"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[webhick]

To be exact, a court-appointed psychiatrist found him to be mentally incompetent.

[Famspear]

To be exact, a court-appointed psychiatrist found him to be mentally incompetent.

I note that the psychologist found Van Pelt to be mentally incompetent -- in 2009.

When I see David Merrill Van Pelt's action with respect to the "ManOnTheLand" matter documented earlier in this thread, I am reminded that while Van Pelt has indeed been the subject of a provisional diagnosis (by the court-appointed psychologist) of "psychotic disorder ... with delusional and paranoid features" (Competency Examination by John Bermudez, Ph.D., Feb. 13, 2009, for the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo), Van Pelt may know exactly what he is doing. I would argue that David's verbal bobbing and weaving might illustrate that he is aware that what he is doing is wrong.

So, maybe David is slowly "getting better" (?).

I'm not a psychologist.

[LightinDarkness]

Interesting, I did not know DMVP had been ruled to be incompetent due to mental wellness issues. Now I am not sure how I feel about him. More sad than anything, perhaps. If he knows what hes doing its one thing, if the mental illness has taken over its just tragic. Of course, its possible to know exactly what you are doing and suffer from mental illness, and that could be the case here.

Mental illness is a terrible thing.

[notorial dissent]

Bear in mind, that while Merrill was "evaluated" at court order, it was at best a cursory evaluation, since the evaluator got exactly no cooperation, and the evaluation was in light of the pending charges of elder abuse, as to whether he could be held legally responsible, and there was no actual finding one way or another. Dr Bermudez did read off a laundry list of issues, that are, at least in my highly biased opinion, pretty much spot on, I do think he missed more than a few that should be added to the list, but no more contact than he actually had I think he did remarkably well. As the charges were ultimately dropped, we'll never know if the Dr's report would have been sufficient to stand up in court. I am fairly certain that had it gone to trial the evaluation would have to have been done over again.

The point being, and the Dr's analysis notwithstanding, in our current society, fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, being as crazy as Merrill most certainly is, is not something that can be dealt with. Merrill is not dealing well with reality, and generally manages to manufacture one that suits his needs of the moment, that has nothing to do with the one any of the rest of us reside in, hence Planet Merrill, but that does not mean he does not know what he is doing. He may be bed bug crazy, but he does know what he is doing, and he has been getting away with it for years, which just makes him all the worse, and all the more dangerous to the unwary who fall within his orbit.

Merrill has been a major insignificance all of his life, having even a modicum of intellect that did not get him any real attention, so, he invented this world where he is a legal genius, and he has now managed to find a few fawning, and totally clueless and very desperate acolytes to follow on his every word, to show just what a genius he really is. The problem being, that if any of them actually do follow his advice, and all who do fail and fail utterly and miserably, and should they report back, he will lose that adulation, and that is something he cannot abide. Merrill cannot stand being ignored and badly wants attention.

That is what it is like to be the primary resident of Planet Merrill.

[AndyK]

Preface to following remarks:
I was probably one of the hardest on and most critical of David Merrill when he was posting here.
In fact, I came up with SFBFKADMVP as an epithet for him.

That said, David is banned from posting here. It is all well and good (in fact excellent) to point out the fallacies in his theories and the facts relating to his long string of failures in litigation and any other interaction with the rule of law as we know it.

However, absent any specific documentation of an evaluation of his mental status, it is irresponsible for us to speculate on or diagnose his condition.

Thus, from this point forward, I will aggresively moderate any discussion of his mental status unless it is supported by verifiable evidence. Since he can't speak for himself, our RULE of verifiable information must be adhered to.

I would appreciate it if the earlier posters would review their remarks and revise them as appropriate.

[Famspear]

Preface to following remarks:
I was probably one of the hardest on and most critical of David Merrill when he was posting here.
In fact, I came up with SFBFKADMVP as an epithet for him.

That said, David is banned from posting here. It is all well and good (in fact excellent) to point out the fallacies in his theories and the facts relating to his long string of failures in litigation and any other interaction with the rule of law as we know it.

However, absent any specific documentation of an evaluation of his mental status, it is irresponsible for us to speculate on or diagnose his condition.

Thus, from this point forward, I will aggresively moderate any discussion of his mental status unless it is supported by verifiable evidence. Since he can't speak for himself, our RULE of verifiable information must be adhered to.

I would appreciate it if the earlier posters would review their remarks and revise them as appropriate.

I can't speak for others, but I have not "speculated" on or "diagnosed" his mental condition. That was done by the psychologist in the report, and I cited the specific report in my post.

[LPC]

It is all well and good (in fact excellent) to point out the fallacies in his theories and the facts relating to his long string of failures in litigation and any other interaction with the rule of law as we know it.

I want to comment on this, because I have great difficulty in pointing out the "fallacies" in what's-his-name's theories.

There are many theories, such as Irwin Schiff's ("income" is only corporate income) or Peter Hendrickson's ("income" is only federally-connected, and not private sector), which I can easily say that are wrong.

In Merrill/Van Pelt's case, he's clearly not right, but (to paraphrase a famous physicist) he's also not even wrong. To me, trying to argue with M/VP is like trying to argue about the difference between orange, or between a raven and a writing-desk, who's on first, or why a duck? It's just incomprehensible gibberish, with no rhyme or reason, no factual basis, no logic, and hardly any grammar.

[.]

Without commenting on the state of his mental health, it's not for nothing that his gibberings were referred to as "word salad."

His maunderings are the mobius strip of convolution.

[The Observer]

That said, David is banned from posting here. It is all well and good (in fact excellent) to point out the fallacies in his theories and the facts relating to his long string of failures in litigation and any other interaction with the rule of law as we know it.

However, absent any specific documentation of an evaluation of his mental status, it is irresponsible for us to speculate on or diagnose his condition.

Thus, from this point forward, I will aggresively moderate any discussion of his mental status unless it is supported by verifiable evidence. Since he can't speak for himself, our RULE of verifiable information must be adhered to.

Excellent point. And totally in observance of the moderation rules.

[Pottapaug1938]

The "Quatloosians are everywhere!" paranoia is really kicking in again over at Planet Merrill. Check out the latest here:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthre ... -Secretary

[Gregg]

The "Quatloosians are everywhere!" paranoia is really kicking in again over at Planet Merrill. Check out the latest here:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthre ... -Secretary

That's just Harvester, he thinks everyone is Jay, or Famspear, or Demo or me or Wes or...oh hell, I think that his opinion is everyone on this site is one person, and aside from him and David Van Pelt everyone else on the internet is us. He's not exactly well adjusted to reality.

[Pottapaug1938]

What is Freed Gerdes smoking, and where can I get some?

By making your demand for lawful money, you are changing the terms of the contract with the Federal Reserve. When FDR committed the resources of the US government, and the assets and future labor of the debt serfs who use debt money, he was acting as the CEO of the corporate US government, which only has jurisdiction over DC and 14th Amendment citizens. If you include in your demand to redeem your assets in the trust, you are removing the lien established by the use of debt money. Since the trust only has validity when it has assets in it, and the trust can only exist on the presumption that you are dead, by making the claim you collapse the trust and take title to your estate. See the amendments to the Cestui que Vie Act by Charles the II in 1666. Then by registering your legal name as a dba with any Secretary of any state, you remove your assets from 'within the US.' Now you have rebutted the assumption that you want to deal in private money, the presumption that you are acting as a bank and are thus incurring the obligation to file a tax return and pay taxes on the use of this private money, and the presumption that you are in contract with the Federal Reserve, and thus an employee (read as tax slave) of the US government. You now have legal title to your name, and to the assets in your estate, and to the fruits of your labor, and you have no trust in the US government. And by now being legally domiciled in a state, you are 'without the US' and thus not a 14th Amendment citizen with privileges instead of rights. The issue of trustee de son tort does not arise when you own your legal name, as there is no trust, there are only contracts, and these you can refuse. And there is no tort, as the US government does not control the territory of the 50 states, so the usufructuary does not extend to the physical world of America.

The distinction here is important: the United States of America is a constitutional republic; the US government is a corporation under Roman law. In the republic you have unalienable rights; in the US you have privileges. It is better for you to get out of the US and into America.

PS to MJ: the use of notes confers a benefit, but the benefit is not conferred by the government. All free societies have found money to confer a benefit, and they have agreed on what can be/should be money, all without benefit of government control. Governments have proven repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to manage money, and should not be allowed anywhere near it. Government issued money, especially debt used as money, is inconsistent with liberty and prosperity. What do you mean by this statement: "Let me know when you decide to settle your own estate in Trust - declaring the money for that state." No one has the right to declare money, it is a market decision, made collectively by honest men willingly engaging in transactions with each other for their mutual benefit.

PS to Chex: It is unclear to me that the president can declare war (although at the present time he says he can and no one has corrected him yet), or that we are in a state of war at this time. You cannot, for example, have a 'War on Terror,' which is a tactic. Further, whenever the US declares war on something, we get more of it. While every president since FDR has re-upped the 'state of emergency' for one year on some pretext (this year it is Iran), these 'war powers' are not constitutional and only apply to agents and employees of the US.

Freed

[rogfulton]

And there is no tort, as the US government does not control the territory of the 50 states, so the usufructuary does not extend to the physical world of America.

Gerdes must have gotten hold of some Paraquat weed, unless there is a different definition of usufructuary available only to lawful money pushers?

u·su·fruc·tu·ar·y (yz-frkch-r, -s-)
n. pl. u·su·fruc·tu·ar·ies
One that holds property by usufruct.
adj.
Of or relating to the nature of a usufruct.

u·su·fruct (yz-frkt, -s-)
n.
The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way.

[wserra]

Cestui que Vie Act by Charles the II in 1666
legal title to your name
14th Amendment citizen
trustee de son tort
usufructuary
a corporation under Roman law

Self-proclaimed experts on any subject use what they believe to be the jargon of the subject to prove their erudition. Never mind that they don't know what it means, and really never mind that much of it doesn't mean anything at all.

It's particularly funny in the cases of the self-proclaimed legal eagles. As I tell my students, if you want to be an effective advocate, avoid "sounding like a lawyer". Think and write clearly and succinctly, using plain language. I've never been an appellate specialist, but have done my share of appeals. Even among appellate lawyers, the best follow this principle.

And then wackos like those who post to Van Pelt's board profess to hate lawyers, but do their best to "sound like a lawyer". Go figure.

[Famspear]

u·su·fruc·tu·ar·y (yz-frkch-r, -s-)
n. pl. u·su·fruc·tu·ar·ies
One that holds property by usufruct.
adj.
Of or relating to the nature of a usufruct.

u·su·fruct (yz-frkt, -s-)
n.
The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way.

This was my explanation, a while back:

The concept of the usufruct,
I think, we find
Is neatly tucked
Somewhere within the Civil Law.
Louisiana stands in awe!
If Cajun Country's your abode,
You'll find Napoleonic Code--
Unlike the folks who live in Texas.
Over here, the only nexus
With the French that we can find
Is Cajun seafood -- we don't mind!
The English law, it works for me.
Compare the two, and you may see
A little similarity
In usufruct
And equity.

--Oct. 1, 2010.

[Pottapaug1938]

It's particularly funny in the cases of the self-proclaimed legal eagles. As I tell my students, if you want to be an effective advocate, avoid "sounding like a lawyer". Think and write clearly and succinctly, using plain language. I've never been an appellate specialist, but have done my share of appeals. Even among appellate lawyers, the best follow this principle.

And then wackos like those who post to Van Pelt's board profess to hate lawyers, but do their best to "sound like a lawyer". Go figure.

When I was still practicing law, I wrote all my legal documents in plain English as much as possible. More than one client gave my writings the hairy eyeball, saying that "it doesn't look 'legal.' Are you SURE that it's going to be any good?"

[Judge Roy Bean]

What is Freed Gerdes smoking, and where can I get some?

... by registering your legal name as a dba with any Secretary of any state, you remove your assets from 'within the US.' ...
And by now being legally domiciled in a state, you are 'without the US' and thus not a 14th Amendment citizen with privileges instead of rights. ...
It is better for you to get out of the US and into America.
...

Please do. I recommend the border to the South.

[Dr. Caligari]

This was my explanation, a while back:

The concept of the usufruct,
I think, we find
Is neatly tucked
Somewhere within the Civil Law.
Louisiana stands in awe!
If Cajun Country's your abode,
You'll find Napoleonic Code--
Unlike the folks who live in Texas.
Over here, the only nexus
With the French that we can find
Is Cajun seafood -- we don't mind!
The English law, it works for me.
Compare the two, and you may see
A little similarity
In usufruct
And equity.

--Oct. 1, 2010.

I nominate Famspear for the title of Poet Laureate of Greater Quatloosia.

[wserra]

Peter Hendrickson has slapped Harvey (posting as "Nationwide", one of his many sockpuppets) down hard. He (Hendrickson) states the obvious: "the fact that one's receipts are or aren't paid-out as, or received in, 'lawful money' is IRRELEVANT TO THE TAX ... Don't say it again here. This is a place for accuracy, not error, and this error has been debunked so many times on these pages that I am sick of it". Hendrickson's fear: "Some number of those folks will just reason through the matter sensibly, and realize that FRNs can't have anything to do with the tax. THOSE FOLKS WILL DECIDE THAT EVERYTHING SAID BY ANYONE CONTRARY TO WHAT THEIR CPA TELLS THEM IS HOOEY". Since that would include Hendrickson Hooey™, we obviously can't have that.

Watching dueling scammers is fun.

[notorial dissent]

The thing with Hamster Dance, is that I am never entirely sure if he is really just that remarkably, staggeringly, painfully dumb, or if he is seriously and intentionally yanking the chains of the two scammeisters. Either way, it is entertaining to watch as you say.