.

[Pottapaug1938]

Van Pelt says that "(t)he law says what the law says and the courts describe and define the law in my favor and interpretation"; but instead he continually proves himself incapable of understanding the law correctly.

Time and time again, he takes a quote from a case, out of its context, and banners it as proof of his legal fantasies (the quotes from the Milam and Rickman cases are two examples), or else he latches onto a word and gives it an interpretation found nowhere in the law (as when he looks at the motto "In God We Trust" and sees the formation of an actual legal trust); but he is incapable of making the distinction between a dictum, or comment, in a case and the HOLDING in a case.

Not one case can be found, in the body of American case law, which supports Van Pelt's fantasies; but he will never admit that. Instead, he will offer more excuses, evasions and inanities; and barring a miracle, all we will ever hear from Van Pelt is more of the same.