Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

[Treefarmer]

WND reports.

[David Merrill]

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.

[Brian]

Just look at the opening of the decision for the 10th Circuit......he is toast.

[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.

[Treefarmer]

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.

[martin earl]

Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

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.

[martin earl]

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?

[David Merrill]

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

[David Merrill]

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?

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!

[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?

[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!

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.

[Treefarmer]

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!

Good call, David, I totally agree.
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.

[David Merrill]

Thank you both.