Tim Turner, can someone tell me about him?

[BullsLawDan]

I'm defending ... well, reality, i guess... on another message board (populistforum.com), and someone keeps referring to this tim turner guy, saying he's got "liens" on "judges" and they're scared to find against him because he threatens to take their property.

Anyone know anything about him? From what I can tell he offers "Redemption Method" seminars and other UCC stuff. Anyone have good refutations for his BS?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Welcome to Quatloos, Dan!

Universally, the promoters of these myths cannot demonstrate conclusively with legitimate proof or, as David Van Pelt is so famous for doing, they leave off "the rest of the story" where the perpetrator was convicted, fined, etc., or when that doesn't work, they simply make stuff up.

Anecdotal "evidence" is their stock in trade, or as mentioned, people like Van Pelt will go to inordinate lengths to concoct documents - a few of which are worth the time to get a laugh.

All you can do is try to cajole them into actually providing proof - which they can't do so you'll get a flurry of nanner-nanner-boo-boo responses.

[BullsLawDan]

Yes, I'm very familiar with that M.O.

In fact, they've already moved on from this Tim Turner guy and are now saying that Michael Benoit is their guy...

[Prof]

Shorthand refutations:

The "all caps" name: So what. Nothing in any case or in the UCC or any other statute creates a "straw man" or nominee or fictitious person if the human being's name is printed in all capital letters. The refutation is show me the law, the case, etc., where this worked.

The UCC liens: These folks frequently file UCC-1's creating a secured creditor relationship between the human (Large and lower case spelling) and the strawman (all caps). First, a naked UCC-1 creates nothing; there must be another document called a security agreement; then value must be advance and the debtor must receive possession of the collateral before a UCC-1 perfects a lien. Since the all caps and upper and lower case persons are the same (see above), then even if all of the steps are talken, the doctrine of merger applies and the lien is subsumed into ownership and no longer exists. The doctrine of merger, which says you can't take a lien on stuff you own, applies in all states and the District of Columbia.

UCC signtures: All rights reserved, etc. These can be used, but if there are no rights nothing is reserved. Also, a signature ordinarily does not release rights unless it is a signature on a release document.

UCC negotiable instrument law: The gurus always get this wrong. Art. 3 is fairly complicated but in concept is simple: it creates a statute to control the use of promises to pay, which are called "notes," but only applies to those promises that meet the definition of "negotiable instrument." A negotiable instrument is, among other things, a written and unconditional promise to pay a sum certain (e.g., princ. plus interest) either on demand or on a date certain, in currency or specie as set out in the note.

Redemption often focuses on some alleged Treasury Account that all Americans own; there is no such thing.

Redemption often focues on some sort of argument about whether Federal Reserve Notes are money. They are.

Redemption theory makes no sense -- it is illogical.

Redemption theory sometimes focuses upon the bankruptcy of the US. The US is not in a bankruptcy proceeding, since there is nothing in title 11 that would let the US file absent, at the very least, enabling legislation from Congress. Bankruptcy is governed solely by federal law (see the US Const.). Therefore, without enabling legislation, title 11, chapter 9 will not admit the US or one of its wholly owned corporate entitites like the USPS.

I could go on and on, but I find redemption and the UCC as promulgated on the net too hard to understand and too stupid to follow.

[BullsLawDan]

Helpful, thank you.

I get what you're saying. I'm just trying to make what you're saying make sense to them. I'm about to give up.

Shame, really. If all these nuts could direct their energies towards reality, we could get real change in this country.

[David Merrill]

There is one redemption theory that makes sense to me;

It is §16 of the Federal Reserve Act codified at Title 12 U.S.C. §411. By law one is not obligated to endorse private credit from the Fed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

Keeping in mind as the charters (20 years) for the Fed expired, FDR saved the Fed by allowing private individuals to contract too.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... notes.html

This involves the word redemption and is therefore the only redemption process sanctioned by law. It simply involves replacing your bond for the elastic currency of the Fed with obligations direct from the US Treasurer.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2516&hl=en


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Prof]

Re: DVMP

Pfui.

[David Merrill]

It should be noted that JRB and Prof, neither of them can even get my name correct when it is right there in front of them.

I like this part though:

UCC negotiable instrument law: The gurus always get this wrong. Art. 3 is fairly complicated but in concept is simple: it creates a statute to control the use of promises to pay, which are called "notes," but only applies to those promises that meet the definition of "negotiable instrument." A negotiable instrument is, among other things, a written and unconditional promise to pay a sum certain (e.g., princ. plus interest) either on demand or on a date certain, in currency or specie as set out in the note.

That is worth considering carefully. Additionally consider my Signature here on the forum.

Best though is that I supplied a federal citation that says:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

And all Prof has to say about that fact is pfui?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

"Pfui" refers to your understanding, interpretation, analysis, and presentation -- not the underlying facts.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[Quixote]

BullsLawDan seeems to have offended Kokomojojo by asking for evidence to support any one of the numerous paytriot myths he has been spouting.

I struck a nerve, or 3, and this is only the beginning of a long line of bullshit dans to come. Been there done that bought the t shirt.

Some fucktard that never saw the inside of a court in his life. just here to turn this into a pissin contest as you can tell by his language.

So I am back to the private side within my own venue of people who work together to battle it out in courts. (where "we" believe it counts most) We have been fortunate to have fairly good success throughout the country.

I dont know what got into me to think I could take this public. LOL

Until now this has been a very cordial and enjoyable group! Its been a pleasure and for those who are interested I left you a great trail to do your own research and if you hit the materials hard in 6 months to a year you will be ready to kick some booty yourselves. When people get to that point they seem to stumble across one of our groups.

Now that Bullshit dan has shown up to lift his leg and do his patriotic duty by turning this into an shit fest with his fluent use of bottom shelf propaganda buzz words I am out of here to preserve the dignity of this board and its respectable members.

Its been wonderful meeting you all.

Good luck to you all with your party interests. You have a good group, and like the constitution, "if you can keep it"

[Doktor Avalanche]

I love this one from jennings:

You're not as good as you think you are, Dan. Your argument might convince one of the sitting Supreme Court Justices, since they seem to be clueless in the first place, but you're not going to convince anyone with a brain.

Just...wow. I thought Sooey had the corner on village idiots.

[The Observer]

You're not as good as you think you are, Dan. Your argument might convince one of the sitting Supreme Court Justices, since they seem to be clueless in the first place, but you're not going to convince anyone with a brain.

That is an incredible statement on its face - the idiot is actually validating that the top court of the land is likely to rule against their arguments, yet still thinks that somehow keeping the pursuit up is going to result in success.

[BullsLawDan]

The forum (populistforum.com) appears to be on life support. Apparently, it started with a bang, new party and all that, and then devolved into numerous bogus government theories and tinfoil-hat nonsense, and now there's like 2-3 guys posting there. I think if ignored it will descend into the nothingness that is expired domain names.

[Pottapaug1938]

You're not as good as you think you are, Dan. Your argument might convince one of the sitting Supreme Court Justices, since they seem to be clueless in the first place, but you're not going to convince anyone with a brain.

That is an incredible statement on its face - the idiot is actually validating that the top court of the land is likely to rule against their arguments, yet still thinks that somehow keeping the pursuit up is going to result in success.

That's an essential part of their bulldada. While their cases are still moving through the court system, they cling to their stupid hypotheses because they have nothing better to raise in their defense. Then, when they lose once and for all, they proclaim victory because 1) the courts are too stupid, corrupt and cowardly to address their assertions directly 2) the court was too scared to rule in their favor, 3) the courts are corrupt, and/or 4) the courts are not validly constituted and a court that was so constituted would see that they are right in what they say. They just can't get in through their heads that their positions go down in flames because there is nothing at all to them; and to paraphrase the quote we see here from time to time, "to address these contentions might suggest that they have any merit at all".

[Demosthenes]

Turner was indicted on 09/12/12 and arrested on 09/18/12.

[fortinbras]

Evidently Turner was arrested yet again in the first week of this month:

http://www.southeastsun.com/news/articl ... f6878.html
.... for nonpayment of taxes and for lying in a bankruptcy court proceeding.

According to this, he faces a maximum of 164 years in prison, but I think if I were his lawyer, he'd get only half of that.

[Famspear]

Jury selection currently scheduled for March 18, 2013 in Dothan, Alabama, with the trial to be held in Montgomery immediately after the jury is selected.

[fortinbras]

It turns out that the trial is moved to the Montgomery courthouse because it is more secure and there were worries that that some people involved with Turner - either with RuSA or his tax dodging or something else - might try to stage a jailbreak.

[fortinbras]

The RuSA website is posting Turner's pleadings in his criminal case (not the prosecution papers, yet),

http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.or ... documents/

Short observation: Out of the entire RuSA organization - which hints at having thousands of members - not only real lawyer has stepped up to help Turner. Nor even a good paralegal. Turner's stuff is a rehash of Sovrun and Militia nonsense and not only will not help him in court, but effectively shows the prosecution that he is utterly helpless. Turner is facing a possible maximum of 164 years of prison, not a good time to go bareback. Even if you think that Public Defenders or Legal Aid lawyers are stumblebums, they could get Turner a better outcome than he is clearly going to get on his own.

[notorial dissent]

I think Jimmy Tim has already pretty well guaranteed he is going down with the ship by climbing up in to the crow's nest after having set the powder magazine a light.

I don't know if it is pyrrhic, vanity, or just good old fashioned stupidity, but he does have it in abundance, whatever it is.