"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[LaVidaRoja]

It's easier to believe than to think.

[wserra]

The clerk sent Weiss a notice that the Court "declined" his motion for a default judgment, and sent it to the address Weiss provided when he filed suit. Weiss returned it, with "Return to sender / Not residing here" scribbled on the envelope in red crayon. Hey, why stop at one delusion?

The Court has entered an order to show cause, returnable January 4, 2013, as to why the case should not be dismissed. I think we can reliably assume that the blog entry can be updated on January 5.

[wserra]

(1) Michael David [Cress - these guys don't believe in last names] v. Geithner, 12-cv-3442 (CAND). The complaint looks a whole lot like Lam's - virtually identical, in fact, down to the "refused for cause" notice of levy and the insistent "I am not pro se" and signature "Lawful money" on the civil cover sheet. With no proof that he had even served the summons and complaint, Cress tries to file a "default judgment". Judge Chesney of course refuses

The State of Michigan is at the point of liens/levies for unpaid taxes. So Cress sends them this. It contains a letter to the Michigan tax authorities which refers to "my suit naming Timothy Franz GEITHNER ... and subsequent default judgment against him". Cress then attaches to the letter a copy of his above "default judgment" which Judge Chesney had denied before throwing him out of her court - without, of course, ever mentioning the Court's refusal to grant it.

The whole thing is so monumentally dumb that it is unlikely that it would fool anyone. Still, if anyone cared, this is the stuff of which indictments are made. And it shows that "redeemers of lawful money" are not (at least not all) just harmless, deluded, not-too-bright rubes; they, like most TP types, are thieves.

[notorial dissent]

And which is more than ample proof that the progenitor of this tripe is anything but cute or harmless.

All of his followers are at this point certainly in a great deal of financial and legal trouble, and probably headed down the road to even further and worse before it is all over with.

[grixit]

That ought to be good for at least one count of fraud. Also, note how he claims he wants handle everything "with honor". This group has no shame!

[notorial dissent]

Except these bozos idea of honor is to claim that they don't owe anything because they did an R4C on whatever it was and it magically went away.

[webhick]

Except these bozos idea of honor is to claim that they don't owe anything because they did an R4C on whatever it was and it magically went away.

I thought these guys' idea of "honor" did not apply to their own behavior and basically meant that everyone around them has to do what they say.

[notorial dissent]

you're trying to assume that anything they say or do is supposed to make sense, when it really doesn't, there isn't really even any internal consistency.

[wserra]

Yesterday Judge Illston dismissed Weiss' case. He never responded to the Court's order to show cause (other, one supposes, than to scribble "Refused for Cause" on it in red crayon).

That's 0 for 6, with one (Lam) pending with motions to dismiss. I'll update the blog entry.

[wserra]

And we have a new couple of idiots - er, plaintiffs. Fred-Francis (Frink - see above, these guys don't believe in last names) and Mark-Edward (Hill) sue Geithner and the usual cast of thousands. 12-cv-2048 (WAWD). They file the usual gibberish "libel of review" complaint on November 26, 2012. Three weeks later - December 14, 2012 - Judge Coughenour dismisses it sua sponte for the nonsense it is.

The twist in this one is that Frink had a pending indictment (12-cr-262, WAWD) for filing a false claim for a refund in the amount of $827K - he actually received it, then (according to the govt) rushed to spend it after the IRS discovered the error and a revenue officer visited Frink to tell him that the govt would seek to recoup. The govt sought to revoke Frink's bail after the lawsuit. Frink blamed it all on Hill, with whom he lived. No honor among thieves. The judge asked Frink if there was someone else with whom he could live, and someone named Jill Lane volunteered. The govt continues the story:

The Court was reluctant to release Frink because he shared a residence with Mr. Hill. The Court asked whether Frink had any family members who could provide a place for him to stay. A woman in the audience, Jill Lane, came forward. She said that Frink was like a grandfather to her children, and offered to let him stay with her. The government strongly opposed Frink’s release, noting that Ms. Lane was the notary on Frink’s lawsuit, and that she also appeared under the certificate of service. The government asked for an opportunity to investigate whether Ms. Lane was an appropriate person to house Frink. The Court denied the request and released Frink.
The government has since learned a number of troubling facts about Ms. Lane. First, she assisted Frink with the frivolous letter that he sent to the revenue officer. Second, she received $2000 from Frink of the fraudulent proceeds of the check. Third, she drafted frivolous papers for him to send to the IRS. Fourth, she has run what appears to be an online mortgage elimination scam. Fifth, she recently was convicted of squatting in a multi-million dollar home. She sent the bank that owned the home frivolous documents purporting to purchase the home.

We have written about Jill Lane. Frink is definitely lucky to still be out.

Trial June 18 in Seattle. What all this has to do with redeeming lawful money I'm not sure, but I'm also not the one who used the Van Pelt "libel of review". The fake tax return - not in the docket - might be interesting.

One way or another, that's 0 for 7, soon to be 0 for 8.

[wserra]

And the last surviving effort at "redeeming lawful money" goes down in flames. Two days ago, Judge Snyder dismissed Lam's complaint. The entire order:

Plaintiff’s complaint is largely incomprehensible and rambling. The Court cannot discern what claims for relief it is attempting to assert, nor on what factual (sic) plaintiff seeks relief. A “complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer subject matter jurisdiction. . . .” [citations omitted]. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is proper when the federal claim is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” [citation omitted].

The manifest insubstantiality of the present complaint deprives this Court of
subject matter jurisdiction. This jurisdictional defect could not be cured by amendment.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED

In other words, Lam's complaint - the one Van Pelt provides to "redeem lawful money" - is such bullshit that it does not even give a court jurisdiction to consider the issue. That's not easy to accomplish.

That's 0 for 8. Van Pelt, Harvey, et al. have refused to provide verifiable proof of a single success, so we had to find these eight cases on our own. None left - every single one has been ignominiously dismissed, frequently sua sponte. Anyone who uses this monumentally silly idea deserves what s/he gets: liens, levies, continuously-accruing interest and penalties, a judicial determination that the position is nonsense, and no relief whatsoever.

[LPC]

The manifest insubstantiality of the present complaint deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. This jurisdictional defect could not be cured by amendment.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action with prejudice.

In other words, Lam's complaint - the one Van Pelt provides to "redeem lawful money" - is such bullshit that it does not even give a court jurisdiction to consider the issue. That's not easy to accomplish.

Yeah, I think that the court killed it dead.

Although it seems inconsistent to deny subject matter jurisdiction and then dismiss a complaint without substance "with prejudice." How would a court determine if a second incoherent complaint raised the same insubstantial claims or different insubstantial claims?

[notorial dissent]

I quite agree with you here, personally, I think the court should have said that the complaint is VOID of any grounds for subject matter jurisdiction rather than "deprives", as the court cannot not be deprived, if there was nothing there to begin with, as there most certainly wasn't. I also think the court should adopt the incomprehensible gibberish standard for sua sponte dismissal, as this certainly more than qualified.

So we are still looking at 0 for all for wonder boy and his pathetic handful of acolytes. Pretty poor showing all 'round when eight pathetic losers is the best you can manage. And they have now lost double, once because of his help, and yet again when the final s*** hammer comes down on them. Truly sad and pathetic, but inevitable.

[wserra]

Although it seems inconsistent to deny subject matter jurisdiction and then dismiss a complaint without substance "with prejudice." How would a court determine if a second incoherent complaint raised the same insubstantial claims or different insubstantial claims?

Addressing the legal issue rather than Dan's tongue in cheek comment: lack of personal jurisdiction results in a dismissal without prejudice - the plaintiff can re-bring the suit with proper service, or in a jurisdiction with which the defendant has the proper contacts. Dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, though, is typically with prejudice.

[Pottapaug1938]

If I recall correctly, Van Pelt used to say that it didn't matter whether any of his fantasy cases were dismissed or not, since the "suitor" wound up with an "evidence repository" in a real, gen-yoo-wine courthouse.

[The Observer]

If I recall correctly, Van Pelt used to say that it didn't matter whether any of his fantasy cases were dismissed or not, since the "suitor" wound up with an "evidence repository" in a real, gen-yoo-wine courthouse.

And that was because the "evidence repository" would purportedly intimidate the IRS attorneys into authorizing a refund check to be issued behind the scenes to the suitor. Of course we never got any verifiable proof of that ever happening from David, but then I was never holding my breath thinking that it would happen.

So essentially suitors have to lose in order to win, certainly a bizarre method to detax yourself. And the loss in itself is even more bizarre: essentially you don't get your day in court.

If this was baseball, the only way you could get credited with the winning home run is to be thrown out of the game before your first-at-bat. Then you would file a nonsensical appeal with the commissioner, who would surreptitiously have your statistical record updated, despite the fact that your team still is showing as having lost the game.

[notorial dissent]

Or, they could save themselves the expense, and inevitable embarrassment of making complete prats of themselves before a court, and just fork over the $50 or whatever it is that is required to open a misc file with the clerk's office, and then they would have their "evidence repository", which rhymes with suppository, and being in the same position they would be otherwise, which is to say up the creek without a paddle. And, if the clerks were actually paying attention, they would send the idjits packing thus saving them the filing fee, and they would still be in the same sorry condition they started out in.

[Pottapaug1938]

Or, they could save themselves the expense, and inevitable embarrassment of making complete prats of themselves before a court, and just fork over the $50 or whatever it is that is required to open a misc file with the clerk's office, and then they would have their "evidence repository", which rhymes with suppository, and being in the same position they would be otherwise, which is to say up the creek without a paddle. And, if the clerks were actually paying attention, they would send the idjits packing thus saving them the filing fee, and they would still be in the same sorry condition they started out in.

Just for laughs, I check out David's circle-jerk from time to time; and one of his acolytes recently complained that no file/evidence repository could be opened without an actual case being brought. Not a bad idea....

[notorial dissent]

That is supposed to be the rule, but a lot of the clerks don't seem to be following that rule, and I would suspect that the files are supposed to be closed when the case file is closed as well, another something they don't follow, which is why Merrill has gotten away with it as long as he has.

[The Observer]

And I have always suspected that David has been such a pest at the courthouse that the clerk just humors him by keeping his stuff on "file", so as to avoid having to deal with him any more than they have to.