WND reports.
Attachment 937
I did some poking around.
I gather that MAEHR did a lot of letter writing with the Commissioner objecting on the standard patriot mythology. Then he wrote a petition to have this cause heard in the Tenth Circuit in forma pauperis. It gets interesting because the justices read through it and just could not hold their tongue. They opined and billed MAEHR for the filing fee, even though they refused to hear it in forma pauperis! MAEHR called them on it and we get some insight into MAEHR's research in his Response to the bill.
I searched his Response for money hoping not to find anything about lawful money. There is nothing there on the actual remedy MAEHR seeks. I think that Jeffrey Thomas should discover Redeeming Lawful Money.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Just look at the opening of the decision for the 10th Circuit......he is toast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
Yes. Without redeeming lawful money just about anybody is "toast".
For the trouble of downloading all I find interesting is that the justices were so eager to opine that they did so without any pay. Then to justify that they ordered him to pay the filing fee, for an opinion against him like he is going to pay them for going ahead and ruling against him! - After they have informed him he would be wasting his money!
Therefore I thinks that the Supremes will jump all over this one too. Thank you Treefarmer; please keep us apprised of any developments here.
Thank you for digging deeper into this David.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
That was very edifying.
Here we go again!!!
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/supremes-...tax-challenge/
This one is interesting because he is directly challenging the CODE on the basis of private contract between 2 parties for an exchange of energy (money).
Too bad he does not know it is not a 2 party contract and that BOTH parties have contracted endorsements of Federal Reserve Notes (private property) to value that energy transfer.
No demand for lawful money creates the taxable event, even in BARTERING energy for energy at a 1:1 ratio, no demand, presumption is for the use and endorsement of private credit from the Federal Reserve.
Of course, the Court (if the case is tried) will find some other way to express this so as not to reveal the nexus. They will simply "not agree" with the standing of the endorser of Federal Reserve Credit.
Quote:
Too bad he does not know...
Tell him while he has time to prepare or amend.
David, I have his contact information and attempting communication, we will see if he is open to new ideas.
As posted in the other thread, I am attempting contact with the good Dr. now, lets all hope he will be receptive to a "Demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411 and a fraud by omission" in his future filings.
It cannot hurt, right?
Maybe rather than a two-party contract you can describe to him a naked contact?
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Definition.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin earl
Indeed! Untoast?
That would be great if he can frame it properly for a SCOTUS opinion. Well, maybe not come to think of it. When I suggested that it was before I realized this fellow has already tainted his cause with a bunch of junk. If he throws Redeeming Lawful Money into the mix now, he will likely cause a bad precedent to American remedy.
I would greatly prefer you not try getting remedy and this guy in the same room!
I found this:Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
naked contract:
"From the Latin term nudum pactum, or "bare promise" An agreement between two parties that is without any legal effect because no consideration has been exchanged between the parties. A naked contract is unenforceable.
In Roman Law, a nudum pactum was an informal agreement that was not legally enforceable, because it did not fall within the specific classes of agreements that could support a legal action.A pactum could, however, create an exception to or modification of an existing obligation." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...Naked+Contract
Could a living wo/man's unrestricted endorsements be considered to create "pactum" and/or an exception to or modification of existing obligation(s) of the United States onto ourselves?
You got it! Also, after reading the high notes of his case, the court will deny to hear it soon enough anyway, nothing new there that I have not seen in other cases already lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Good call, David, I totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Introducing remedy into this guy's mess could be disastrous.
martin earl and David:
I merged our two threads into the original one and cleaned up the posts a little bit to avoid reader confusion.
Thank you both.
I've seen this before. HENDRICKSON attempted to get his case heard by the SCOTUS after gettting spanked. They looked at it and promptly tossed it. I suspect it could be the same here. Unless they find some kind of improper technicality (I doubt that), his arguments are the same protestor based garbage that confused me for quite a long time. Sorting through them, none of them seemed to pass the smell test, or have any solid basis that I could find. Lawful Money of the U.S. pursuant to USCA 12 section 411 was the puzzle piece that made it all harmonious.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
He is still toast
My thought is still all the more reason to hear it again and confirm all the patriot mythology be toasted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
I took a fresh look and still think the clerks are allowing this so the justices can keep themselves entertained frying patriot mythology. It seems cruel to refuse to allow the cause to proceed by disallowing the in forma pauperis request, and then charge him the filing fee after he has already lost his cause!Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
They refused to hear his petition and then opined about it; then they charged him the filing fee! Something is just not right about those "justices"!!
Quote:
General DocketTenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-9019 Docketed: 12/14/2011Termed: 05/17/2012
Maehr v. CIR
Appeal From: Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Fee Status: fee due
Case Type Information:
1) Tax Court (agency)
2) petition for review
3) -
Originating Court Information:
District: CIR-1 : 10758-11
Date Filed: 05/09/2011
Date Rec'd COA:
12/14/2011
05/17/2012 [9968016] Enforced/Affirmed.Terminated on the merits after submissions without oral hearing. Written, signed, unpublished. Judges Murphy (authoring judge), Baldock, and Hartz. Mandate to issue. [11-9019]
05/29/2012 [9970713] Response filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr to Order and Judgment. Served on
05/29/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-9019] --[Edited
05/29/2012 by BV - To remove the PDF as corrected response filed.] JTM
05/29/2012 [9970727] Response filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr to Response to Order and Judgement. Served on 05/29/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-9019] --[Edited 05/29/2012 by BV - To remove the PDF from the docket entry and re-docket as a petition for panel rehearing.] JTM
05/29/2012 [9970909] "Response to Order and Judgment" construed as a Petition for rehearing filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr. Served on 05/24/2012. Manner of Service: US mail. [11-9019]
06/08/2012 [9973818] Order filed by Judges Murphy, Baldock and Hartz - All relief requested in Appellant's "Response to U.S. Appeals Court, 10th Circuit's 'ORDER AND JUDGMENT' NOTICE OF JURISDICTION CONFLICT, NOTICE TO RECUSE" is denied including but not limited to panel rehearing. [11-9019]
06/15/2012 [9975994] Petition for rehearing, for rehearing en banc filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr received, but not filed. Response sent to Appellant. --[Edited 06/18/2012 by AT to show pleading received, but not filed. ] JTM
06/15/2012 [9975999] Motion filed by Appellant Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr for findings of fact and conclusions of law received, but not filed. Response sent to Appellant. Served on: 06/15/2012. Manner of service: ECF/NDA. [11-9019]--[Edited 06/15/2012 by KLP to correct the relief code and docket text.] --[Edited 06/18/2012 by AT to show pleading as received but not filed.] JTM
06/18/2012 [9976107] Mandate issued. [11-9019]
10/29/2012 [10014457] Supreme Court order giving Appellant until 11/19/12 to pay filing fee.
11/23/2012 [10021778] Supreme Court order extending time to comply with the 10/29/12 order. [11-9019]
P.S.
Quote:
Petitioner is somewhat confused regarding the “Order and Judgment” in that he was waiting for the decision on the in forma pauperis application, but it appears the judges have made a decision at the same time as denying Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application. Petitioner was NOT agreeing to move forward with this appeal if he was denied his application, and was waiting to make that decision, and even requested that decision much earlier in this case.