Treefarmer
There is power in the blood of Jesus
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.
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.
That was very edifying.
Treefarmer
There is power in the blood of Jesus
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.
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.
Last edited by Treefarmer; 10-22-12 at 02:33 AM.
Maybe rather than a two-party contract you can describe to him a naked contact?
Last edited by Treefarmer; 10-22-12 at 02:35 AM.
I found this:Processing...
I am trying to decide why I should delete that post. Please don't tell me/us. I will get it... Sometimes I am a little slow.
P.S. Maybe rather than a two-party contract you can describe to him a naked contact?
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote