Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

[martin earl]

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.

[David Merrill]

Too bad he does not know...

Tell him while he has time to prepare or amend.

[martin earl]

David, I have his contact information and attempting communication, we will see if he is open to new ideas.

[David Merrill]

Maybe rather than a two-party contract you can describe to him a naked contact?

[martin earl]

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?

I found this:

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?