name mispelled on indictment?

[indio007]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

What a hopeless non sequitur.

How can someone's pay go down when they are not getting paid in the first place? Monetized debt pays for nothing.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

What a hopeless non sequitur.

Most of the loons on this board could be called "a hopeless non sequitur." As in, non sequitur means "does not follow," and they can't follow an explanation of even the simplest points of law. They prefer their fantasies of "the government has no jurisdiction over me because I have declared myself a sovereign free man."

As for the "hopeless" part...well, that is self-evident.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Most of the loons on this board could be called "a hopeless non sequitur." As in, non sequitur means "does not follow," and they can't follow an explanation of even the simplest points of law. They prefer their fantasies of "the government has no jurisdiction over me because I have declared myself a sovereign free man."

As for the "hopeless" part...well, that is self-evident.

I've known the definition of non sequitor since I was about 8 years old. There was a cartoon in the paper called that and I looked it up many moons ago.

Anyhow, his usage of non sequitor IS the non sequitor .
The fact is that he can't follow the logic that there is an intrinsic difference between a case decided on the basis of legal tender vs lawful money. Altering or changing what someone paid in exchange for labor vs changing their "gross income" , "income" or "wages" based on employment are two vastly different actions at law. Law Merchant controls fiat currency and there is no sovereign , so half your babbling don't apply.
I will address your baseless denial of sovereignty of the people in a republican gov't. You obvious have a hidden disdain for the Courts you defend.

DeLima v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 179 (1900) The Constitution is not a physical substance. It is in the nature of a grant or power, or what would be termed in private law a power of attorney. A real constitution is a grant of rights or powers by a sovereign. The sovereign cannot be limited, for he is the source of all law. Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 370

Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dall (U.S.) 419, 456-480 (1793) ...
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty......

The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws, it that he binds himself. Upon the same principles, upon which he becomes bound by the laws, he becomes amenable to the Courts of Justice, which are formed and authorized by those laws. If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this, why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do likewise? . . . In one sense, the term sovereignty has for its correlative, subject. In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the Constitution of the United States,. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects.

Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Case 380 P.2d 34 (1962) Natural rights - inherent rights and liberties are not the creatures of constitutional provisions either at the national or state level. The inherent human freedoms with which mankind is endowed are "antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."

While the United States is a juristic person in the sense that it can sue upon its contracts or in vindication of its property rights, the term "person" does not include the sovereign in common usage nor, ordinarily, when employed in statutes.

I mean do you need to be buried in cases that declare the people sovereign? OK

http://1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-pro...gnty-cases.txt







In the end though , some on this forum seem to miss that big fat dividing line in the monetary system .... it's called 1933-1934. Substance money and fiat money operate differently at law. Rulings that may seem reversals truly aren't. A different operation of law is being applied.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by indio007

The fact is that he can't follow the logic that there is an intrinsic difference between a case decided on the basis of legal tender vs lawful money.

It's obvious you haven't read the O'Malley decision. There's absolutely nothing in it about legal tender or lawful money; even the dissenting Justice didn't raise such an absurd theory. That's just your bizarre rationale. Here, read it:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=277

Originally Posted by indio007

Altering or changing what someone paid in exchange for labor vs changing their "gross income" , "income" or "wages" based on employment are two vastly different actions at law.

You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what one receives in exchange for labor, as long as it has value. You can get paid in beaver pelts, gold, Andy Warhol prints, groceries, or federal reserve notes. Whatever you receive, its fair market value is gross income. And to use a tired example to which the anti-FRN crowd never has a response, if you think your FRN's are worthless, send them to me.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The Tax Court, established in 1942 as an Article I court, replaced the Board of Tax Appeals, which was an administrative tribunal within the IRS.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Tax_Court

It's still administrative in nature, no matter what color you paint it or what name you call it.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

It's obvious you haven't read the O'Malley decision. There's absolutely nothing in it about legal tender or lawful money; even the dissenting Justice didn't raise such an absurd theory. That's just your bizarre rationale. Here, read it:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=277



You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what one receives in exchange for labor, as long as it has value. You can get paid in beaver pelts, gold, Andy Warhol prints, groceries, or federal reserve notes. Whatever you receive, its fair market value is gross income. And to use a tired example to which the anti-FRN crowd never has a response, if you think your FRN's are worthless, send them to me.

FRN's have value? What value ? for the ink and paper?
What makes a $100 bill more valuable than a $1 bill?
Is there a visual esoteric configuration of the ink that in some way changes the symbols printed on it to something intrinsically more valuable?? The value between a $10000000 bill and a $1 bill is nothing. A promise to pay is not payment.

beaver pelts = substance = valuable consideration
gold = substance = valuable consideration
Andy Warhol prints = substance = valuable consideration
groceries = substance = valuable consideration

You apparently don't know the basis of the income tax in the first instance.
Income tax is an administrative balancing of the books for and between private fiat currency users.

[Shoonra]

Mertens posed a challenge which you ignored: If you believe that FRNs have no value, send yours to him. Or, as an alternative, send them to me.

FRNs are, by law, legal tender and the govt accepts them for payments of fines and taxes; and if the govt accepts them, why shouldn't you. I am fairly sure that you are much prefer being paid in FRNs than with a "bill of exchange" that the sort that DiM has been touting.

[Livefire]

At the moment I think Euros are a much better deal than FRNs. Even better, gold and silver coin such as Krugerrands, Golden Eagles and the like.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Mertens posed a challenge which you ignored: If you believe that FRNs have no value, send yours to him. Or, as an alternative, send them to me.

FRNs are, by law, legal tender and the govt accepts them for payments of fines and taxes; and if the govt accepts them, why shouldn't you. I am fairly sure that you are much prefer being paid in FRNs than with a "bill of exchange" that the sort that DiM has been touting.

Redeem your FRNs in lawful money instead.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588

Originally Posted by Title 12 USC §411

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

This redeems the national debt by the amount on your paycheck too. Very patriotic!



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. About misnomer; it is a fatal error. But the only way to abate it as a nuisance is to give the clerk of court the opportunity to correct the error. If the clerk of court will not correct the error, then it is abated by the clerk of court.

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

FRNs are, by law, legal tender and the govt accepts them for payments of fines and taxes; and if the govt accepts them, why shouldn't you. I am fairly sure that you are much prefer being paid in FRNs than with a "bill of exchange" that the sort that DiM has been touting.

Which Goverment are you refering to; the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or the United States ?

Maybe the U.S. Attorney will know!

LOL