"Refusal for Cause"

[Kestrel]

All this "refusal for cause" hooey got my curiosity up. So I googled it and immediately got several pagefuls of hits from sov'run websites, all of them malarkey about how to "refuse for cause" just about anything.

But I did find out that they keep referencing Section 3-501 of the UCC as their authority to "refuse for cause." Section 3-501 deals with negotiable instruments, specifically the presentment and dishonor thereof.

And now I'm really at a loss. When did a notice of levy or lien for unpaid taxes become a negotiable instrument? Or a collection letter, or a collection due process hearing notice, or a mortgage debt validation letter, or a notice of foreclosure sale, or a notice of default? When did any of those become negotiable instruments?

When did a judge's order to show cause become a negotiable instrument?

[David Merrill]

I have nothing to teach a recused judge.

Another thing we disagree on around here is that the clerk is in authority over the record and therefore has more authority than the judge. The judge may order the clerk but he can only do so within the rules of court. Since the judge is a taxpayer he obviously has no sway and is recused from the case, leaving the court of record (authority) being with the clerk. I have been posting an elegant amplified Default Judgment around.

Refusal for Cause will only work on novations (innovations) and initial presentments. However it works a lot more often that one might expect. What you see with all this privacy invasion is a flurry of R4C's on the record in the dismissed Libels of Review. If you read any Libel of Review (LoR) you will find an example clerk instruction.

If you get a presentment of any form that you do not like then Refuse it for Cause. Put a copy in your evidence repository and include a copy of the clerk instruction back to the presenter. You have done all you can to stop the process. If you are entrenched and the presenter knows it, maybe it will not work. The administrative billing processes are much more voluntary than you Quatlosers would like to believe.

As you get into some of the docket reports that Wserra is disclosing here notice that many IRS presentments vary in wording, nomenclature and amounts but for years they will make no headway toward collections, levy or lien. If you see any progress by the IRS being made look at the LoR, it is probably before the integration of Redeeming Lawful Money was written in the LoR itself.

I would show specific examples from the cases that Wserra has revealed but I strongly disagree with using PACER to slur American remedy like he is doing here.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[ashlynne39]

All this "refusal for cause" hooey got my curiosity up. So I googled it and immediately got several pagefuls of hits from sov'run websites, all of them malarkey about how to "refuse for cause" just about anything.

But I did find out that they keep referencing Section 3-501 of the UCC as their authority to "refuse for cause." Section 3-501 deals with negotiable instruments, specifically the presentment and dishonor thereof.

And now I'm really at a loss. When did a notice of levy or lien for unpaid taxes become a negotiable instrument? Or a collection letter, or a collection due process hearing notice, or a mortgage debt validation letter, or a notice of foreclosure sale, or a notice of default? When did any of those become negotiable instruments?

When did a judge's order to show cause become a negotiable instrument?

Now I don't pretend to be the expert that David is but from what I can tell, virtually everything in life can be refused for cause - including your grocery bill or a report card from your kid's principal. The premise may come from the UCC but that doesn't mean it is limited to things we traditionally think of as UCC type matters. That sort of narrow thinking seems to be what limits attorneys from seeing the truth that the sovereign can see. Sadly, as an attorney I seem to be cursed with that narrow view of the UCC because refused for cause and all the other sovereign UCC tax protestor nonsense just doesn't make sense but is absolutely non-sensical.

[Famspear]

All this "refusal for cause" hooey got my curiosity up. So I googled it and immediately got several pagefuls of hits from sov'run websites, all of them malarkey about how to "refuse for cause" just about anything.

But I did find out that they keep referencing Section 3-501 of the UCC as their authority to "refuse for cause." Section 3-501 deals with negotiable instruments, specifically the presentment and dishonor thereof.

And now I'm really at a loss. When did a notice of levy or lien for unpaid taxes become a negotiable instrument? Or a collection letter, or a collection due process hearing notice, or a mortgage debt validation letter, or a notice of foreclosure sale, or a notice of default? When did any of those become negotiable instruments?

When did a judge's order to show cause become a negotiable instrument?

Now I don't pretend to be the expert that David is but from what I can tell, virtually everything in life can be refused for cause - including your grocery bill or a report card from your kid's principal. The premise may come from the UCC but that doesn't mean it is limited to things we traditionally think of as UCC type matters. That sort of narrow thinking seems to be what limits attorneys from seeing the truth that the sovereign can see. Sadly, as an attorney I seem to be cursed with that narrow view of the UCC because refused for cause and all the other sovereign UCC tax protestor nonsense just doesn't make sense but is absolutely non-sensical.

It might be an interesting research project to determine exactly which Wackadooster (oops, I mean Patriot, oops, I mean Sovereign Citizen, etc.) FIRST came up with each of these silly ideas, and the dates on which each idea was first published.

I have tried to find the earliest instances of various tax protester theories, but only on a sort of sporadic, unsystematic way.

For example, the goofy "Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified" argument predates its most infamous proponent (William J. Benson), and apparently showed up in federal court for the first time around 1975 (sixty-two years after the Amendment was ratified). I've found that Pete Hendrickson's goofy "federal privilege" argument, which he reportedly promulgated in about 2002 or 2003, first showed (in an earlier form) in a 1980 court case.

If only we had the time .......

[Kestrel]

Another thing we disagree on around here is that the clerk is in authority over the record and therefore has more authority than the judge. The judge may order the clerk but he can only do so within the rules of court. Since the judge is a taxpayer he obviously has no sway and is recused from the case, leaving the court of record (authority) being with the clerk.

So the judge can't judge because he is a taxpayer, leaving the clerk to be the real judge, but the clerk is also a taxpayer so he can't be the judge either, which means the judge has to be the judge after all, but you already said the judge can't...

This is sooooo confusing...

Refusal for Cause will only work on novations (innovations) and initial presentments. However it works a lot more often that one might expect. What you see with all this privacy invasion is a flurry of R4C's on the record in the dismissed Libels of Review.
Regards,

David Merrill.

Ah ha! Since a Refusal for Cause ONLY works on INITIAL presentments, then all those subsequent documents which say "second notice" or "final notice" or "you have failed to respond to the previous notice," and have the words "refused for cause" scribbled across them, were NOT really refuse-able after all!

Let's put this idea to good use. David can refuse to accept counterfeit "lawful money" on the initial presentment, but since the barrier evaporates after the initial presentment he HAS to accept the counterfeit "lawful money" on the second go. Someone please (**ahem**) "remind" the agent who is providing David the cash he needs to buy his groceries.

[wserra]

And so now we have another subject about which DMVP can pontificate, bob, weave, evade and avoid supplying any verifiable proof at all. The idea that one can "refuse for cause" things like a notice of levy and (especially) a court order is nothing more than wishful hallucination.

Which won't stop David from pontificating, bobbing, weaving, evading and avoiding supplying any verifiable proof at all.

[Randall]

Another thing we disagree on around here is that the clerk is in authority over the record and therefore has more authority than the judge.

As a former clerk, I call bullshit. A clerk has no authority over the record, s/he has a responsibility for the record. When you understand the difference, get back to me - I expect a very long wait.

[Pottapaug1938]

Back in my college days (40 years ago), I once heard a radical feminoid proclaim that all sex was political -- she chose to have sex with other women for political reasons, and she asserted that my heterosexuality was similarly politically-motivated. Of course, the facts didn't alter her opinions.

This "refusal for cause" bulldada reminds me of her. Someone apparently came up with the idea that any transaction which may have a financial impact on a person is commercial, and thus the Uniform Commercial Code applies. Add to that the elevation of the UCC into a sort of supper-constitutional entity which is the Fount Of Our Liberties along with the Magna Carta, Common Law and the Constitution for the united States of America, and the ability to cite UCC provisions out of context in sort of a magic-word exercise, and there you have it.

Of course, even the dullest law student who has studied the UCC can poke holes in all this... but what good are facts if a belief is so fervent that inconvenient facts are to be discarded?

[Famspear]

I'd like to know the name of the Wackadooster who first came up with the aforementioned idiocy about the Uniform Commercial Code. And I'd like to know was going through his or her diseased brain at the time. Why, for example, did he/she pick the Uniform Commercial Code specifically, as opposed to the Uniform Probate Code or the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act, etc., etc.?

In other words, when you're just making things up, what difference does it make what you start with?

[notorial dissent]

Or more to the point, willful, mordant stupidity in the face of reality and the facts, is still willful, mordant stupidity.

Merrill has never let facts or reality get in the way of his fantasy world, and he isn't about to start now, and there is really no point in arguing with him, other than to have an excuse to point and laugh.

I rather suspect, that if someone asked nicely, Demo could probably tell us where the refused for cause bulldada first reared its silly head, since I am sure it was one of the early paytriot gurus peddling his sure fire guaranteed method of getting out of paying your debts.

[Joey Smith]

This goes to the base of all tax protestor and sovereign citizen arguments. What they -- and David -- are basically saying is as simple as:

I am the only one who can truly decide anything that might affect me; I therefore self-decide in my own selfish self-interest.

Hey, that was easy!

Of course, in the real world it does not work like that since nobody else respects their self-decisions on such things as taxes, paying mortgages, paying credit cards, etc. They can self-decide all the day long, but nobody who matters cares.

And thus they always lose.

They try to explain everything away as having been done without authority, but nobody who matters cares about their argument either.

And thus they end up without the proverbial pot to ____ in.

[Pottapaug1938]

Charles P. Pierce's Third Great Premise of Idiot America also applies. Fact is that which enough people believe, and truth is determined by how fervetnly they believe it. The fervor of the wackadoosters is second to none; so of course their beliefs must be true.

[Randall]

I rather suspect, that if someone asked nicely, Demo could probably tell us where the refused for cause bulldada first reared its silly head, since I am sure it was one of the early paytriot gurus peddling his sure fire guaranteed method of getting out of paying your debts.

You'll have to buy Demo's book to find out.

[Gregg]

And so now we have another subject about which DMVP can pontificate, bob, weave, evade and avoid supplying any verifiable proof at all. The idea that one can "refuse for cause" things like a notice of levy and (especially) a court order is nothing more than wishful hallucination.

Which won't stop David from pontificating, bobbing, weaving, evading and avoiding supplying any verifiable proof at all.

I wish we could have David tattooed "Refused for Cause" in red ink and shipped to count trees.

[Gregg]

This goes to the base of all tax protestor and sovereign citizen arguments. What they -- and David -- are basically saying is as simple as:

I am the only one who can truly decide anything that might affect me; I therefore self-decide in my own selfish self-interest.

Hey, that was easy!

Of course, in the real world it does not work like that since nobody else respects their self-decisions on such things as taxes, paying mortgages, paying credit cards, etc. They can self-decide all the day long, but nobody who matters cares.

And thus they always lose.

They try to explain everything away as having been done without authority, but nobody who matters cares about their argument either.

And thus they end up without the proverbial pot to ____ in.

I hate to point out that since a tax protester is protesting taxes, they have to recuse themselves from complaining. Only Tax promoters can decide the actions of tax protesters.

[Thule]

I wish we could have David tattooed "Refused for Cause" in red ink and shipped to count trees.

Yeah, but then every tree would be stamped "Redeemed for lawful wood."

[webhick]

I wish we could have David tattooed "Refused for Cause" in red ink and shipped to count trees.

Yeah, but then every tree would be stamped "Redeemed for lawful wood."

Which sounds like a porno title. Maybe gay porn. I don't know, I don't hang out there. CKB would know better.