"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[notorial dissent]

It's still mutton, dressed up, as well, mutton, really really old stanky mutton, but mutton none the less. Surprise surprise!

Just imagine the poor MJ having to wade through that, what a waste.

Curious, can she collect another friv pen for this filing to go with her others?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Curious, can she collect another friv pen for this filing to go with her others?

Won't that depend on how much this case delays the tax collection by the IRS? If this is dismissed quickly, I can't see there being much grounds for it. If the tax collection is suspended for months because this is appealed, re-applied for, re-filed or re-whatever-ed to delay it for several months then presumably the IRS at some point has to make the case for frivolousness and get a judge to agree to slap another $5k on the bill. Is that how it works?

[LPC]

Curious, can she collect another friv pen for this filing to go with her others?

The $5k frivolous filings penalty under IRC section 6702 only applies to filings with the Internal Revenue Service.

Frivolous filings in federal district court would be governed by Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

Tax Court frivolous filings are governed by IRC section 6673, which allows the Tax Court to assess damages of up to $25,000 against taxpayers who file petitions in Tax Court that are “frivolous or groundless.”

[The Observer]

That's about all I get to say around here. Wserra keeps sending my posts back - "Proof or Silence".

Then I guess it means you really have to start offering real proof instead of the nonsense you have repeatedly posted, or go back to your site and post your "proof" there.

Oh, I forgot - no one goes to your site except suitors who then get dumped by you when they have the audacity to file suit in court based on what you taught them.

And you wonder why you have no traffic.

[webhick]

So, Van Pelt's theory, for those who have never "redeemed lawful money" is that you can 1) strike a random line on a tax form, and 2) make up your own deduction for "demanding lawful money" in the amount of your gross income, insert that on the struck line and everything will be fine.

The other day I was on David's forum and saw that on the 1040, you don't strike out a line you put a negative number on the "Other Income" line. So, maybe you strike out a random line if there's nothing like an "Other Income" line.

Since it took the IRS forever and a day to implement a way to catch the CtCers faster, it should only take them forever to catch the Lawful Moneyers. You know, since I imagine it's easier to flag any return with a negative number on an income line than it is to find all the 4852s with taxes and no wages.

One can dream.

[Famspear]

.....You know, since I imagine it's easier to flag any return with a negative number on an income line than it is to find all the 4852s with taxes and no wages.

One can dream.

Unfortunately, many 'income' lines on Form 1040 routinely show negative amounts -- i.e., losses. For example, the lines for the totals carried over from Schedules C, D, E, and F may routinely show losses.

Even the line for "other income" (usually line 21) can routinely show a loss -- eg. a net operating loss carryover.

So, trying to find all the returns with 4852s combined with taxes withheld and zero wages would actually probably be easier for the IRS than flagging returns with negative amounts on income lines.

[The Observer]

All you will see is what is in the case jacket. Maybe when she gets her refund she will put that in there too.

Somehow, I think that is unlikely, David. Just a hunch.

So don't expect me to hang around trying to defend against your posts here.

I will really be shocked, David, if you don't hang around to defend your work. Over the last 7 to 8 years, you have made it a point to come back here time and time again to repeat yourself over and over until I imagine you are blue in the face - electronically, so to speak.

In my opinion you have very little impact on the overall consciousness. People are hopeful that Congress will provide remedy and that is a good thing

In my opinion, people do not believe in nonexistent legal nonsense like "remedy." If they did, then every billionaire and millionaire in the world would be doing it, and every lawyer would be selling it like crazy out their front door.

I am learning that any conflict between us results from me projecting my ego here.

I sincerely and honestly agree with you on that. I hope you will continue to explore and try to understand why that happens now that you understand that it does happen.

[Except of course this case; which was fetched here by Wserra. Just the same, you perceive it as my intellectual property.]

But you were the one who pointed out this case on another site. We probably would have never been aware of it otherwise. And it is your intellectual property, since this is the very doctrine that you have preached here time and time again. I know its embarrassing that this suitor took your theories at face value by filing suit. But you had to realize that someday it was going to come down to this.

I am trying to explain some of the points that I feel are important in her documentation but Wserra is not going to be permitting that

But you are not explaining it when you include nonsense such as an excerpt from a Gnostic gospel that doesn't even reference the principle you were claiming supported her action. Your posts can be likened to you throwing huge loads of smelly garbage in the hope that something will stick to the wall and then you will claim that you painted a masterpiece. This has been your modus operandi for as long as I can remember, David, and it hasn't changed. If you want posts to get through, then you are going to have to adapt. Otherwise you should just post your stuff at your site and hope that someone will read it.

So it feels like I am just trying to keep Wserra entertained and that is boring.

I again honestly and sincerely agree with that statement. I think that is another indicator that you are realizing that you are wasting your time here and you need to move on and work harder at making your site the place people want to come to.

[.]

it should only take them forever to catch the Lawful Moneyers. You know, since I imagine it's easier to flag any return with a negative number on an income line than it is to find all the 4852s with taxes and no wages.

Take heart. CA was all over this and the date on their notice is 5/10/12. So it could have been as few as 25 days (assuming the return for calendar 2011 was filed 4/15/12) to at most 129 days (if filed 1/1/12.)

The IRS was almost as fast, the date on their notice is 8/8/12.

I'll speculate that in the case of a 1040 that because it's fairly rare that any item on line 21 "Other income" is negative (a NOL from a prior year and a few other possibilities) that a very large negative amount (relative to gross income) gets selected for further examination automatically.

As soon as an actual human being sees the notation "Demand for lawful money" or "Lawful money redeemed" or similar wording, it's promptly on its way to Ogden.

[LPC]

You assume my objective is to prove that redeeming lawful money is right. I think more correctly my objective is to figure out what motivates you to insist that it is wrong.

How about just because it *is* wrong?

Do I need some special motivation to insist that the world is round and not flat?

[Cathulhu]

As memory serves, an NOL in the origin year is invariably tagged for special processing (meaning that a whole lot of them are dead wrong, since that is, IMO the most difficult and technical area of personal taxes that exists. Doing a nontaxable exchange by hand takes me a day. Doing an NOL takes me a week, especially as they're usually associated with a disaster loss.

True story; nice lady I know, personal friend, had NOL due to Hurricane Andrew, lo these many years ago. Went to her usual tax person, they filed. Return rejected. Went to CPA, he filed the MFJ 1040 with the NOL, again, return rejected. Out of desperation, she and husband file without the NOL just to have a return done. Then she divorces husband. Then she travels to China with friend as diaper-bag carrier on adoption trip, meets another diaper-bag carrier--me (One of us dubs the helper group as "the Sherpas") and we become friends. In course of becoming buds, she tells me the story of the lost NOL.

I had her send me everything after we got back, did the amended return, which was tricky as she was now married to a different spouse. This was ages ago; I don't recall it perfectly because I did not accept payment (was working for gov, Code of Conduct issue) and since I wasn't paid, didn't need to keep records, sent all back to her. Mine went through. But was was most noteworthy was that every single communication sent to her and her so-called tax pros by the service center was dead right. They failed to understand it. I cannot swear that all NOLs are automatically audited for the origin year, but I think it very likely. For one thing, the DIF score that determines whether you'll be audited would show a big change for that origin year, and that alone is likely to create an audit.

[The Observer]

You totally misunderstood what I was saying, David. When I said that it was unlikely, I was referring to your suitor receiving a refund. It simply is not going to happen. She will not get an opportunity to decide whether she wants to share her refund information with the rest of the world.

And the proof of such refund being posted here by her or any other suitor would be subject to the same rules as for you. None of this "I-have-a-redacted-letter-that-shows-I-won" nonsense.

[Pottapaug1938]

Saying that this "suitor" is unlikely to win in court and get all her money back is like saying that it is unlikely that Michael Savage, Jay Severin and Rush Limbaugh will endorse Jill Stein for President in the November election.

Insulting? It's more like "insulted". It's an insult that we are constantly offered the same steaming pile of non-proof, time after time after time, garnished with the excuse du jour, when we say that we need verifiable proof that "redeeming lawful money", in today's world, is anything other than getting a new FRN for an old one.

[Pottapaug1938]

This makes sense. After a fantasy like this gets pumped up for long enough, and people keep on getting hurt by it while the pushers keep on saying "keep the faith! Victory will be here any minute now!", eventually the number of people willing to put their heads on the chopping block dwindle to the point where the number of new suckers is too small to justify the continuation of the charade, and the pushers look for another charade to hook new suckers.

[wserra]

Lam is about to find out that games don't work.

A couple of days ago, the Court rejected this bunch of "refused for cause" stuff, refusing to docket it. It is kind of amusing (in a frickentard way) that among the documents RFC'ed was one that she had filed (the one she signed "Lawful Money"). Others were the court notice of mandatory ADR (alternative dispute resolution) and the order referring discovery issues to the M-J.

My impression of Judge Snyder leads me to believe that this chapter of "redeeming lawful money" isn't going to last long.

[wserra]

Like I said, she is recused by automatic execution of law.

And yet, there she sits. Eppur si muove. Per David, "redeeming lawful money" means that one need not pay taxes, although there is no evidence that it has ever succeeded, or by law ever should succeed; Judge Snyder is recused by operation of law, but there she sits, presiding over the case. Typical Van Pelt examples of "Cupio ergo est" - "I wish, therefore it is".

It's very entertaining to see that when I already informed you that the DoJ would be sealing the case

More of the same, wish made into fact. In all likelihood, Lam herself is responsible for the Court making this document non-public. See FRCvP 5.2:

(a) Redacted Filings. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual's social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only:

(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number;

(2) the year of the individual's birth;

(3) the minor's initials; and

(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.

If the filing party neglects to make these redactions, 5.2(d) provides that "The court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction".

Our choices: (1) Lam, an inexperienced litigant who has already proven herself a nitwit, files something with her SS number and the Court seals it, or (2) there is a massive conspiracy which includes the courts to prevent David from liberating the known universe.

[.]

If the filing party neglects to make these redactions, 5.2(d) provides that "The court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction".

Our choices: (1) Lam, an inexperienced litigant who has already proven herself a nitwit, files something with her SS number and the Court seals it, or (2) there is a massive conspiracy which includes the courts to prevent David from liberating the known universe.

A few minutes ago I counted four instances of her unredacted SS number (and many more instances that were redacted) in the "complaint." What that means, other than that Lam is very sloppy when it comes to protecting her SS number and perhaps that the clerk/court didn't want to bother wading through a pile of gibberish to find any sealable instances of her idiocy, I don't know.

[.]

Say, Van Pelt, why are you attributing my comments to Famspear?

Famspear [sic];

If the filing party neglects to make these redactions, 5.2(d) provides that "The court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction".

<snip>

<snip>

In any case, my point was that nobody has sealed the "complaint" even though it contains flaws that probably should have been sealed under 5.2(d). Meanwhile, her SS number is still available for the world to read.

What that means exactly is that the clerk of court has sealed the Claim and Abatement

Obviously it means nothing of the sort. I'm not a lawyer and even I know that clerks seal filings on the order of a judge.

You know, with wording something like "It having been brought to the attention of the court that filing XXX contains unredacted SS numbers [or whatever else shouldn't be published,] pursuant to blah, blah, blah, it is hereby ORDERED that filing XXX be and is sealed until further notice.

Signed by the judge. The clerk carries out the order. Get it?

Why are the words "clerk" and "evidence repository" so magic for you, considering that they've never resulted in anything positive for your fool's errand of "redeeming lawful money"?

"Judge" SNYDER is making a feeble attempt to establish a new protocol that adversely affects Denise's ability to utilize her evidence repository long after the case is dismissed out.

You finally got something right. It will be dismissed.

The rest of what you said is pure gibberish. This ""attempt" exists only in your mind and is apparent to exactly no one else on this planet with functioning synapses.

And again, Van Pelt, I'm not a lawyer and even I know that your idea of who controls what's allowed to be filed bears no resemblance to reality. Ultimately, filed or rejected is up to a judge and possibly appellate judges. Not any clerk. Period. Sadly, for you, initial routine acceptance by a clerk of a pile of gibberish doesn't count.

What other goofy excuses will you make when your "suitor's" contentions are dismissed out-of-hand and perhaps with a monetary sanction?

[wserra]

As the original poster, I would like this thread to stay as focused as possible on the merits (or, more appropriately, lack thereof) of Van Pelt's pet nonsense. The thread was approaching 300 posts. I moved about 25 of the newest to the obvious new thread, not because they were simply flames (or the new thread wouldn't be in this forum), but because they were tangents. I ask that no one take offense.

[NYGman]

I have an honest question for David, I will try to simplify it without including IRS code and Regulations, as they may serve to confuse. and will keep it to a very specific point. I am not even going to touch the contention that FRN's are not lawful money, but wanted to address the position that Lawful money is not taxed, as that to me is more problematic, not that the first part isn't, I just don't feel like wasting time on that one.

The IRS Tax code taxes income regardless of form. For example, I am taxed on my World Wide income, earned in GBP, EUR, CAD, etc. While this earnings is not repatriated, it is still taxable to me, as a US citizen. I don't even have to convert it to actual USD for it to be taxable. If I earn 10,000EUR I will pay tax on an equivalent amount of USD, based on the conversion rate. Further to that, If I take something in trade, the value of that is taxable. If I do work, worth $5,000 and someone gives me a Fine Art painting worth $5,000 I will still have taxable income of $5,000.

It seems, that based on David's theory, Converting FRD's to Lawful money occurs on a 1-to-1 ratio, thus, a current exchange method exists to value the Lawful Money one may receive in payment of services, or as income or gains from investments or use of those FRD's or Lawful money. So, If I am taxed on world-wide income, and the value I receive from payment not in USD, but in Property is taxable, then why isn't Lawful Money taxable. Buying into David’s argument that only income paid with FRD's is taxable under the code, it looks to me like this would include not only FRD's but the FRD equivalent value of any property received in the course of employment, or that payment of Lawful money.

This conversion to and from FRN's and Lawful Money seems to always happen at a 1-to-1 rate, If you needed FRN's to make a payment to someone who demanded FRN's, you would have to extraxt FRN's from your bank account of lawful money, and would get exactly $1 FRN for every $1 of Lawful Money. Doesn't that freely convertible nature, basically make set the value of Lawful Money equal to the FRN's or USD.

David, please explain to me what I am missing. Why isn't the value of the Lawful money you get taxable, when it seems freely convertible, and at a fixed ratio, so that the value for US tax is measurable, and taxable?

[David Merrill]

I have an honest question for David, I will try to simplify it without including IRS code and Regulations, as they may serve to confuse. and will keep it to a very specific point. I am not even going to touch the contention that FRN's are not lawful money, but wanted to address the position that Lawful money is not taxed, as that to me is more problematic, not that the first part isn't, I just don't feel like wasting time on that one.

The IRS Tax code taxes income regardless of form. For example, I am taxed on my World Wide income, earned in GBP, EUR, CAD, etc. While this earnings is not repatriated, it is still taxable to me, as a US citizen. I don't even have to convert it to actual USD for it to be taxable. If I earn 10,000EUR I will pay tax on an equivalent amount of USD, based on the conversion rate. Further to that, If I take something in trade, the value of that is taxable. If I do work, worth $5,000 and someone gives me a Fine Art painting worth $5,000 I will still have taxable income of $5,000.

It seems, that based on David's theory, Converting FRD's to Lawful money occurs on a 1-to-1 ratio, thus, a current exchange method exists to value the Lawful Money one may receive in payment of services, or as income or gains from investments or use of those FRD's or Lawful money. So, If I am taxed on world-wide income, and the value I receive from payment not in USD, but in Property is taxable, then why isn't Lawful Money taxable. Buying into David’s argument that only income paid with FRD's is taxable under the code, it looks to me like this would include not only FRD's but the FRD equivalent value of any property received in the course of employment, or that payment of Lawful money.

This conversion to and from FRN's and Lawful Money seems to always happen at a 1-to-1 rate, If you needed FRN's to make a payment to someone who demanded FRN's, you would have to extraxt FRN's from your bank account of lawful money, and would get exactly $1 FRN for every $1 of Lawful Money. Doesn't that freely convertible nature, basically make set the value of Lawful Money equal to the FRN's or USD.

David, please explain to me what I am missing. Why isn't the value of the Lawful money you get taxable, when it seems freely convertible, and at a fixed ratio, so that the value for US tax is measurable, and taxable?

The currency that is not taxable is equivalently US notes and coins. I have been showing you more examples but am equivalently banished around here. Wserra is performing like a litigating attorney with opening and closing statements and he is a judge pre-approving any objections too. I suggest that you Google "redeemed lawful money" and surf around to see the many great examples.