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.
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.
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.
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?
Last edited by Treefarmer; 10-22-12 at 02:35 AM.