http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post8259
Printable View
I like it, JohnnyCash! Only thing is since, under Jethro's Tax Code, everyone owes me One Million Bux, perhaps it's best to start with a One Million Dollar Note and go up from there. Like video game scores, bigger numbers give you the feeling of greater accomplishment than was actually accomplished. Jethro promised "A chicken in every pot and a millionaire in every apartment" and Jethro shall deliver on one of those promises.
Nice work, JohnnyCash. I shall appoint you Treasurer to collect my Tax. Deem anyone who argues they don't owe the tax to be "frivolous" and a "tax protestor" and confiscate their Jethro Bank MONEY anyway. Soothe them by saying, "Don't worry. We'll make more."
Thanks for explaining.
My imagination is still traversing the numero-linguistic interface about Eldad and Medad "staying behind" in the Camp when Moses assembled the initial Sanhedrin by Jethro's suggestion. Most people feel that the Sanhedrin is comprised of seventy jurists when it is actually comprised of seventy-two. Seventy-two times three (216) is the Code for miracles (Exodus 14:19-21 are all 72 Hebrew letters) in the Seventy-Two Fold Name of God. 72x5=360 degrees or a pentagram and Moses was Levite - the Sanhedrin became judiciary - the priest class is the judiciary...
The basis in law is right there. The fabrications abound. What a delightful spoof!
Excellent!
When the fog lifts I do hope NYGMan and his ship is still afloat; he's great fun to have about.
I will be kind as I believe that he and I have spoken by phone. I think his outline of intention is genuine as one member pointed out he might even be looking for an edge to provide full refunds to the $250K+ clientelle. So the esoteric will get picked up on another thread. I think I will call it The Thread of Priestcraft. That sounds better than The Oath-mongering.
We discuss some of this in detail among Bible scholars and it is quite difficult to distinguish the religion of government and judiciary from the Bible. The first Constitution in America was the Fundamental Orders of 1639 and the first written constitution (of detail more than the Code of Hammurabi etc.) is found at Nehemiah 10. So I come to an impasse trying to "prove" redeeming lawful money is viable by testimony from the appeals process when the IRS agenst know better than to prosecute.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Yes - good point, and what you have stated above is based on the ongoing transfer and use of Lawful Money United States (currency) notes, which remain outstanding and in circulation within the economy - and accounted for, but not currently being held by the Dept. of the Treasury.
I would recommend that you gather the applicable background research material (Congressional acts, Public Laws, regulatory codification of such acts/public laws, applicable case cites that support various fact elements, etc.) as if you were moving forward in composing a brief for a U.S. Supreme court case in support of a Lawful Money by demand position.
An opinion letter would then be a piece of cake when all the foundational research and work backing up such an opinion letter had already been conducted, composed and is available should you have to assert such a position on behalf of your client in court.
Our role in this regard would be to provide you with questions like I had posted earlier that can act as guideposts to direct your research, but you must physically do the research work for yourself to gain the foundational knowledge in this regard.
When you answer those initial 5 questions I had posted earlier, please provide your court admissible research material references that supports each of your answers to these initial questions as well.
At that time others on this forum can see about providing additional references you may have missed that may also be helpful in support of your answers.
I doubt that anyone here on this forum is not more than willing to pitch in and help others who are making a genuine effort to educate themselves and gather such reference material in support of their position regarding Lawful Money.
:-)
I own a few. You can find them on eBay but they sell for more than face value: http://www.ebay.com/sch/United-State...-/40033/i.html
Interesting that they began counterfeiting the notes (1963, no "Will Pay the Bearer on Demand") before they began counterfeiting the coins in 1965.
Interesting indeed! Can you show us an example of an earlier rendition? Let me check... nope.
The note was a promise to pay, not the actual payment. They wanted to hide that first.
Its easy to miss the fine print, look under Jefferson.
Was looking for the definition of a "Dollar" http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/D/d0387.jpg
So pay to bearer 2 units of gold or silver?
Also couldn't help but notice the phrase Dolus dans locum contractui
Quote martin earl ""As of June 2011, the U.S. Treasury calculates that $230 million in United States notes are in circulation, and excludes this amount from the statutory debt limit of the United States. This amount excludes $25 million in United States Notes issued prior to July 1, 1929, determined pursuant to Act of June 30, 1961, 31 U.S.C. 5119, to have been destroyed or irretrievably lost. www.treasurydirect.gov
They read your post martin earl at post #71 K http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/loca...a2fe5156a.html
NYGMan-tax here is a remedy Link
Attachment 973 and Attachment 974
Depends on when you're asking. Using the date on the US note above, 1928, we have only to look up the controlling Act of Congress.
Act of 1900, Chapter 41:So in 1928 a dollar was 25.8 grains of standard gold (standard meaning 9/10s fine), or 23.2 grains of pure goldQuote:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the dollar consisting of twenty-five and eight-tenths grains of gold nine-tenths fine, as established by section thirty-five hundred and eleven of the Revised Statutes of the United States, shall be the standard unit of value, and all forms of money issued or coined by the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard, and it shall be the duty of the secretary of the Treasury to maintain such parity.
or, 412.5 grains of standard silver (90%), or 371.25 grains of pure silver.
1 grain = 1/480 ounce troy = 0.0648 grams
Restated, one dollar = 1.672 grams of std. GOLD = 26.73 grams of std. SILVER
I focused on the verbiage on the red seal - sorry.
Pay to the Bearer...
Not to worry, I've had my share of senior moments.
I seem to remember that there are 4 essential elements to a legal note:
1. The absolute signature of the maker-
2. A specific amount of money-
3. A payee-
4. A time/date of redemption.
As in 1. The United States, 2. Shall pay 5 Dollars, 3. To the Bearer, 4. On Demand.
Exactly. Once upon a time I admired a man named Armen Condo, the founder of Your Heritage Protection Association. But it turned out that he did not understand equity the way George Mercier did. His letter to Mr Condo is very interesting and almost reaches to the point of redeeming lawful money. If only I knew then what I know now.
I was reminded of all of this when I found an old stamp from YHPA. I'll try to post it.
Here it is. Attachment 976 Its a shame that judges are not required to tell people WHY their position is frivolous.
More proof of the type that Mr NYG is seeking.
Judges in tax cases frequently say " the constitution does not apply here". What a shame the defendant did not ask "Why not?" Its an equity case, that's why.
Here is some crosstalk. The researcher has made comment about his perspective that I cannot leave out:
Quote:
26 USC ? 2002 - Liability for payment
The tax imposed by this chapter shall be paid by the executor.
All of this presumes that you are receiving a 1099 or a W-2 which is classified as a Gift Tax under IRS 6209 Manual.
--------------------------------
Subject: Re: transfer of the taxable estate of every decedent
Understand I am just exploring here - Let it be known I have found that Redemption per 12USC411 is recognized by the IRS, the banks, etc. Think of this as an exercise in turning over rocks.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1040
(a) General rule
If the executor of the estate of any decedent transfers to a qualified heir (within the meaning of section 2032A (e)(1)) any property with respect to which an election was made under section 2032A, then gain on such transfer shall be recognized to the estate only to the extent that, on the date of such transfer, the fair market value of such property exceeds the value of such property for purposes of chapter 11 (determined without regard to section 2032A).
(b) Similar rule for certain trusts
To the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a rule similar to the rule provided in subsection (a) shall apply where the trustee of a trust (any portion of which is included in the gross estate of the decedent) transfers property with respect to which an election was made under section 2032A.
(c) Basis of property acquired in transfer described in subsection (a) or (b)
The basis of property acquired in a transfer with respect to which gain realized is not recognized by reason of subsection (a) or (b) shall be the basis of such property immediately before the transfer increased by the amount of the gain recognized to the estate or trust on the transfer.
(e) Definitions; special rules - For purposes of this section?
(1) Qualified heir
The term ?qualified heir? means, with respect to any property, a member of the decedent?s family who acquired such property (or to whom such property passed) from the decedent. If a qualified heir disposes of any interest in qualified real property to any member of his family, such member shall thereafter be treated as the qualified heir with respect to such interest.
I am guessing that we have seen the last of NYGman.
The big NY tort attorney slurring remedy on 'that other place' has been enlisting collegues to search out Libels of Review using PACER and has been discovering a few. This example caught his eye and they must have run searches on the deputy clerk initials or whatever and found the case. It being dismissed SERRA jumped on it for ridicule in that infantile way of theirs.
But what he did was only to show the side of it for his own purposes. He did not show the Default Judgment properly published at the Register of Deeds and also marked FILED (as a foreign judgment) in the USDC. Of course not.
As I explained above to NYGman the purpose of the case is not to win it in the USDC. The federal judge is a taxpayer and is recused by the simple fact and conflict of interest. That is difficult for many conditioned into politically correct sociopathy (understanding only what is necessary of the law to function and stay out of jail) to comprehend. The judge is a taxpayer therefore he is recused. He cannot judge matters of tax liability. Period. If you can accept that then you might have a chance of comprehending this post.
The suitor utilizes the dismissed case for an evidence repository. So I took a look at the docket report and even with people using my intellectual property that I have not met I will not post links that breach a certain trust, more a hope that home addresses and other billing information will not be splashed about the Internet. So you are free to surf and probe for yourself I suppose. I prefer you consider accepting my word true because any of you who want to verify I am speaking the truth will find out that I am.
Since I have been heavily moderated on that ugly website to avoid the frustration of having my posts deleted I have opened another thread on a website where many of them read. So I will just copy the post from there:
Quote:
Hilarious!
You should ask about Doc 23 showing that the husband is being assessed for about $1K in back taxes while the joint filing is being fined the frivpens for $10K. Both bills were Refused for Cause around 2/27/12. Then Doc 25 shows that the same jointly-named account to have dropped the frivpen and be billing the both of them for the $1K in back taxes only around 8/7/12. The bill was of course Refused for Cause and apparently forgiven completely, so far.
Like I said above, when the R4C's stop, that means there are no more bills coming. Think about it! Why would the couple stop Refusing for Cause when the IRS dropped $10K in frivolous filing penalties? No more R4C's means that the IRS quit pestering them. If the IRS does anything more it will show up on the docket as a R4C!
The hilarious part is that it is indeed Wserra being dishonest. No wonder he is threatening to banish me for defending against his accusations - LOL! This is fraud by omission and parataxic distortion too.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Not only was that post rejected on SERRA's thread, he has permanently banished me from the Website. I really detest him ridiculing honest and intelligent people even more than misusing PACER to splash private information around the web. So please respect I have a sore spot about direct links and quoting names etc. here. I am enjoying that his antics feel so crappy except to a certain very small crowd that since he started this breach of anonymity that site is enjoying an average of less than 5 guests. My presumption is that it feels bad and most people just jockey their little mouses to more pleasant and interesting reading - like here. So this is about as ugly as I want it to be around here.
The Libel of Review is fluff around an initial Refusal for Cause. It opens up a process of record forming because the 'saving to suitors' clause guarantees us the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government. Therefore about any docket of a LoR reveals that the suitor uses it for R4C's for a while, and then stops when the IRS attorneys find they cannot proceed, even with laibilities from before the suitor began redeeming lawful money - fraud by omission vitiates all contracts. Especially naked contracts where the consideration is not plainly understood and utilized (fractional lending and FDIC rescue as a "state bank").
I find it amusing that SERRA posted this knowing he was distorting the truth for the readers there - but more that he stipulated that if I defended against his accusations he would be banishing me. Amazing!
Let me see if I have this ...
a) The district courts' subject matter of taxation is an admiralty/maritime issue. You take advantage of saving to suitors to ask for a remedy in accordance with common law where the common law is competent to give it.
b) You create your own evidence repository of this request.
Do I have this correct?
That evidence repository is by and large the common law remedy, in light of the fact the "judge" is a taxpayer. You become the court of record.
Be forewarned that the case gets dismissed and often the taxpayer writes a few nasty jabs.
I recall the first blatant demonstration. A suitor told me the federal judge had ordered his default judgment removed from the county clerk and recorder's office. Of course he wrote a R4C for that promptly. Then he went to the C&R and bought a certified copy. It did not take long to convince him that the filing had not been removed as ordered.
There were apparently phone calls and other inconsequential squabbles but nothing in writing. After about three weeks of not removing the default judgment from the C&R publication the DoJ did all they could do. They filed the order to remove it with the C&R!!
Something really tickles me about that.
I can't bear to look ...
Yet I just cannot avert my gaze.