Right question, wrong answer

[Pottapaug1938]

Over on Planet Merrill, a bewildered newbie named BarlyGurl complains thusly:

Hi... I need some help enforcing R4C's.

I have been reading for a while, there are a couple issues I haven't had an "ah-ha" moment to understand. They are "lawful money and record forming.

I am having trouble getting justice court to acknowledge my R4C's, judge ignored my fraud on the court notice and has set default judgement and sent me coercive threat letter to pay fines anyway. I could use some help please.

~Barly

David, of course, sees the drowning woman and tosses her a couple of sash weights:

Hi Barly;

It is good to Refuse for Cause any presentment, and this shows your objection clearly. Integrating record forming and even getting aside from the scope of debt action in assumpsit through redeeming lawful money can augment your right of refusal.

Wow -- I wish I had a brilliant mind like his to keep ME advised.

[Famspear]

....Integrating record forming and even getting aside from the scope of debt action in assumpsit through redeeming lawful money can augment your right of refusal.

Or, as one of my high school science teachers used to say: "All causal imputations are inferential."

Another personal favorite is: "The cost of any action or forebearance is the value of the best alternative in the set of mutually exclusive alternatives applicable thereto."

But Joe Walsh said it best: "The Smoker You Drink, the Player You Get."

[operabuff]

....Integrating record forming and even getting aside from the scope of debt action in assumpsit through redeeming lawful money can augment your right of refusal.

Or, as one of my high school science teachers used to say: "All causal imputations are inferential."

Another personal favorite is: "The cost of any action or forebearance is the value of the best alternative in the set of mutually exclusive alternatives applicable thereto."

But Joe Walsh said it best: "The Smoker You Drink, the Player You Get."

No doubt that piece of wisdom caused the Eagles to hire Walsh to replace Bernie Leadon

[Thule]

Looks more like "Right question, no answer".

DMVPs ability to put words together to resemble sentences is still strong.

[fortinbras]

I have trouble understanding the aphorisms offered by your old teacher but ...

"Refused for Cause" (R4C) has been very popular with the SovCits for more than a dozen years and the courts have adopted a simple response: The recipient is simply supposed to receive the pleading, paper, whatever. Any objection or disagreement is supposed to be submitted by him in the proper way and no other. THEREFORE, getting mail back marked up with R4C or some similar nonsense is taken as proof that the addressee did, in fact, receive the document, it did not go astray and fail to reach him. And, since his marking is proof that he received it, he is held to be on notice and to be aware of the contents of the document ... notwithstanding he marked up the envelope and sent it back unopened.

Unfortunately the fact of this judicial treatment of R4C has not been spread among the SovCits the way the nonsense advice does.

[LPC]

One of my theories is that, for every crackpot legal argument, there is an opposite and equally wrong crackpot argument.

Do "refused for cause" and "accepted for value" conform to that theory? Both seem intended to produce the same result (nullification of legal process), and yet refusal and acceptance are opposites.

[fortinbras]

R4C is, in the SovCit blogosphere, distinct from Accepted For Value (A4V) -- but the two are almost always joined at the hip and a SovCit rarely says one without the other.

Accepted for value, in the real world, is used by tradesmen to indicate that they didn't get what they wanted, what they bargained for, but instead of returning the merchandise they will do what they can with what was delivered - making it clear that the other party to the transaction disappointed them in some way and they will have to make up for it (e.g., more and/or better merchandise, some sort of refund).

In the SovCit world, they somehow think that throwing this phrase (A4V) around works some sort of nullification of official papers or proceedings or even reverse the polarity of the liabilities. It never works and so far I haven't seen an instance of a SovCit trying to articulate what he expected from claiming A4V. The courts ignore it altogether as meaningless gibberish ... it's only effect is marking the litigant as a SovCit in the eyes of the judge, which is hardly to his advantage.

[notorial dissent]

In the real world, UCC 3-501 has to do with the presentment of negotiable instruments for payment, and nothing else, and negotiable instruments are as defined in the UCC or applicable law. In the real world, the entity receiving the presentment can REFUSE (payment)FOR CAUSE, for various reason, not properly signed, no ID, conditions not met. In the sovcit world you can R4C any old thing you feel like, traffic tickets, mortgages, bills, etc, when you feel like it.

[Gregg]

Louie Louie, oh no
Me gotta go
Aye-yi-yi-yi, I said
Louie Louie, oh baby
Me gotta go


Nunc Pro Dunc Pizza Pizza ~~~