"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[Gregg]

Debt is not the opposite of money, debt is another form of money, namely, someone else's money. If you owe me a dollar, it may seem like the opposite of money to you, but if I think you're going to actually pay it eventually, it's sure money to me.

[Cpt Banjo]

You left out the bridge of the song:

Now I don't claim to be a tax lawyer
And my brain's unkempt
But I've learned that by redeeming all my lawful money
Makes it tax exempt!

(Apologies to Sam Cooke)

[Prof]

You left out the bridge of the song:

Now I don't claim to be a tax lawyer
And my brain's unkempt
But I've learned that by redeeming all my lawful money
Makes it tax exempt!

(Apologies the late greatSam Cooke)

Fixed it for you.

[David Merrill]

Debt is not the opposite of money, debt is another form of money, namely, someone else's money. If you owe me a dollar, it may seem like the opposite of money to you, but if I think you're going to actually pay it eventually, it's sure money to me.

That is fun!

So how is it money to anybody else but you?

Wserra keeps telling everybody the exact opposite of what he thinks he is telling them. Let's just take the seven or so cases he can find about this. To Quatludes like you all, these people filing are consistently legal morons. Go figure!

Gregg's pleasure watching the pain inflicted by a taser is the real Tell!

[Dr. Caligari]

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.

Then why are you afraid to tell us the names of the people who have successfully claimed refunds this way? If they cannot be prosecuted, what are they afraid of?

[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.

Then why are you afraid to tell us the names of the people who have successfully claimed refunds this way? If they cannot be prosecuted, what are they afraid of?

Quatloos is a little podunk for them I guess. Maybe most people despise people like you!

[wserra]

The CA Franchise Tax Board has moved to dismiss Denise Elizabeth Lam's complaint. It is not clear whether Lam ever served Geithner; in any event, she has not filed proof of service, as FRCvP 4(l) requires. How long can it be before Lam refiles the FTB motion with "Refused for Cause" scribbled on each page in red crayon?

I'll link to the motion if anyone wants to see it, but you can imagine the grounds: (1) Anti-Injunction, (2) no jurisdiction, and (3) "plaintiff’s complaint consists of
incomprehensible gibberish". I personally prefer (3) because it (a) gets to the heart of the matter, and (b) indicates that the FTB reads Q.

[notorial dissent]

I think 3 pretty well sums it up.

[Dezcad]

I, too, think (3) is the best but I've always also thought the "incomprehensible gibberish" was redundant. Is there comprehensible gibberish?

But then I realize that the use of "incomprehensible" is probably for emphasis and not descriptive.

[The Observer]

Incomprehensible
That's what you are,
And forgettable
And wrong so far.

Like a bad tabloid’s news reports,
How your tripe clogs up the courts.
Never before
Has someone been more...

So incomprehensible
In every way,
And forever more
I fear you'll stay.

That's why, moron, it's incredible
That someone so regrettable
Hopes that everyone will be
Gullible, too.

[wserra]

And now Geithner has filed a motion to dismiss the Lam complaint, on essentially the same grounds as the FTB's. The only real difference is that Geithner calls Lam's complaint "vague legal-sounding phrases . . . legalistic gibberish" instead of "incomprehensible gibberish". I have a compromise: I think we should call it "vague legal-sounding phrases resulting in incomprehensible legalistic gibberish". That would seem to cover all bases.

[wserra]

Earlier this week, the govt moved to dismiss the Weiss complaint (see my original post - his complaint is just like all the others) on the same grounds. They were not, however, as imaginative in characterizing it as the above offices were. I'll update the blog entry when the motions are granted - er, decided.

[Famspear]

....I think we should call it "vague legal-sounding phrases resulting in incomprehensible legalistic gibberish". That would seem to cover all bases.

I would vote for "vague legal-sounding phrases resulting in incomprehensible PSEUDO-legalistic gibberish".

[notorial dissent]

What he said!!

[Judge Roy Bean]

How about "ens intentione obtusae?"

[wserra]

How long can it be before Lam refiles the FTB motion with "Refused for Cause" scribbled on each page in red crayon?

Longer than I thought it would be, actually. A few days ago. Along with a motion for a default judgment, which Lam filed against parties who had not only appeared but filed motions to dismiss. The clerk refused to enter it, since "Answer and/or Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Motion to Dismiss on file". I'm sure next we'll get that "refused for cause".

It's really hard to believe that these people don't see how stupid all this "redeeming lawful money" nonsense is.

[The Observer]

It's really hard to believe that these people don't see how stupid all this "redeeming lawful money" nonsense is.

But there is no other explanation for their behavior, especially considering that "redemption" requires the "suitor" to believe that although the government has created a sham operation to dupe people into paying income tax, this same government will meekly go away if you just file the right paperwork. Obviously the question of "if the evil gubmint is willing to cheat me out of my money in broad daylight, why wouldn't they be equally willing to do it behind the scenes?" never enters their mind.

[notorial dissent]

It's really hard to believe that these people don't see how stupid all this "redeeming lawful money" nonsense is.

I know, but that is really the only explanation. They have to be that stupid, or at the very least, ill informed, to swallow this nonsense to begin with, and if they really are that dumb, or oblivious to reality, then the rest follows QED. Otherwise, you have to posit that they really do like putting their hands in the bear trap and pushing the trigger because they like the resulting and inevitable pain. There is just no other explanation other than dumbern' a damn rock, incredibly gullible, desperate, or all three. Some people will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous, so long as it is convenient and compatible with what they want to believe.

[AndyK]

One needs to remember that a significant number of sovereigns, evaders, and other adherents to frivolous theories and practices are merely trying to obtain, retain, or recover that which is rightfully theirs.

Many less-than-highly-educated people who ended up on the wrong side of a child custody/support decision, had a house or car repossessed, lost a job to (insert your favorite minority), or in any other way had the SYSTEM do something to them which they did not deserve will jump at almost any ray of hope.

They put blinders on to ignore advice from anyone who attempts to refute the theory because the rebutters are agents of the SYSTEM.

They don't think deeply enough to analyze the holes in the theory. Instead, they blindly -- no EAGERLY -- adopt the theory since some snake-oil salesman has dazzled them with verbal footwork and hocus-pocus documents.

Consider the similarities to the victims in Waco or Jonestown or to those who have repeatedly followed their prophet du jour to a mountaintop to face the end of the world.

[LPC]

It's really hard to believe that these people don't see how stupid all this "redeeming lawful money" nonsense is.

To quote Tug McGraw: You gotta believe.