Real Men of Genius

[Nikki]

You are trying to explain a concept to someone who has not had any income for several years.

[David Merrill]

Earth to planet Merrill, earth to planet Merrill.

Other than the over riding fact that you are dead wrong along with all your other nonsense, your biggest error is your endorsement nonsense. Federal Reserve Notes CANNOT be endorsed, since they are NON ENDORSABLE, BEARER INSTRUMENTS. You can scribble all you want to and put your magic symbols all over them, and it like your life means NOTHING.

You cannot endorse, what cannot be endorsed. That is why they are called, and are legally bank notes, which means they are bearer instruments.

Your magic incantations mean nothing and cannot change a things. They were Federal Reserve Notes when they were printed, they were Federal Reserve Notes when they were sent to the bank, they were Federal Reserve Notes when they were paid out at the bank, and they remain Federal Reserve Notes when you get around to spending them.

Tax liability happens at the point of income earned, and not when of if you cash your check, and from that point you are liable for the tax regardless off what you do with your pittance. It doesn’t matter if you get paid in guinea pigs, you are liable for the value of the pigs.

No but to be fair, you are distracted by a red ink stamp. It is when somebody is cashing their paycheck that they decide to endorse or to demand lawful money.

You go ahead and squabble all you want about it. I will let a judge decide, not you. And that will never happen. Nobody who redeems lawful money with their paychecks is being challenged about it.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

When someone who has redeemed lawful money with his paycheck receives a notice or challenge from the IRS mentioning unpaid taxes, penalties, interest, and so on, how are they supposed to proceed?

Since they've already abided with the law as coached by you, how do they explain that to the IRS to prevent liens, garnishments, and so on.

What's the next step in your process for the people who are following your advice?

[David Merrill]

When someone who has redeemed lawful money with his paycheck receives a notice or challenge from the IRS mentioning unpaid taxes, penalties, interest, and so on, how are they supposed to proceed?

Since they've already abided with the law as coached by you, how do they explain that to the IRS to prevent liens, garnishments, and so on.

What's the next step in your process for the people who are following your advice?

They do not need to respond. If they provide evidence they are indeed redeeming lawful money then the filing gets flagged and goes to an agent I suppose. The agent sees it and forwards it to an attorney, I suppose. The attorney I presume understands that remedy was written into the Fed act and approves all withholdings be refunded. Therefore there is no recanting like with Pete HENDRICKSON's approach.

[notorial dissent]

No but to be fair, you are distracted by a red ink stamp. It is when somebody is cashing their paycheck that they decide to endorse or to demand lawful money.

You go ahead and squabble all you want about it. I will let a judge decide, not you. And that will never happen. Nobody who redeems lawful money with their paychecks is being challenged about it.


Regards,

David Merrill.

And, you are still dribbling nonsense. There are only two valid types of endorsement on a check, open and restricted. Neither of which have the magical quality of being able to change one thing into another. There is only one kind of currency coming out of the teller window, and it is a Federal Reserve Note. Saying your little magic incantation doesn’t alter it one little bit. You are free to continue on in your delusion, and try and convince the rest of the world that you know something they don’t, but it doesn’t alter the fact, that it, like all your other silliness is the veriest of BS.

[Nikki]

When someone who has redeemed lawful money with his paycheck receives a notice or challenge from the IRS mentioning unpaid taxes, penalties, interest, and so on, how are they supposed to proceed?

Since they've already abided with the law as coached by you, how do they explain that to the IRS to prevent liens, garnishments, and so on.

What's the next step in your process for the people who are following your advice?

They do not need to respond. If they provide evidence they are indeed redeeming lawful money then the filing gets flagged and goes to an agent I suppose. The agent sees it and forwards it to an attorney, I suppose. The attorney I presume understands that remedy was written into the Fed act and approves all withholdings be refunded. Therefore there is no recanting like with Pete HENDRICKSON's approach.

You suppose... You suppose ... You presume

How about if the IRS doesn't do as you imaging, but acts according to law -- registers a lien and then institutes collection proceedings?

You are, again, blowing smoke.

You are leading people down the path to ruin.

Just because you don't have sufficient income to have to file a return doesn't make your inanity at all useful to people who will actually pop up on the IRS radar.

Does it make you happy to know that you are ruining the lives of those who are marching down you r personal yellow brick road?

[David Merrill]

No but to be fair, you are distracted by a red ink stamp. It is when somebody is cashing their paycheck that they decide to endorse or to demand lawful money.

You go ahead and squabble all you want about it. I will let a judge decide, not you. And that will never happen. Nobody who redeems lawful money with their paychecks is being challenged about it.


Regards,

David Merrill.

And, you are still dribbling nonsense. There are only two valid types of endorsement on a check, open and restricted. Neither of which have the magical quality of being able to change one thing into another. There is only one kind of currency coming out of the teller window, and it is a Federal Reserve Note. Saying your little magic incantation doesn’t alter it one little bit. You are free to continue on in your delusion, and try and convince the rest of the world that you know something they don’t, but it doesn’t alter the fact, that it, like all your other silliness is the veriest of BS.

Like I said, you have been distracted by a little rubber stamp.

When someone who has redeemed lawful money with his paycheck receives a notice or challenge from the IRS mentioning unpaid taxes, penalties, interest, and so on, how are they supposed to proceed?

Since they've already abided with the law as coached by you, how do they explain that to the IRS to prevent liens, garnishments, and so on.

What's the next step in your process for the people who are following your advice?

They do not need to respond. If they provide evidence they are indeed redeeming lawful money then the filing gets flagged and goes to an agent I suppose. The agent sees it and forwards it to an attorney, I suppose. The attorney I presume understands that remedy was written into the Fed act and approves all withholdings be refunded. Therefore there is no recanting like with Pete HENDRICKSON's approach.

You suppose... You suppose ... You presume

How about if the IRS doesn't do as you imaging, but acts according to law -- registers a lien and then institutes collection proceedings?

You are, again, blowing smoke.

You are leading people down the path to ruin.

Just because you don't have sufficient income to have to file a return doesn't make your inanity at all useful to people who will actually pop up on the IRS radar.

Does it make you happy to know that you are ruining the lives of those who are marching down you r personal yellow brick road?

It seems to me that they might get kind of angry with me.

[Nikki]

Are you finally admitting that your theories are totally baseless and that all of the 'suitors' who have taken your advice are just out there on their own?

Or do you actually have some Plan B for people who have paid you for your advice once the IRS starts to go after them?

[The Observer]

Are you finally admitting that your theories are totally baseless and that all of the 'suitors' who have taken your advice are just out there on their own?

Or do you actually have some Plan B for people who have paid you for your advice once the IRS starts to go after them?

We have already been over this ground a couple of years ago. I asked David the same question: what would suitors have to do when the IRS failed to acknowledge the remedy the suitors had prepared and continued to levy on their bank accounts and their jobs or assets?

David, after repeated questioning, finally admitted that the suitors would have to go see the lawyer in black robes. Imagine that! One would think that remedy would be exactly that - a remedy. Instead, suitors find that they are only 1/2 way there and need to get a person, whom no sovereign citizen would ever expect to receive justice from, to give them justice. If it wasn't a matter of watching suitors spending hard-earned dollars in court filings finding out that they weren't going to get remedy, it would be a very amusing scenario. Just think, David telling them that remedy really isn't remedy until the lawyer in black robes tells them its remedy - and the judge isn't ever going to tell them it is remedy.

It seems to me that they might get kind of angry with me.

I am sure they will, once the lawyer in black robes lets them know that remedy ended before they ever got into his courtroom.

[Nikki]

I'm saving this one. As soon as his $20M action finally goes down the toilet, his statement gets posted as the closing item on his thread at Sooey, along with "Kiss the $350 goodby, suckers."

[David Merrill]

Are you finally admitting that your theories are totally baseless and that all of the 'suitors' who have taken your advice are just out there on their own?

Or do you actually have some Plan B for people who have paid you for your advice once the IRS starts to go after them?

We have already been over this ground a couple of years ago. I asked David the same question: what would suitors have to do when the IRS failed to acknowledge the remedy the suitors had prepared and continued to levy on their bank accounts and their jobs or assets?

David, after repeated questioning, finally admitted that the suitors would have to go see the lawyer in black robes. Imagine that! One would think that remedy would be exactly that - a remedy. Instead, suitors find that they are only 1/2 way there and need to get a person, whom no sovereign citizen would ever expect to receive justice from, to give them justice. If it wasn't a matter of watching suitors spending hard-earned dollars in court filings finding out that they weren't going to get remedy, it would be a very amusing scenario. Just think, David telling them that remedy really isn't remedy until the lawyer in black robes tells them its remedy - and the judge isn't ever going to tell them it is remedy.

It seems to me that they might get kind of angry with me.

I am sure they will, once the lawyer in black robes lets them know that remedy ended before they ever got into his courtroom.

Hearsay. And probably out of context.

At the very least you are speculating what the judges think of remedy - projecting what you think of remedy.

Of course Nikki is just being Nikki. I was making no such admission at all.

I'm saving this one. As soon as his $20M action finally goes down the toilet, his statement gets posted as the closing item on his thread at Sooey, along with "Kiss the $350 goodby, suckers."

You took that out of context and are too silly to know it. And I was expecting you to.

The $20M action is not ending with the clerk's case being dismissed - if indeed that is what happens. The clerk filed a civil action - not me. I am not very concerned if his case is dismissed or not. Magistrate MIX is conjuring illusions that cause is failing and it actually amplifies the cause. SAMELSON falsified the register of action. I have the register of action before I mentioned the five-year review (certified transcript), and after I mentioned it. That is on the record MIX is trying to obscure. She cannot bury the truth - it is on the record.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

Unfortunately David, yet again, is attempting to impose his procedural rules on a federal court and refuses to accept that the court has its own rules and procedures.

David filed a document, an alleged request for a writ of enforcement for a non-existant judgement, with the District Court.

The court, in its efforts to decipher his word salad, treated it as a civil suit. THe assigned magistrate judge reviewed it and recommended -- barring formal objection according to the rules of the court -- that it be dismissed.

David doesn't believe any of this actually applies to him since he never filed a civil suit, but that "The clerk filed a civil action - not me."

He will never see one cent of his baseless judgement awarded to him and, if he comtinues to press the issue, might find himself the target of criminal charges forfiling the bogus UCC claim.

[David Merrill]

Unfortunately David, yet again, is attempting to impose his procedural rules on a federal court and refuses to accept that the court has its own rules and procedures.

David filed a document, an alleged request for a writ of enforcement for a non-existant judgement, with the District Court.

The court, in its efforts to decipher his word salad, treated it as a civil suit. THe assigned magistrate judge reviewed it and recommended -- barring formal objection according to the rules of the court -- that it be dismissed.

David doesn't believe any of this actually applies to him since he never filed a civil suit, but that "The clerk filed a civil action - not me."

He will never see one cent of his baseless judgement awarded to him and, if he comtinues to press the issue, might find himself the target of criminal charges forfiling the bogus UCC claim.

That's possible. But like your presumption I have been holding my breath for the $20M it is speculation from Nikki.



The way I see it is that 18 people angry with me is 18 people too many. However 18 people who are thankful friends is a wonderful thing to have in life!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Gregg]

The way I see it is that 18 people angry with me is 18 people too many. However 18 people who are thankful friends is a wonderful thing to have in life!



Regards,

David Merrill.

Don't get your hopes up, you'll never get that many. Hell, your own daughter won't have anything to do with you, your wife left you and your mother has a restraining order against you.

[David Merrill]

The way I see it is that 18 people angry with me is 18 people too many. However 18 people who are thankful friends is a wonderful thing to have in life!



Regards,

David Merrill.

Don't get your hopes up, you'll never get that many. Hell, your own daughter won't have anything to do with you, your wife left you and your mother has a restraining order against you.

Nikki and Gregg, sitting in a tree...


I think you are both projecting. Maybe you could become friends with each other?

[David Merrill]

There are only two valid types of endorsement on a check, open and restricted.

I will show you non-endorsement. - For all that is there is signature endorsement for the demand:




That cannot be construed to be endorsement of private credit from the Fed.

[Imalawman]

There are only two valid types of endorsement on a check, open and restricted.

I will show you non-endorsement. - For all that is there is signature endorsement for the demand:




That cannot be construed to be endorsement of private credit from the Fed.

I hereby construe that to be an endorsement of private credit from the Fed. Done on this 5th day of April, 2010. Failure to agree with this assertion will result in a dishonor of my commercial vessel, resulting in $51,340,549.34 (treasury notes, not FRNs) in damages - payable upon a non-public, tendered-for-profit demand in the form of a non-public contract assumpsit.

[The Observer]

Hearsay. And probably out of context.

Not hearsay when you are the person being directly quoted and with physical evidence. Besides, hearsay is hardly something 18 angry people will be thinking of in comparison to finding out that they wasted $350 on your "lien".

At the very least you are speculating what the judges think of remedy - projecting what you think of remedy.

No speculation - I am just repeating what you told us: that remedy would need a lawyer in black robes to get the IRS off the back of the suitor.

That's possible.

Of course it is possible, the only question is if you made it clear to your donors that there was a good chance that you would not get the $20 million.

The way I see it is that 18 people angry with me is 18 people too many. However 18 people who are thankful friends is a wonderful thing to have in life!

Translation: The way I am going to explain away this loss to these angry suitors is that they should look at their $350 investment as helping out a poor guy down on his luck and how they are better humans for doing so.