Real Men of Genius

[David Merrill]

No.


The main purpose was to bring adjudication of a private agreement called endorsement into the public courts. The reason you cannot fathom that is that you see no choice but to endorse your paychecks. Non-endorsement (restricted endorsement) to you is not an option.

When people redeem lawful money they never have to go to court; ergo no precedent can be cited.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Operative]

No.

The main purpose was to bring adjudication of a private agreement called endorsement into the public courts. The reason you cannot fathom that is that you see no choice but to endorse your paychecks. Non-endorsement (restricted endorsement) to you is not an option.

When people redeem lawful money they never have to go to court; ergo no precedent can be cited.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Prove it. My statement can be backed up by Supreme Court decisions. What do you have to back up yours?

[David Merrill]

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Gary RICKMAN was obviously not redeeming lawful money.

[The Operative]

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Gary RICKMAN was obviously not redeeming lawful money.

David,

Why don't you quote the rest of the paragraph from Rickman? Since you did not, I will quote it for you...

Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

Regardless, Rickman does not support your contention that using your 'method' makes a person's income immune from income taxes. Neither does Ware.

[David Merrill]

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Gary RICKMAN was obviously not redeeming lawful money.

David,

Why don't you quote the rest of the paragraph from Rickman? Since you did not, I will quote it for you...

Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

Regardless, Rickman does not support your contention that using your 'method' makes a person's income immune from income taxes. Neither does Ware.

Gary RICKMAN endorsed private credit to obtain and use lawful money. He did not redeem lawful money as prescribed by law is his right.

[The Operative]

David,

Why don't you quote the rest of the paragraph from Rickman? Since you did not, I will quote it for you...

Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

Regardless, Rickman does not support your contention that using your 'method' makes a person's income immune from income taxes. Neither does Ware.

Gary RICKMAN endorsed private credit to obtain and use lawful money. He did not redeem lawful money as prescribed by law is his right.

As I said, the court's decision in Rickman does not support your contention. I asked you to prove your contention, you quote Rickman and Ware. Neither case supports your contention. Nowhere within Rickman does it state that he was subject to the income tax laws because he did not "redeem" lawful money. Whether a person gets paid by check, FRNs, in coins produced by the U.S. Mint, or in gold, is irrelevant to the income tax laws.

BTW, placing a stamp on a FRN is not redeeming lawful money. If that bill was redeemed for lawful money, it would not be in your possession. What you would have in its place would be coins produced for the U.S. Treasury by the U.S. Mint.

I also know what a restricted endorsement is and it doesn't shield a person from the income tax laws either.

[David Merrill]

David,

Why don't you quote the rest of the paragraph from Rickman? Since you did not, I will quote it for you...

Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

Regardless, Rickman does not support your contention that using your 'method' makes a person's income immune from income taxes. Neither does Ware.

Gary RICKMAN endorsed private credit to obtain and use lawful money. He did not redeem lawful money as prescribed by law is his right.

As I said, the court's decision in Rickman does not support your contention. I asked you to prove your contention, you quote Rickman and Ware. Neither case supports your contention. Nowhere within Rickman does it state that he was subject to the income tax laws because he did not "redeem" lawful money. Whether a person gets paid by check, FRNs, in coins produced by the U.S. Mint, or in gold, is irrelevant to the income tax laws.

BTW, placing a stamp on a FRN is not redeeming lawful money. If that bill was redeemed for lawful money, it would not be in your possession. What you would have in its place would be coins produced for the U.S. Treasury by the U.S. Mint.

I also know what a restricted endorsement is and it doesn't shield a person from the income tax laws either.


You are mistaken. The reason that Gary RICKMAN was subject to the income tax was endorsement. The law reads:

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

Remedy.

Rickman makes it clear that federal reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money; they are not lawful money in themselves. When you simply sign your demand the banks like to call that restricted endorsement. Fine - but it is a complete non-endorsement.

If Gary RICKMAN had simply non-endorsed his paychecks it would have never gotten to court. You can tell by the verbiage there, if you would only share the entire paragraph with us, that he brought in the metals as an issue.

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

Among Congress' powers is that of requiring the surrender of gold coin and gold certificates in exchange for other currency not redeemable in gold.

That is not the issue. Elastic currency cannot be imposed upon a free people. It is voluntary and the remedy was written into §16 of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.



And it is still there in full force and effect today. My clerk keeps a pile of them like you see here in the top drawer because so many people are ordering up this particular published copy.

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6127 ... lished.jpg

Call (719) 520-6200 and order a certified copy.

So I will just tell you plainly. I cannot impose remedy upon you. If you do not want it, if you really love the Fed and the funding of surrounding Iran to settle America's debt with China,* that is your choice. I think it too bad that you would intentionally fund evil like that. So I will think the best of you that you are ignorant.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* Since America created the Taliban (Osama bin LADIN) to fight the Russian Federation out of Afghanistan, this China deal is not going over very well with PUTIN.

[The Operative]

David,

Why don't you quote the rest of the paragraph from Rickman? Since you did not, I will quote it for you...

Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

Regardless, Rickman does not support your contention that using your 'method' makes a person's income immune from income taxes. Neither does Ware.

Gary RICKMAN endorsed private credit to obtain and use lawful money. He did not redeem lawful money as prescribed by law is his right.

As I said, the court's decision in Rickman does not support your contention. I asked you to prove your contention, you quote Rickman and Ware. Neither case supports your contention. Nowhere within Rickman does it state that he was subject to the income tax laws because he did not "redeem" lawful money. Whether a person gets paid by check, FRNs, in coins produced by the U.S. Mint, or in gold, is irrelevant to the income tax laws.

BTW, placing a stamp on a FRN is not redeeming lawful money. If that bill was redeemed for lawful money, it would not be in your possession. What you would have in its place would be coins produced for the U.S. Treasury by the U.S. Mint.

I also know what a restricted endorsement is and it doesn't shield a person from the income tax laws either.

You are mistaken. The reason that Gary RICKMAN was subject to the income tax was endorsement. The law reads:

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

Remedy.

I know exactly what 12 USC §411 states. It does not mean what you think it does. Placing an idiotic stamp on a bill is not redeeming the FRN for lawful money. Going to a Federal Reserve Bank and getting coins in exchange for the FRNs is redeeming FRNs for lawful money. In either case, it has no effect on the income tax laws and whether or not a person's income is subject to those laws.

Rickman makes it clear that federal reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money; they are not lawful money in themselves. When you simply sign your demand the banks like to call that restricted endorsement. Fine - but it is a complete non-endorsement.

Nonsense. First, in Rickman, the court states that there is no validity in the distinction between lawful money and legal tender. Read the first two sentences of the paragraph that you quote.

If Gary RICKMAN had simply non-endorsed his paychecks it would have never gotten to court. You can tell by the verbiage there, if you would only share the entire paragraph with us, that he brought in the metals as an issue.

Further nonsense. Rickman only claimed that Federal Reserve Notes were not lawful money under Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. That section gives Congress the power to coin money and to regulate the power thereof. The court in Ware specifically said that it was within the power of Congress to declare what was lawful money and what was legal tender. Essentially, in current use, there is no difference between the two.

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

It really is too bad that you do not understand what the court is saying.

Among Congress' powers is that of requiring the surrender of gold coin and gold certificates in exchange for other currency not redeemable in gold.

That is not the issue. Elastic currency cannot be imposed upon a free people. It is voluntary and the remedy was written into §16 of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

Nonsense. The Constitution does not limit Congress to gold and silver or currency backed by gold and silver. That section of the Federal Reserve Act was amended in 1934. That amendment removed the provision permitting redemption in gold.

And it is still there in full force and effect today. My clerk keeps a pile of them like you see here in the top drawer because so many people are ordering up this particular published copy.

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6127 ... lished.jpg

Call (719) 520-6200 and order a certified copy.

I do not need to do that when I can go to any law library and read the section for myself. I do not need a copy stamped by a clerk in El Paso County, CO to see that you do not know what you are talking about.

So I will just tell you plainly. I cannot impose remedy upon you. If you do not want it, if you really love the Fed and the funding of surrounding Iran to settle America's debt with China,* that is your choice. I think it too bad that you would intentionally fund evil like that. So I will think the best of you that you are ignorant.

Regards,

David Merrill.

* Since America created the Taliban (Osama bin LADIN) to fight the Russian Federation out of Afghanistan, this China deal is not going over very well with PUTIN.

David,

All I have asked for is proof. You do not provide it. All you provide are quotes that do not say what you think they say. You follow that by nonsensical ramblings. The only ones that are ignorant here are you and Harvester.

[Harvester]

the proof is David & I pay no income tax and have no IRS issues.

[bmielke]

the proof is David & I pay no income tax and have no IRS issues.

I don't believe you, I thought David rode a bicycle, last I knew that did not require insurance.

[Demosthenes]

the proof is David & I pay no income tax and have no IRS issues.

David doesn't have any income. Why would he have income tax issues?

[The Operative]

the proof is David & I pay no income tax and have no IRS issues.

If a person earns less than the standard deduction, then that person does not have to file and does not pay income taxes.

If a person earns more than the standard deduction, that person is required to file a return and pay any income taxes that are shown by properly filling out the return.

If a person does not file a return but would be due a refund for a portion of the federal income taxes withheld, then that person is an idiot for giving the government free money.

If a person gets paid in cash and the employer does not report the payment or is otherwise not required to, and the person does not file an income tax return or pay taxes on their income, then they are breaking the law. It is irrelevant as to whether they get caught or not. If one person kills another and the murder goes unsolved. Did the killer not commit a crime? No. The killer still committed murder and broke the law, they just were not caught and convicted.

Simply because you have not been caught or you earn less than the standard deduction, is not proof.

[Joe Dirt]

Ah yes David, Quatlosers are bereft. I think whoever is funnelling them $ for defending the offshore tax scam will soon be bankrupt. I continue to be beside myself with joy over the restoration of our country. I also note most of them have no clue about the coming tsunami.

BTW, Stevie Wonder played all instruments (including drums) on that track.

I make plenty of money and PAY NO INCOME TAX. I'm not liable for the tax. Quite simply, I redeem lawful money and the IRS has no presumptive evidence of taxable income.
(they love it when you say this David, you should try it.)

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter/TakeTheRedPill.htm

How much did Merrill charge you for the red ink stamp??

[wserra]

the proof is David & I have no income and pay no income tax and have no IRS issues.

Anyone who reads you or David will have no problem believing that.

[David Merrill]

I have no taxable income.

[notorial dissent]

Merrill continues to exhibit not only his general ignorance, but his specific ignorance with regard to money, and his incredible ignorance with regard to 12 USC §411 in specific, as well as his overall embarrassingly miserable reading comprehension skills.

Like Prattlin’ Pete who twists and contorts poor innocent little words and phrases, the Saladmeister insists that randome phrases apply to something they simply don’t.

12 USC §411 harkens back to the very early days of the FED when we had three types of currency floating around, metallic precious coin, US Notes-issued by the Treasury, and Federal Reserve Notes-issued by the FED. At the time the FED was just beginning to take on its stabilization functions, and one of those was in lending support to shaky banks by making loans to them. Even in those days that kind of a loan would not have been for small change, so a method had to be found to make the transfers relatively safe and easy. They came up with the expedient of issuing “special” Federal Reserve notes, as the law specifically says, “issued at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Board FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING ADVANCES TO FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS”, that had the appearance of regular notes but were for large dollar amounts, starting at $500 and going up from there. Now any person with a modicum of reading comprehension would have twigged to the bit about “at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Board , to conclude that there was something special about these “notes”, but not our comprehension challenged friend. Thus if an interbank loan was made it was done in this form, easily transportable, obvious as to what it was, and totally useless outside of a bank. THEY WERE NOT LEGAL TENDER, and were not legal to be possessed except by a bank. Their sole purpose was to be used to make advances to FED member banks, and to circulate between the various banks.

They were never intended, and never were available to be used by anyone outside of a bank. The “They shall be redeemed for gold on demand at the Treasury Department” part was so that the banks getting these loans could exchange the “notes” for actual currency to meet their business requirements and meant nothing more or less.

Over the course of time this ceased to be a viable function, and when someone figured out that the same effect could be achieved by the simple expedient of crediting the bank in need of a loan’s FED account with the appropriate dollar amount the same effect had been achieved, and there was not longer a need to haul large batches of paper around the country and the “Federal Reserve notes” were withdrawn and no longer used. There are still a few floating around amongst collectors, but otherwise they no longer exist.

Merrill insists that by taking a very obsolete and specifically intentioned piece of law, that doesn’t even apply to what he is arguing about, and then contorting it into his fantasy realm that he, like Pratlin’ Pete can make up in to down, and like Pete he is so very very wrong.

If Merrill and his ilk had anything resembling reading comprehension, they would have noted that the law applied ONLY to banking institutions and not individuals.

Merrill is also a proponent of only quoting the bits of rulings that says what he wants them to say, and again is wrong about what the Rickman and Ware results were. The Ware decision very plainly comes out and says that there is NO distinction between "lawful money" and "legal tender" , as far as the law is concerned. They also say quite plainly that “Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.” That couldn’t be any plainer, and there are no ands ifs or buts in that very plain statement. Contrary to what Merrill wants to claim, the court came right out and said. He obtained and used lawful money. i.e. the Federal Reserve Notes.

Merrill also likes to pretend that the liability for income tax happens when the check is cashed, and again is wrong, since the liability for tax occurs when the income is “earned”, not received, so his magic incantation is just so much more nonsense.

[David Merrill]

Eloquently put. The income tax is a Fed bank's requirement (irrecusable obligation) to file a return on the use of the private credit.

I explain it so most people can understand:

Public Money v. Private Credit

And maybe a little more clearly:

Federal Reserve Act - Remedy


The purpose of buying a certified copy from my clerk is a verified way of proving you wrong on that one point. The remedy is not obsolete. It will not be obsolete until the Fed is.

Merrill insists that by taking a very obsolete and specifically intentioned piece of law, that doesn’t even apply to what he is arguing about, and then contorting it into his fantasy realm that he, like Pratlin’ Pete can make up in to down, and like Pete he is so very very wrong.

It is current and in full force and effect. The videos go well with popcorn.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Operative]

Eloquently put. The income tax is a Fed bank's requirement (irrecusable obligation) to file a return on the use of the private credit.

Nonsense. The Federal Reserve cares not one wit whether individuals file income tax returns or not.

I explain it so most people can understand:

Public Money v. Private Credit

The only thing that you illustrate is exactly how poorly your brain functions.

And maybe a little more clearly:

Federal Reserve Act - Remedy

I have told you that you do not understand the purpose behind that section or what redeeming Federal Reserve Notes really is.

The purpose of buying a certified copy from my clerk is a verified way of proving you wrong on that one point. The remedy is not obsolete. It will not be obsolete until the Fed is.

It proves nothing. Your image of the "certified" copy says exactly what the copy in a law library says. Unfortunately, you do not understand what it means.

Merrill insists that by taking a very obsolete and specifically intentioned piece of law, that doesn’t even apply to what he is arguing about, and then contorting it into his fantasy realm that he, like Pratlin’ Pete can make up in to down, and like Pete he is so very very wrong.

It is current and in full force and effect. The videos go well with popcorn.

I never said it wasn't and I did not make the statement that you quote. However, as I have said many times, the section does not mean what you think it does.

Also, as I have asked for many times, provide some proof that your idiotic definition works and shields everyone who follows it from the income tax laws. So far, you haven't even come close to providing any such proof. All we get from you is more ramblings stating the same thing over and over. Stating that you do not pay income taxes is not proof either. It is the same as Hendrickson's followers receiving refunds. That is not proof that Hendrickson is correct. What is proof, that can be verified, are the court cases explaining how wrong Hendrickson is.

[David Merrill]

You are ignorant or practicing protectionism; I suspect the latter.

The proof is simply that the law exists in full force and effect. Furthermore people getting withholdings refunded without any further process is evidence. It is better that you consider me in error though, you sound like a real Quatloser. Just don't think we failed to note that you were trying to convince us that the law was antiquated, and now you are trying to tell us that it is being misapplied - that it only applies to banks! Exactly - the issuance of private credit is only to fed banks alright. In 1933 that was opened up to everybody, including individuals by HJR-192.



There you have it! Entitled to redeem his federal reserve note.

[The Operative]

You are ignorant or practicing protectionism; I suspect the latter.

The proof is simply that the law exists in full force and effect.

The only one ignorant here is you, David. You claim that following your method results in a person not having to pay federal income taxes. All I ask for is proof. You have not provided it. Stating that a section of the law is in full force and effect is not proof. Especially when that section does not mean what you think it means.

Furthermore people getting withholdings refunded without any further process is evidence.

Yes, it is evidence that the IRS did not immediately catch the fraud being committed by those persons. It is not evidence or proof that your idiotic theory works.

It is better that you consider me in error though, you sound like a real Quatloser. Just don't think we failed to note that you were trying to convince us that the law was antiquated, and now you are trying to tell us that it is being misapplied - that it only applies to banks! Exactly - the issuance of private credit is only to fed banks alright. In 1933 that was opened up to everybody, including individuals by HJR-192.

Once again, I did not say the law was antiquated. You are attributing another person's post to me. Go back and read my posts. I also never said the law was being misapplied. What I said was the law does not mean what you think it means.

There you have it! Entitled to redeem his federal reserve note.

I never said that someone could not redeem a FRN. However, placing a stamp on a FRN is not redeeming it. As I have said before, a person redeems an FRN when they either go to a Federal Reserve Bank or the U.S. Treasury in Washington and exchange the note for coins.

In fact, in Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (1974), the case that you did not adequately cite, Milam wanted to redeem a Federal Reserve Bank Note. Federal Reserve Bank Notes are different from Federal Reserve Notes. Milam contended that the note could only be redeemed in gold and silver coin. The court simply states that he is not entitled to redeem the note in precious metal. However, he can redeem the bank note for the equivalent face value in FRNs or whatever form of currency the Federal Reserve Bank decides is equivalent.

Once again, I ask for proof that your method shields a person from having to file income taxes. You have not provided it yet.