PDA

View Full Version : Diminished Money Counterclaim



David Merrill
04-12-13, 02:01 AM
This form of counterclaim may be very interesting very soon!

Bentley
04-16-13, 05:11 PM
Hi David,

Is this counterclaim still valid?

Thanks,
Bentley

David Merrill
04-17-13, 04:00 AM
Hi David,

Is this counterclaim still valid?

Thanks,
Bentley


Look at the date.

David Merrill
05-09-13, 02:24 AM
Another new suitor in the brain trust filed the new counterclaim and the judge is moving to dismiss it as hypothetical. - Meaning since the Treasury has not refused his Refund he has not actually been injured. So he went to the coin shop and paid probably $12 for a $5 US note. Then he went to the store with a witness and they filled out affidavits that they could get no more than $5 worth of merchandise for the US note! Now he has proven the injury from pegging the US note (not to be a reserve currency) to the value of FRN's, a reserve currency...

(Re: Bourne Supremacy: You can't make this stuff up!)



> To: David Merrill
> Subject: US Note actions
>
> I purchased a 5 dollar us note, and i am going to spend it today in the
> action we spoke of. I am preparing the affidavit now. I am planning on
> taking it up to Capital City tomorrow. Is the other document ready? I forget
> what you called it, but the explanation of the action described in the
> affidavit. I will need to get moving early to get everything accomplished
> in time.
USDC for the District of State
Memorandum of Law Case #3:13-cv-123 ABC




I am First Middle of the NOMEN family and I have been injured financially by machinations causing the US note to be pegged to the Federal Reserve note in value.

My $5 US note should have bought me $100 worth of merchandise as I spent it on Thursday 4/23/13. This is calculated against the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements (Public Law 94-564) among other historical facts. [International earmark for gold – the IMF Trust Fund is $42.22/troy ounce.] This injury is laid out plainly in the civil suit complaint. US notes cannot be utilized in any way as reserve currency.

It is incorrect to say that I have only been injured hypothetically. The Federal Reserve System has injured me in substance and fact for my entire adult working life. Now that I redeem lawful money and only have Federal Reserve notes available I find that the lawful money I demand by right is depreciated in value by fractional lending just like reserve currency from the Fed.


Sincerely,

bobbinville
05-09-13, 02:32 AM
Isn't there a difference between numismatic value and the value of a piece of currency? I've got some US Notes; but there's no way that I would ever spend them because of their value as a collectible item.

David Merrill
05-12-13, 02:14 AM
Isn't there a difference between numismatic value and the value of a piece of currency? I've got some US Notes; but there's no way that I would ever spend them because of their value as a collectible item.


Good thinking! I believe that the US note is a valid currency with numismatic value. - Rather unique I believe.

I want to relay my joy and excitement with suitor Crosstalk:




Full federal refund of redeemed lawful money received today!



Needless to say, although i know it doesnt mean they wont try to bully me later, i am extremely happy right now.



Also, i havent gotten the pacer thing yet, has there been anyhing happening with the case? I saw where you floated it to the bt about a possible class action.





I am supposing by my wording below that you all understand I mean there is a remote possibility we might keep the cause going by moving forward as a class. The objective was to get the Refund so all is good.



I believe the judge may take about ten days to rule about whether there is any cause and jurisdiction now that the US note injury is proven. The Order (below) keeps growing on me, subtle revelation after subtle revelation. – Mostly that the judge did not take the opportunity to try declaring Redeeming Lawful Money some kind of legal gibberish or even misapplied!



Also – correct me if I am wrong – sometimes I falter on details. I believe this Return was filed with the Secretary in Washington DC? No! I am sorry – the LoR [Complaint/Counterclaim] was sent to a major IRS Campus [Too]. Which is significant anyway! The 1040 Form was inside the Law Suit itself. So the IRS agents and attorneys processed the 1040 form inside the filed Diminished Money Counterclaim attached. That is quite remarkable!





Regards,


David Merrill.

bobbinville
05-14-13, 12:49 AM
Good thinking! I believe that the US note is a valid currency with numismatic value. - Rather unique I believe.

Actually, I have FRNs, Silver Certificates (from whence my avatar), Gold Certificates, and National Currency in my collection, all with numismatic value.

I have also spent USNs; but they are only legal tender for their face value. No store clerk or store manager is going to listen to any argument otherwise.

David Merrill
05-18-13, 08:57 AM
This form of counterclaim may be very interesting very soon!


Here is some interesting Crosstalk:



ORDER. The Court dismisses this action for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's 7 Response to the Order to Show Cause fails to demonstrate that he can satisfy the case and controversy requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. To meet this requirement, Plaintiff must establish that he has "standing to sue." Town of Babylon v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 699 F.3d 221, 228 (2d Cir. 2012). One element of standing is "injury-in-fact,"


The “Judge” in the matter has failed to recognize the suitor spending a $5 US Note at the face value of a Fed note is “injury in fact”.



However the “Judge” will not supply any order or documentation in the mail for our suitor to Refuse for Cause from his authority as the court of record. In other words the “judge” has no authority because he will not produce a record. The suitor receives nothing in the mail because the “Judge” has not generated any paper!



I wonder if we are witness to a new slang – Judicial Cowardice?



I feel like writing up a Notice of Judicial Cowardice for the suitor to file into the case and see if the clerk of court will publish it on PACER?

David Merrill
05-18-13, 02:23 PM
P.S. There might be another reason this suitor does not have standing to sue. All the Libels of Review are dismissed out as gibberish but if one reads Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph VINING it is revealed that one coming to court in his or her true name lacks standing except as a class action.

I have been toying with the idea that people (suitors) who know their names and redeem lawful money might salvage this case as a class?

Which is why it is so frustrating that the cowardly judge will not generate the Order. What shows up on PACER is nothing but a clerk generated rumor.

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 12:14 AM
I have gone to great length on the "Do 1099's need rebuttal" thread about contesting every nexus of taxation so as to avoid frivolous return hassles, because up to now, the protocol for using lawful money redemption to avoid taxation seemed to be: file a 1040 as you otherwise would, claim deduction for lawful money on your tax return, and hopefully get refund. As a CTC graduate, I have been down the road before of using an "easy" method of getting 100% refunds, only to have them come after me later. Eventually, they rejected all such filings as frivolous and I now have about $80,000 in frivolous penalties they are trying to collect from me.

I am confused as to what happened here. Did this suitor receive a full tax refund in response to simply filing his counterclaim and serving the Treasury with their copy?
Did he file a tax return with an IRS center as well?

David Merrill
05-23-13, 03:24 PM
He filed the Diminished Money Counterclaim in federal court for $350. That is now dismissed because the judge could see no injury around the $5 US note. The suitor, upon filing in the USDC filed his original 1040 wet ink Form with the IRS campus as usual but it was an attachment inside the DMC.

He got a full refund in record time.

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 04:03 PM
He filed the Diminished Money Counterclaim in federal court for $350. That is now dismissed because the judge could see no injury around the $5 US note. The suitor, upon filing in the USDC filed his original 1040 wet ink Form with the IRS campus as usual but it was an attachment inside the DMC.

So just to be clear, only the 1040 was filed with the IRS campus? Or was IRS campus served with the DMC with 1040 attached? Do you think the refund was issued quickly by IRS so that the suitor could not claim any injury?

He got a full refund in record time.
By full refund, do you mean he got all FICA withholding as well?

David Merrill
05-24-13, 01:30 PM
By full refund, do you mean he got all FICA withholding as well?

I doubt he would have claimed any of that on the 1040 Form.

Freed Gerdes
06-07-13, 03:36 AM
Line 69 of the Form 1040 is "Excess Social Security taxes...". If he claimed all SS taxes paid were 'excess,' this sum goes to total taxes paid, which would increase the refund by that amount. So it seems that SS taxes could be redeemed and refunded on a Form 1040. I have not tried it myself; anyone comment here?

Freed G

Brian
06-07-13, 04:37 AM
Line 69 of the Form 1040 is "Excess Social Security taxes...". If he claimed all SS taxes paid were 'excess,' this sum goes to total taxes paid, which would increase the refund by that amount. So it seems that SS taxes could be redeemed and refunded on a Form 1040. I have not tried it myself; anyone comment here?

Freed G

The 6% SSA tax paid on your behalf by your employer is a "special" income tax MEASURED by your wages. So if you did not engage in that "special" activity (being paid in money substitutes ala FR credits) you would be entitled to a refund of that tax. However your employer would still have to pay their 6% because their end is taxed on the activity of hiring an employee(s) (aka: employer-employee relationship) again MEASURED by the employees wages. I think Medicare and O'Care function in similar manners.

David Merrill
06-07-13, 01:17 PM
I believe those questions are answered in the thread here.

ManOntheLand
06-07-13, 08:16 PM
I believe those questions are answered in the thread here.

A suitor may be entitled to FICA refund, but I think it will likely cause problems with Auntie if you claim it on a 1040. I would leave that off a 1040 and use a Form 843 if you want to claim refund of FICA.

When I used to file CTC returns, Hendrickson's method called for the FICA withholding to be included with "income tax" withholding on the line for "federal tax withheld". The reasoning is that it is all federal tax anyway. However, including FICA withholding in the total federal tax withheld on a 1040 is a good way to get your return sent to Ogden (frivolous return program) as it will appear to the IRS return processor that you are demanding more income tax back than was withheld. When I showed a former IRS attorney one of my successful CTC returns, even he was stunned that I actually got a refund of FICA.

According to the 1040 instructions, the "excess FICA" line is intended only for those who worked multiple jobs and ended up having more FICA withheld than would be normal. It is not intended for you to treat all FICA withholding as excess.

I understand that 1040 returns with an LMR deduction actually acknowledge payment of wages (unlike CTC returns) and do not claim zero income per se. But even if IRS accepts your 1040 with an LMR deduction to zero out your taxable income, they will probably have a problem with you claiming a FICA refund on 1040.

Form 843 is the proper form for making a refund claim of FICA, and all they can do is give it to you or refuse it--843 forms are not subject to frivolous penalties. According to the 843 instructions, you are supposed to ask your employer to refund the FICA first, then file 843 if they refuse. I suppose you could skip dealing with the employer and explain on Form 843 that you were not comfortable approaching your employer about it.

After two years of successfully getting FICA refund from my CTC 1040 returns, I finally had a return that was rejected and determined to be frivolous--but later I submitted the same return with only one difference--I did not include FICA amounts in the total tax withheld. That return was accepted and processed.

David Merrill
06-07-13, 08:27 PM
I think you are disingenuous.

ManOntheLand
06-07-13, 10:17 PM
I think you are disingenuous.

Here we go again. How have I offended you this time? Perhaps we can more efficiently work through ideas here if we refrain from attacking each other's motives and focus on the ideas. Or is it just easier to attack me? How are you any better than the Quatloos folks when you resort to such tactics?

What is it you disagree with exactly? The suggestion to use an 843 to claim FICA refund? Or the idea that a suitor is entitled to a refund of FICA in the first place?

I am not sure if a suitor is entitled to refund of FICA or not. But I am pretty sure it is a bad idea to claim such a refund on 1040. I don't want to find out I am not entitled to FICA refund by getting hit with a frivolous return penalty. Thus the 843 suggestion. To be honest, I have not tried it myself. I can tell you that an otherwise frivolous return suddenly became not a frivolous return to IRS when I removed the claim for FICA refund.

I believe you have expressed your position that FICA is a legitimate tax, so maybe that's the problem?

My mental model is this: I believe FICA is legitimate only to the extent there is a transfer with respect to "employment" i.e. a trade or business within the U.S. Based on what I have learned here, other than payment from the employer being a transfer of FRN's, how would a private sector job be a "trade or business within the U.S."?

The employer is liable for the employment taxes. Employer pays half of it, and withholds the other half from your paycheck. On the employer's end, he is taxed for the transfer of FRN's to the employee. On the employee's end it is a tax based on the amount of FRN's being received. If the suitor redeems all such payments for lawful money, then the suitor has not in fact received any "wages" that would subject the suitor to FICA tax.

In any case, I cannot be compelled to participate in FICA. I cannot even be compelled to give the employer a SSN. He may be required to ask for one. He cannot be penalized if I do not provide one. He may be required to withhold FICA regardless. But if I did not provide a number it is pretty clear I am not trying to contribute to SS, and I have every right to a refund of those amounts. Am I missing something?

I really am here to learn. And to share my experiences and conclusions. If you object to what I said, I am all ears.

David Merrill
06-08-13, 08:13 AM
I think it might behoove you to read the thread again.

This new method also builds the suitor into position of the court of record. This is accomplished through building an evidence repository. Pete does not stand on the law and therefore even if he did use an evidence repository all that would do is indict the taxpayer.

John Howard
06-08-13, 05:52 PM
Pete does not stand on the law...

Maybe my interpretation is not quite right. Pete says to the effect wages are earned by those people over there. I opened up my trusty 1983 copy of the Internal Revenue Code and read where it says wages are earned by those people over there. Perhaps I should interpret it to mean wages are earned by everyone, without exception, plus those people over there.

ManOntheLand
06-08-13, 07:00 PM
Maybe my interpretation is not quite right. Pete says to the effect wages are earned by those people over there. I opened up my trusty 1983 copy of the Internal Revenue Code and read where it says wages are earned by those people over there. Perhaps I should interpret it to mean wages are earned by everyone, without exception, plus those people over there.

The Code is written deceptively, no doubt. But based on what I have learned here, it is the transfer of FRN's that confers an actual "trade or business within the United States" nexus to otherwise private sector employment. Pete does not recognize this nexus (in fact he has disparaged this idea) and therefore Pete is left to conclude that the tax scheme as applied to private sector workers lacks any real legal basis, and depends entirely on false paperwork the worker is forced to sign to create the illusion he is working in the public sector. It turns out everybody being paid wages in FRN's is receiving "wages" under IRC 3401 and 3121. The argument about what "includes" means becomes irrelevant if you realize that you are actually one of those "people over there" due to the FRN's.

John Howard
06-08-13, 10:27 PM
Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established.

I have been searching for the red line, which Auntie IRiS can not cross for thirty years. I thought I had found it in Pete's books. I thought I had found it previously. Only for the last two years has Auntie been nice to me. I think I found the red line.

David Merrill
06-10-13, 12:43 PM
Now Pete's wife is indicted (http://cheatingfrenzy.com/doreenindictment.pdf) - but for contempt of court. A slam-dunk that has nothing to do with the merits of Cracking the Code.

Pete's method depends exclusively on the Right to be Heard - the inverse of denying access to the courts in an administrative setting. The IRS re-assesses based on a 1099 or W-4 Form. There is no law behind any defense. Pete's defense is to banish anybody who attempts to warn others from his Lost Horizons website. There are gobs of people in trouble who would like to remove their Treasury Check Refund from his website who cannot.

John Howard
06-10-13, 05:38 PM
What a shame. She is to be punished for NOT committing perjury. The feds should be required to say " you are wrong in your testimony, and here is why." But then the cat would be out of the bag.

David Lyn
06-10-13, 07:07 PM
It is disgusting. Provide testimony you don't believe or go to jail

Chex
06-26-13, 01:33 PM
P.S. There might be another reason this suitor does not have standing to sue. All the Libels of Review are dismissed out as gibberish but if one reads Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph VINING it is revealed that one coming to court in his or her true name lacks standing except as a class action.

I have been toying with the idea that people (suitors) who know their names and redeem lawful money might salvage this case as a class?

Which is why it is so frustrating that the cowardly judge will not generate the Order. What shows up on PACER is nothing but a clerk generated rumor.

There you go (Two) people, Legal Identity and true name.

How many people are needed to bring a class action? By: LawInfo
A single person who has been injured may bring a class action on behalf of everyone who has been harmed. It is common, however, after the action has been started for many other injured people to join the class suit. In some situations, there may be a minimum number of class members specified by law in order for the lawsuit to proceed as a class action. http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/legal-faqs/class-action/federal/how-many-people-are-needed-to-bring-a-class-a.html

In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(d).[1]

Class actions may be brought in federal court if the claim arises under federal law, or if the claim falls under 28 USCA § 1332(d). Under § 1332(d) (2) the federal district courts have original jurisdiction over any civil action where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and
• any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant; or
• any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or
• any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state.[2]

Nationwide plaintiff classes are possible, but such suits must have a commonality of issues across state lines. This may be difficult if the civil law in the various states lack significant commonalities. Large class actions brought in federal court frequently are consolidated for pre-trial purposes through the device of multidistrict litigation (MDL).[3]

It is also possible to bring class actions under state law, and in some cases the court may extend its jurisdiction to all the members of the class, including out of state (or even internationally) as the key element is the jurisdiction that the court has over the defendant.

The ancestor of the class action was what modern observers call "group litigation," which appears to have been quite common in medieval England from about 1200 onward.[10] These lawsuits involved groups of people either suing or being sued in actions at common law.

These groups were usually based on existing societal structures like villages, towns, parishes, and guilds. What is striking about these early cases is that unlike modern courts, the medieval English courts never questioned the right of the actual plaintiffs to sue on behalf of a group or a few representatives to defend an entire group.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 addresses these concerns. Coupon settlements may be scrutinized by an independent expert before judicial approval in order to ensure that the settlement will be of value to the class members (28 U.S.C.A. 1712(d)).

Further, if the action provides for settlement in coupons (LOL Federal Reserve Notes :rolleyes:), the attorney must take a corresponding part of his fee in coupons (i.e. More Federal Reserve Notes). 28 U.S.C.A. 1712(a). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action

Good advice: Send notices to all potential plaintiffs of the class action suit. You (and your attorney) are responsible for doing this in a timely manner. The defendants must provide any names and addresses you request. Ask your legal team to publish your notices in national publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal so you can reach more potential plaintiffs. http://www.ehow.com/how_7697816_start-class-action-lawsuit.html

Punitive damages are a form of punishment for the company committing the illegal acts, or causing harm. Punitive damages in large lawsuits can be particularly high, when it is demonstrated the company has shown great disregard for the health, safety or emotional well being of the plaintiffs. http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-class-action-lawsuit.htm

David Merrill
06-26-13, 02:20 PM
Thanks for this research. It agrees with my source on it, another perspective; Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph VINING.

I proposed this to the brain trust but was not very encouraging about it. For years I have considered myself (in brain trust with hundreds of suitors) to be regulating carefully controlled release valves for the highly compressed information infrastructure called "money". Debt has no value but what you can fool people into believing it has. If the paper were backed like US notes allegedly still are then that myth would have a little redemption value. If everybody found out and would give it some consideration - that debt through endorsement is the only value of the money system globally - then the entire thing would collapse, implode, overnight.

That would be thrilling for me to watch, world events coinciding exactly with my/our orchestrations but I do not want to be prodded into it by my fascination about the power. There is also the factor how we see what we are expecting and that is not very scientific so I want to try this when there are enough stable controls in the system that I can be confident it is indeed suitor class action at play.

This bill of exchange is still going unchallenged (http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8445/billofexchange.pdf), even though it came to judgment on September 11, 2001 after 30-Day Default. Even so, this claim on the original estate serves only as a crutch (Step 3: Instructions at the end (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf)) until the suitor begins to understand a little more about the transfer of authority (metaphysics (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_la metaphysique.jpg)).

ManOntheLand
06-30-13, 08:10 PM
Perhaps a lawsuit for fraud could be made against the United States for using the word "dollar" on its notes, when the dollar is defined in federal law as a given weight of gold, and U.S. Notes by law cannot be redeemed for gold?

You would have to ask the Secretary to give you "dollars" i.e. gold corresponding with the amount of United States "dollars" on the bills you present, and sue for fraud if they refuse to give you "dollars".

The Federal Reserve seems to define a "dollar" as nothing more than a dollar U.S. Note. But the U.S. defines a dollar even today as a given weight of gold.

David Merrill
07-01-13, 12:52 AM
There is probably a long history of denials of culpability on many such cases. I think mainly that there is no definition for "money of account" by Congress - something of that sort.

shikamaru
07-01-13, 06:43 PM
Perhaps a lawsuit for fraud could be made against the United States for using the word "dollar" on its notes, when the dollar is defined in federal law as a given weight of gold, and U.S. Notes by law cannot be redeemed for gold?


Actually, a dollar has to do with weight in silver, not gold.

ManOntheLand
07-01-13, 07:01 PM
Actually, a dollar has to do with weight in silver, not gold.

While this was true initially, it is no longer so. On March 14, 1900 the U.S. adopted a gold standard (exclusively) for the dollar.

shikamaru
07-01-13, 07:06 PM
While this was true initially, it is no longer so. On March 14, 1900 the U.S. adopted a gold standard (exclusively) for the dollar.

Touché. :)

But has not the gold standard been abrogated in the U.S.?

ManOntheLand
07-01-13, 07:15 PM
Yes and no. Notes may no longer be redeemed for gold. However a dollar is still defined in federal law as a weight of gold. This is why I believe it is fraud for the U.S. to use the word dollar on its notes.

ManOntheLand
07-01-13, 07:37 PM
Interesting to note that 1971 was the year in which FRN's were taken off the gold standard for foreign redeemers of FRN's (of course Americans have not been able to redeem FRN's for gold since 1933).

1971 was also the year the Treasury stopped putting new United States Notes into circulation. Coincidence? I think not. I think U.S. probably knows it would be fraud to use the word dollar on new notes being issued while at the same time refusing to back the "dollar" note by a dollar weight of gold. By stopping circulation of new notes, they technically avoid actual fraud. (I guess).

U.S. Notes already in circulation have acquired some numismatic value due to their relative rarity, so I guess it would be hard to claim damages if you have U.S. notes, as you can probably get more than the face value from a collector or you can use them as currency if you choose.

But this lack of a practical alternative to using FRN's is exactly why a remedy must be provided for you in law. Otherwise you might have a legitimate cause of action in court. And a court case about this stuff would threaten to expose the whole scam. The system legally protects itself by providing a remedy. Then, as a practical matter, the system protects itself from the remedy it was obligated to provide, by trying to keep the populace unaware of the remedy.

David Merrill
07-01-13, 11:18 PM
My theory fits things together nicely. It requires some shifting paradigm and some holographic reflection if you will. The fiat system began on speculation about the gold fields here in Colorado by a rogue Territorial governor (http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/533/gilpinswarmeasureszoom.jpg).



http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/5409/gilpinswarmeasuresp44.jpg


I have probably posted all the connecting links around here five times already so I will show you this rare video (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbTlZVjBCM081dFE/edit) of the interior of a Treasury vault located on the SE Corner of this Golden Rectangle (http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/710/monumenttended.jpg). Territorial Governor GILPIN invented the fiat currency on the SW Corner.

I think the gold in the vault is somewhat representative of the value of the remainder of the $300M US notes remaining in circulation today, most of which I believe are in coin shops and private collections. It is a sort of de jure Fort Knox if you will.

JohnnyCash
07-12-13, 11:16 PM
Actually, I have FRNs, Silver Certificates (from whence my avatar), Gold Certificates, and National Currency in my collection, all with numismatic value.

I don't suppose you have any images of those National Currency notes ... the taxable ones issued after the National banking acts of 1863?

David Merrill
07-13-13, 01:57 AM
I don't suppose you have any images of those National Currency notes ... the taxable ones issued after the National banking acts of 1863?


I can probably find about anything you want to look at here.

David Merrill
10-22-14, 04:50 PM
Here is some Crosstalk about a conversation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImT1FDcXAxOHh5YTg) between a suitor and a federal judge.


Thank you! That is a great way to put the Judge in collusion with grand larceny and reporting to the Chief Judge in the District US. The Criminal Complaint will likely be rejected because the Form is allegedly only for the US Attorney general and his agents. When/if that happens then the suitor just follows his instructions and forward it by Notice to the Attorney General.



That will be interesting to hear if the AG will write a response.







-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:34 AM
To: David Merrill
Subject: Re: Diminished Money Cause



I think this is fantastic.





The injury-

Instead of seeing a natural mild deflation as technological advances lead to an increase in the capacity for productivity, which makes our money worth MORE, they have set to artificially increase the supply of money, therefore stealing the gain in purchasing power that the public would have experienced, and giving to the well-connected who have first access to the newly created money.





It is simple thievery.








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Merrill <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:19 PM
Subject: Diminished Money Cause






Dear Suitors;





I am working with one of you and decided to resort to the brain trust. I would like to establish that there really is an injury in fact. The Judge opining claims the suitor is attempting to be paid in US notes rather than Federal Reserve notes. This is untrue but is the easy Out for the Judge, like resorting to the assumption the plaintiff is demanding precious metals.



The key words I am playing with though are – legally protected interest. Is Congress failing to protect the redeemer/redeemed’s legally protected interest from this federal Judge? I am preparing a Criminal Complaint and will be sorting through Title 18 to identify the crime and the perpetrator (the Judge, or Congress).





Regards,



David Merrill.

allodial
10-22-14, 09:09 PM
nstead of seeing a natural mild deflation as technological advances lead to an increase in the capacity for productivity, which makes our money worth MORE, they have set to artificially increase the supply of money, therefore stealing the gain in purchasing power that the public would have experienced, and giving to the well-connected who have first access to the newly created money.

It seemed rather like salt on a wound to have victims of massive thievery not only forgive but also give thieves the amount they stole so they wouldn't get in trouble for what they stole then on top of that "quantitative easing"..putting out money to further reduce purchasing power of money for the victims--and possibly even failing to put much of anything in circulation at all.

It came to be as rather interesting that U.S. currency are called "bucks" and that "dollars" sounds a lot like 'doula' both words for slaves except that buck was used for males, doula was used for females.

It should be noted that kings were by prescription each a principal conservator of the peace and that it was held in at least one learned legal treatise that a king lacked authority to promote poverty. The laws against oppression, peonage and the like seem to echo this.

doug555
12-07-14, 04:16 AM
Another new suitor in the brain trust filed the new counterclaim and the judge is moving to dismiss it as hypothetical. - Meaning since the Treasury has not refused his Refund he has not actually been injured. So he went to the coin shop and paid probably $12 for a $5 US note. Then he went to the store with a witness and they filled out affidavits that they could get no more than $5 worth of merchandise for the US note! Now he has proven the injury from pegging the US note (not to be a reserve currency) to the value of FRN's, a reserve currency...

(Re: Bourne Supremacy: You can't make this stuff up!)



> To: David Merrill
> Subject: US Note actions
>
> I purchased a 5 dollar us note, and i am going to spend it today in the
> action we spoke of. I am preparing the affidavit now. I am planning on
> taking it up to Capital City tomorrow. Is the other document ready? I forget
> what you called it, but the explanation of the action described in the
> affidavit. I will need to get moving early to get everything accomplished
> in time.
USDC for the District of State
Memorandum of Law Case #3:13-cv-123 ABC




I am First Middle of the NOMEN family and I have been injured financially by machinations causing the US note to be pegged to the Federal Reserve note in value.

My $5 US note should have bought me $100 worth of merchandise as I spent it on Thursday 4/23/13. This is calculated against the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements (Public Law 94-564) among other historical facts. [International earmark for gold – the IMF Trust Fund is $42.22/troy ounce.] This injury is laid out plainly in the civil suit complaint. US notes cannot be utilized in any way as reserve currency.

It is incorrect to say that I have only been injured hypothetically. The Federal Reserve System has injured me in substance and fact for my entire adult working life. Now that I redeem lawful money and only have Federal Reserve notes available I find that the lawful money I demand by right is depreciated in value by fractional lending just like reserve currency from the Fed.


Sincerely,

Some suggestions regarding the Diminished Money Counterclaim document (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?874-Diminished-Money-Counterclaim&p=10422&viewfull=1#post10422)...

Regarding Cause of Action #1:
IMO, one has not "suffered injury" in-fact until one tenders payment in lawful money and the recipient thereof, as an agent of the US, does not convert said lawful money into FRNs at current spot silver price, and then apply said converted FRN amount to the NAME's account with the recipient, and thereby typically and legitimately leave a substantial credit balance in said account against which future bills can be applied.

If, on the next bill received from said recipient, such a credit balance in not reflected, then, and only then, has one been "injured" in-fact.

One can use one's past 1040 refund(s) honoring said lawful money demands as proof that lawful money was in your bank account and was tendered as payment to said recipient. Of course, your banking records are also considered non-hearsay evidence of same.


Regarding Cause of Action #2:
One cannot "consider their pay to be tendered to them in US Notes". 12 USC 411 only provides for redemption of FRNs, not the issuance of USNs. IMO, all pay is initially FRNs. Thereafter, it is up to each recipient thereof to "demand" the redemption of FRNs upon receipt, which are included annually on an IRS 1040 Form in order for the "trustees" to adjust their accounting accordingly pursuant to the intent of the June 5, 1933 HJR 192 Trust (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/hjr-192/).

Doug

P.S. FYI, I have an alternative claim that has not been tested yet at:
http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-claim.html (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-claim.html)

More information about this Common Law approach is available at:
http://www.youarelaw.org/key-elements-of-a-common-law-claim (http://www.youarelaw.org/key-elements-of-a-common-law-claim/)
http://www.youarelaw.org/blog (http://www.youarelaw.org/blog/)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Trustinalllaw/1406152556295341 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Trustinalllaw/1406152556295341)
https://plus.google.com/111887705181418285206/posts (https://plus.google.com/111887705181418285206/posts)
https://www.copy.com/s/WSbD4Nzlh6CR/unkommonlaw/8-16-14%20unkommonlaw.doc (https://www.copy.com/s/WSbD4Nzlh6CR/unkommonlaw/8-16-14%20unkommonlaw.doc)

JohnnyCash
12-07-14, 10:32 PM
whatever they're paying you Doug ... is way too not enough.