Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?

[David Merrill]

For quite some time Pete has been fabricating the illusion that his book Cracking the Code is viable remedy by encouraging people to post their Refund Checks and when they get into trouble and want their testimony removed, banishing them from the Website (Lost Horizons (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2736&start=30&sid=11bffcf3151574f2916b6c26a90cdd85)). Pete is now in prison and nobody will let me onto Lost Horizons to discuss the problems people have there. - Mainly the problem is that the IRS often bills back for the Zero Income Return strategy in CtC. Often times with the $5K fine.

People are helpless to fight the Frivolous Return accusation because all that Pete offers are tired old interpretations of Title 26 - which is not postive law. None of these interpretations may be brought up in tax court. If an attorney tries to bring any of them up, he will be sanctioned without warning; that is how long they all have been failing and failing miserably.

My proposition is that once one begins to redeem lawful money, that they can apply remedy retroactively by one or both methods.


1) Stand on the accusation of Fraud by Omission. That is that the contract demanding Information and Self-Assessment (1040 Form) is vitiated by that fraud and that our civics teachers, parents and bank tellers are not to blame for the fraud, but rather are victims of the same fraud.

2) Stand on being a peaceful inhabitant. There has been some discussion here about that - being a conduit and allowing the State (by militant occupation) own the assets, but give you the usage. This involves volunteering to help the trustee settle up the account, after establishing that you know of the remedy and are consistently applying it. There is some evidence that this will "Satisfy" the IRS or DoR agent and cause setoff even for tax years prior to when the suitor began to redeem lawful money.

Which is to say, in either method Lost Horizon victims facing having to repay Refunds and $5K penalties too, who cannot should be looking seriously into applying remedy. Not just to apply remedy, but to cause Setoff and get the IRS off their backs.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

P.S. On item 2;


There is some interesting insights about the parameters of the trust being militant since 1861 and especially so from FDR's War on the Great Depression in 1933. This morning though, in the echo chamber of the brain trust (suitors) a fantastic read came to mind from the Federal Repository - The Thirteen Petalled Rose (Israel) by Adin STEINSALZ. My imagination soars to think of the Trust being signed at Exodus 24:7 and fulfilled by the Messianic Model - Jesus CHRIST as the Ultimate Blood Sacrifice so that the Income Tax is actually monetizing of sin like that righteous man of Israel would sacrifice his prize livestock to an angry God because of the Golden Calf imagery.

The part that got me wondering is a chapter in STEINSALZ's book - Repentance. Forgiveness of the debt, even before the remedy is applied is like a time machine. Repentance is like a time machine. The precept is that to acquire the blessings of being saved, the mechanism before the Messiah is Repentance! The time machine kicks in, not by turning back the clock, but by mitigating the effects of the past actions upon the man or woman in the present. This is a biblical concept of judgment - much like Karma - that you have to live with your past sins, like endorsing private credit from the Fed; but you may be freed from the effects of your past sins through repenting before God or His Son Jesus.

Interestingly, the copy in the repository is from the Benefactor himself (www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/IntelligenceID.jpg).

[JohnnyCash]

Don't feel bad about not receiving a login to LostHorizons forum; in Pete's absence no new users have been activated. On the flip side, nobody's been banned either.

And don't be too harsh on a book you haven't read. Pete's book was a real eye-opener for me - I paid income taxes for decades thinking I really owed them! Or perhaps I should say, not knowing I could opt-out at any time (Or, wearing the chains of sin unaware that Jesus had paid the price of my freedom). Pete is largely correct, the income tax is an excise on federal privilege. He delves into Title 26 and all the custom definitions. It's a valuable contribution as far as it goes (I'm not sold on amending prior years & the Form 4852 ideas). I do think you and the suitors have a deeper understanding of the larger deception at play. And misapplied taxation is just one piece of that larger matrix. Anyway, if it wasn't for Cracking the Code (http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf) I may have never discovered David Merrill & lawful money.

[David Merrill]

Granted - the Right to be Heard is a powerful thing in America. By signing a 1040 Form under the penalty of perjury the IRS agent is compelled to honor the initial assessment and send the Refund Check. Pete's book however leaves people in the lurch though, upon a reassessment based on the 1099 and W-2 Forms.

My insight, as is typical is from a suitor who was applying CtC methods to garnishments by the IRS and state DoR. He had Pete for a houseguest for strategy sessions. Cracking the Code is not about what it pretends to be about. The suitor disclosed to me, It is all about the Right to be Heard. Since I have not read it, I am going on that testimony, that to the Reader, CtC is about something else while the real operation of law is that Taxpayer Signature under the Penalty of Perjury. Since the IRS in America is based in voluntary self-assessment that means unless the IRS agent is willing to stop processing on the spot to investigate the 1040 Return Form, he is compelled to send the Refund Check.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Brian]

I agree Johnny. Amending previous years is a quick way to add some 5K penalties. The 4852 will also bring 5K fun times as well. There may be people still getting refunds using that method but the target is painted when a 4852 comes in. Perhaps during the rush of March and April some still get thru as the service probably brings in temps to do some of the manual sorting. However once the ACS system examines the data and cross references it with what you filed an audit or deficiency will promptly follow. That takes a year or two. CtC built the border of the puzzle. Lawful money filled in most of the rest.

David...Did you not purchase the book? That is why your forum access never got activated. You had to buy the book then contact Pete via the email you used to buy the book in order to gain access to the forum.

Great topic BTW!

[David Merrill]

I agree Johnny. Amending previous years is a quick way to add some 5K penalties. The 4852 will also bring 5K fun times as well. There may be people still getting refunds using that method but the target is painted when a 4852 comes in. Perhaps during the rush of March and April some still get thru as the service probably brings in temps to do some of the manual sorting. However once the ACS system examines the data and cross references it with what you filed an audit or deficiency will promptly follow. That takes a year or two. CtC built the border of the puzzle. Lawful money filled in most of the rest.

David...Did you not purchase the book? That is why your forum access never got activated. You had to buy the book then contact Pete via the email you used to buy the book in order to gain access to the forum.

Great topic BTW!


I would not challenge for former (to redeeming lawful money by demand) years unless the IRS is getting nasty with you about paying up. We have some scientific process (LoR) going with a suitor couple for two, maybe three years with scarcely any income of any form to report - for $20K, maybe soon $30K in penalties for using Pete's book and methods. The LoR is in place and a R4C executed on the third tax year, just notified since filing.

So we will be getting a current report on the effectiveness of accusing Fraud by Omission and may work some trust structure description into the Default Judgment.

My CtC book was given to me by a suitor. I have a small collection of unread guru material. It is there on the bookshelf with the Are You Lost at C? and since I knew the co-author of that, I understood it well enough to understand I better stick with the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789. For six years now I discovered §16 of the Fed Act. I guess my policy is that if an author/guru is spouting the remedy I describe, I am very interested in reading his book. Nobody else seems to be doing so.

Thank you for the explanation. I did not know buying the book was a requirement to post on Pete's Website.

[Brian]

Something else that could be added to the arsenal of common law in regards to these types of potential cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28law%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trover
Do these not fit the mold?

[stoneFree]

Cracking the Code is not about what it pretends to be about.As long as you're not suggesting Mr. Hendrickson is trying to mislead. He absolutely believes in what he says, and logic says he wouldn't risk jail if he didn't. I also note a lot of time, resources & shenanigans went into the government's conviction.
Understand that the Hendricksons are NOT being ordered to testify. They already HAVE testified. The government just doesn't like what they said, so it is ordering them to change that testimony to something it likes better.

This assault on the rule of law is taking place even though the feds have never disputed the original returns the Hendricksons filed years ago. The feds have never issued "notices of deficiency", conducted audits, filed liens or ever done ANYTHING to assert any claim against these folks before bringing this "lawsuit" out of the blue, with its unique request that the defendants in the suit be ordered under threat of prison to declare that the government has an interest in their money which the government itself has never been willing to make in any of the ways that the law says it can and must.

In fact, the federal Department of Treasury has always agreed-- on its own formal Certificates of Assessment, and over the signatures of certifying officers-- that the Hendricksons owe no taxes for the years involved (2002 and 2003) and never did, and that their original returns are perfectly valid. http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

I agree that filing a zero-return in the face of conflicting W2 or 1099 evidence, even though that evidence may be false or 3rd-party hearsay, is enough for the IRS to run with. Enough to get one penalized and possibly engaged in lengthy battle. I do feel that battle can be won, and showing evidence you've redeemed lawful money appears to end that battle in your favor. The DOJ/IRS seems quite reluctant to "go there" because to go there would be to reveal the banksters scam. That a sovereign nation has been deceived into borrowing all its money into existence.

[David Merrill]

Quite simply put, Pete signed endorsement of private credit from the Fed. He therefore owes a Return of that Income.

When it was put to me by the suitor who had Pete over, he was realizing it as he spoke and I am sure spoke to Pete about it too. But too late; Pete is committed to making a book work even though it is not a good method nor does it contain any remedy that can be recognized in tax court.

Pete gave his word by signature bond.

That Pete would banish people who wanted to report the trouble he had caused them with his CtC book tells quite a bit about him. And that people cannot get on the Website at all (newly discovered to me) explains a whole bunch more.


What I am talking about is that people may be able to recover from that misdirection with a Fraud by Omission countercharge based in the remedy found in full force and effect. That could get a whole bunch of people out of Pete's huge mess.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[stoneFree]

Fair enough. One thing I would like to see you (or the suitors) elaborate on is ...
.. tired old interpretations of Title 26 - which is not positive law. This area of positive law - published in the Federal Register. This isn't entirely clear in my mind.

[David Merrill]

That might be better brought to light by people who have read the CtC book.

I have heard people discuss the faults they would be bringing up in tax court or during a criminal prosecution and the arguments I have heard would cause immediate sanctions if an attorney were to bring them up - just for wasting the court's time.

[stoneFree]

Well it's a genuine question I have for you and/or the suitors. It's something that Pete's book does not address so I'll take it to a new thread:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?270-Positive-law-private-law-amp-the-Federal-Register

[Rock Anthony]

In my opinion, for those that accept that the various income taxes are actually excises levied on the activity of banking within the Federal Reserve System:

Pete's book doesn't provide much, if anything at all, that is useful because:

If you bank within the FRS, then Title 26 applies to you. Pete's book is not going to help you.

If you do not bank within the FRS, then Title 26 does not apply to you. Again, Pete's book is not going to help you.

I have read Pete's book from cover to cover. I was almost convinced, but there were just a few things that didn't sit well with me - prosecution and conviction of Pete.

His methods just do not work. And now I know why.

[David Merrill]

Agreed.. I am one of them.. 5k penalty for the whole deal..Even though I don't really disagree with the premise of my money belonging to me. I do realize that it is because of me that they are taking it, keeping it, and holding it for some sort of ransom until I completely cave. They have the upper hand. It is going to be a daunting task for most of us to recover from the CTC way of doing things..Sorry about that. I am eternally grateful to Mr. Hendrickson for at least opening my eyes to there being something wrong. But, it didn't work. And so now I and many others like me are led here. The only positive to that is at least there is a glimmer of hope that we can start from here and right the ship before we completely sink it.. Thanks everyone. And though some may not agree. I have learned a great deal from Mr. Merrill and Jesse James. I hate that there is such conflict with everyone. We are all trying to get to the same end. I hope..

Fraud vitiates all contracts and you are being held to an obligation made under fraud. It really does take redeeming lawful money to understand redeeming lawful money.

[Sabo]

Fraud vitiates all contracts and you are being held to an obligation made under fraud. It really does take redeeming lawful money to understand redeeming lawful money.

Of course, the question is how to A) get them to see/admit that it's fraud, and B) provide appropriate remedy for such fraud?
Simply redeeming lawful money going forward is only part of it. How does one then say "Hey IRS, I found Lawful Money - thanks for the fraud by omission, [give back previous returns / cancel your unlawful levy / whatever your desired result is]" ?

[JHV]

Pete's book was a real eye-opener for me - I paid income taxes for decades thinking I really owed them! Or perhaps I should say, not knowing I could opt-out at any time (Or, wearing the chains of sin unaware that Jesus had paid the price of my freedom). Pete is largely correct, the income tax is an excise on federal privilege. He delves into Title 26 and all the custom definitions. It's a valuable contribution as far as it goes (I'm not sold on amending prior years & the Form 4852 ideas). I do think you and the suitors have a deeper understanding of the larger deception at play. And misapplied taxation is just one piece of that larger matrix. Anyway, if it wasn't for Cracking the Code (http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf) I may have never discovered David Merrill & lawful money.

From Pete's Misunderstandings page,

"An old and ridiculous notion that the use of banks (and in some versions, FRNs) constitutes the adoption of a "privilege", making all deposits (or FRN receipts) taxable has been recycled this week."

I have decided to take the plunge and start redeeming lawful money. I see no downside, and it can only help this 30 year veteran of the "no soup for YOU!" club.

[Taxd2death]

Well,
I, too, was convinced that Mr. Hendrickson had stumbled onto something. Not being one that is good at bouncing from regulation to regulation, positive law to non positive law, and statute to statute, I did my best and thought I understood. At one time I also thought that Mr. Schiff had something too. But, two people who opened my eyes to there being a problem are in jail. That's really all that matters. All the other stuff is just commentary. Really doesn't matter now how right they might have been. Just matters that apparently they weren't right enough. I am sad for them and hope that all ends well. But, I am now going to try to escape the same fate.

I am getting ready to apply remedy to my situation. Hopefully, going forward, it will have some immediate relief. But, past years will be tough. And if there is a tomorrow for me and my wife, then I hope it proves brighter than the yesterdays, as far as this stuff goes.
I know that from now on, I will study harder and learn better. I am thankful to all of you, especially Mr. Merrill. At least the folks here haven't come under too much fire and there seems to be a more educated "aura", if you will, in this forum. Looking forward to more learning, more doing, and taking back my identity. And by the way, I don't really believe that people like Jesse and Johnny mean any harm to each other or anyone here. I think they are both quite smart about this whole thing. I have learned from both. Hopefully, they meet some common ground soon. For the sake of Suitors.

[David Merrill]

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2829/noticeofthirdpartycontr.jpgThe law reads, They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...


Of course, the question is how to A) get them to see/admit that it's fraud, and B) provide appropriate remedy for such fraud?

Simply redeeming lawful money going forward is only part of it. How does one then say "Hey IRS, I found Lawful Money - thanks for the fraud by omission, [give back previous returns / cancel your unlawful levy / whatever your desired result is]" ?

I would not try getting back refunds of past withholdings. However publishing a Notice and Demand, through a Libel of Review or otherwise gets the fraud by omission on the record. We master a process in Record-Forming called Refusal for Cause and as these bills come in a copy of the R4C process goes into the federal courthouse in the 'exclusive original cognizance' of the US Government and becomes available on the record from the US clerk of court. You become the court of record. The IRS starts being tried by the facts.

At the very least somebody should feel obligated to explain to you what about Title 12 USC 411 does not apply to you. If you are not a banking organization, and being treated as one in the Code then why are you expected to file a Return of your Income at all? So there is no harm in redeeming lawful money by demand. And there is quite a bit of gain to filing for a full refund of withholdings. The record-forming around the evidence repository is quite effective for stopping enforcement of any collections actions.

One suitor recently did not get it at all. They sent this little flyer (http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2829/noticeofthirdpartycontr.jpg) in the bill. He refused for cause the bill and showed it to me with this little Notice on top, left clean. I asked why he did not R4C the Notice? He could not explain. The IRS fleeced his bank account. They notified him that they could do that and he acquiesced. I told him he needs to change how he thinks; now he wants me to tell him how to think. I already did that and it did not work. If you think that the objective is to get them to admit to fraud though, you really need to redeem lawful money. You are not getting it at all. Just do the redemption of lawful money and let that work on your thinking. Redeeming lawful money does not mean that you have to file for a complete refund of withholdings, it simply means that you can.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Sabo]

If you think that the objective is to get them to admit to fraud though, you really need to redeem lawful money. You are not getting it at all. Just do the redemption of lawful money and let that work on your thinking. Redeeming lawful money does not mean that you have to file for a complete refund of withholdings, it simply means that you can.

Thanks, David. Yes, I definitely realize I am having trouble with all of this. That Libel of Review was especially headache-inducing since it was just a collection of scans, and no real direction. Of course, I'm not expecting anyone to completely hold hands, but at least knowing what we're looking at would be helpful. :)

As far as Lawful Money, while a worthy application, only one piece of my personal situation. I wasn't specifically asking about getting past returns back, it was just an example. My biggest issue right now is the 80% of my pay being taken by levy. I don't think telling them that I'm redeeming Lawful Money is going to help with that... Hell, I can't even talk to a [i]human[i] at the IRS who is even willing to simply reduce the amount so I can live, without that invasive 433-F with all my bank info and mortgage information.

[Gregory Harold]

In my opinion, for those that accept that the various income taxes are actually excises levied on the activity of banking within the Federal Reserve System:

Pete's book doesn't provide much, if anything at all, that is useful because:

If you bank within the FRS, then Title 26 applies to you. Pete's book is not going to help you.

If you do not bank within the FRS, then Title 26 does not apply to you. Again, Pete's book is not going to help you.

I have read Pete's book from cover to cover. I was almost convinced, but there were just a few things that didn't sit well with me - prosecution and conviction of Pete.

His methods just do not work. And now I know why.

I would definitely appreciate some feedback regarding my past (and current) experience with CtC - particularly since finding this amazing site! For the past 3 years I have filed a 'CtC-educated' return - owning a business (medical practice), I have rebutted any 1099-misc that was reported. I have not had any problems with the "Service" - they have even sent a refund of monies that were withheld because I refused to submit a W-9 to one particular company. I didn't even ask for any type of refund. For the past three years, the total of 1099's submitted has usually been below $6K. With the present law now requiring 1099-K's (from credit merchant companies), the Service is now going to receive "false-evidence" of a much larger amount of "income" (since many patients pay with credit card). Of course, if I follow my past filing strategy, I would simply rebut these 1099-K's. However, the 'Service' is now going to see a much larger amount of "income" relative to my past three years of filing, and I have some concern about this. I wonder if they have left me alone because the past 1099-misc amount has been so low, or have they actually followed the law in my case (which is quite possible due to the high profile nature of CtC returns)? Since recently learning the information from David and this great site, I am now demanding lawful money and I will file a notice with the USDC (as was suggested in another thread)! Does anyone have any OPINIONS (not legal advice!) as to how how they might proceed if confronted with similar circumstances as April 17 approaches? Is there a way to "protect" myself if I file as I have been (given this new found lawful money knowledge)? My other thought is to file a "standard" return, pay the extortion (ugh!), and move forward from this point armed with my demand for lawful money. I really can't stand the thought of feeding the corrupt, immoral gravy train a single penny though! Any insight would definitely be welcomed and appreciated. Thanks, Hugh.

[JohnnyCash]

For the past 3 years I have filed a 'CtC-educated' return - owning a business (medical practice), I have rebutted any 1099-misc that was reported. I have not had any problems with the "Service" - they have even sent a refund of monies that were withheld because I refused to submit a W-9 to one particular company. I didn't even ask for any type of refund.
By 'CtC-educated' return I take it you mean zero-income return? What type of entity is filing these 'educated' returns, individual (proprietor), Partnership, S-Corp, Corporation? Generally, companies paying you and reporting on 1099s do not withhold federal tax. How are you rebutting your 1099s?

[Gregory Harold]

A mostly zero-income return. Interest is included. They are filed as a sole-proprietor. The 1099's are rebutted in a manner similar to what is explained in CtC (the 1099's are 'corrected' to reflect zero income due to the fact that neither party engaged in the "a trade or business". This is recorded on the form as a signed statement. Also, my understanding is that if a w-9 is not signed, a company may withhold a certain percentage of what they would pay out. I believe it actually states that on the form's instructions.

[JHV]

"By doubting we are led to questioning, and by questioning we are led to the truth."

Where is the statute that comes right out and says in terms my eighth-grade edumacated freinds can understand that redeeming lawful money allows one to escape taxation?

[JohnnyCash]

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6888/1099k1.jpg
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9056/1099k2.jpg
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6888/1099k1.jpg
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9056/1099k2.jpg
What you believe may not be what happens in the real world. That is a recent Form 1099K and no taxes were withheld. This is a new Form started TY2011 and that's the first 1099K I've seen. It seems the banking cartel didn't rest easy knowing they might be losing a tiny portion of their annual take due to non-reporting of credit card transactions. It's been said they really wanted info on the PayPal transactions and eBay owns PayPal. PayPal uses the JPMorganChase bank, the largest manifestation of the banking cabal as it exists in this country (or is Quatloos.com bigger?). But I digress; I'm having trouble comprehending how the Feds are withholding all the money that you later say is being automatically refunded to you ... without you even asking? There are currently no backup withholding provisions with 1099-K, those were planned but delayed (http://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com/dont_mess_with_taxes/2011/10/irs-postpones-backup-withholding-on-credit-card-payment-reporting-until-2013.html).

[David Merrill]

"By doubting we are led to questioning, and by questioning we are led to the truth."

Where is the statute that comes right out and says in terms my eighth-grade edumacated freinds can understand that redeeming lawful money allows one to escape taxation?

In the Statutes at large it is found at Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act (1913).


http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3011/12usc411pre1934.jpg

There it is in the first sentence, Fed notes are for Fed banks. However they were to be issued for only twenty years until the Fed charter expired in 1933 (http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/267/charterexpiressmall.jpg). To save the Fed from that run FDR opened up the contracting to everybody (http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg) to behave like Fed banks.

Subsequently because it became illegal to "hoard" gold in America:


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7039/12usc411.jpg


Thanks, David. Yes, I definitely realize I am having trouble with all of this. That Libel of Review was especially headache-inducing since it was just a collection of scans, and no real direction. Of course, I'm not expecting anyone to completely hold hands, but at least knowing what we're looking at would be helpful.

As far as Lawful Money, while a worthy application, only one piece of my personal situation. I wasn't specifically asking about getting past returns back, it was just an example. My biggest issue right now is the 80% of my pay being taken by levy. I don't think telling them that I'm redeeming Lawful Money is going to help with that... Hell, I can't even talk to a [i]human[i] at the IRS who is even willing to simply reduce the amount so I can live, without that invasive 433-F with all my bank info and mortgage information.

I generally say the LoR (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWY1MzE0YWYtNWIzYy00NzYzLWI1MTQ tNDdjNDczNWE4MzJh&hl=en_US) is fluff for establishing an evidence repository. However there is a lot of much deeper meaning appertaining to the history of American law. I was worshipping in the charismatic community and there was a faction of anti-Masons who got me curious about all the hideous Satan worship allegedly happening up on the hill. So I went up there and after a few years of studying in their library (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Freemason_library.jpg)and museum (http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1628/masonmuseum.jpg)I discovered a very curious artifact - The Gospel of Philip the Deacon; 1938. I caught a snippet (http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8444/philipjesusnotinitiateu.jpg) and ran out to buy it. The book alleges that Jesus spent a good deal of time touring the mystery schools in Babylon and Egypt! Well, I had been doing that too, without becoming an initiate like Jesus finally did in the Order of Archelaus, John (the Baptist). This explores through the Knights Templar into modern Freemasonry (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9579/templestonesmogandavid.jpg).

Not being a Mason gives me the freedom to speak about my research with complete immunity. This also gives me the freedom to change my perceptions and build my knowledge as I go, adapting to and incorporating new information. At this time I would best describe the Masons as Custodians of the Record. To the untrained eye though, it looks like they are in control but that is only to the extent that ignorance would allow. In other words remedy is what you can wrap your mind around.

James Harlan AYERS was a 32nd Degree Freemason when he and his friends wrote Are You Lost at C? (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf)

That is probably all you were after for now. The Lesson Plan is:

1) learn your true identity
2) become proficient at Record-Forming
3) redeem lawful money

So I suggest if you want to view the Libel of Review as anything more than fluff to establish an evidence repository in the federal courthouse for items like Refusals for Cause, then you might read it with the Lesson Plan in mind and imagine how executing the LoR and especially a Default Judgment against Timothy Franz GEITHNER might teach you the above objectives.


Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. Edit; Archelaus was Herod ANTIPAS's brother.

[JHV]

The Lesson Plan is:

1) learn your true identity I checked, my parents did not lie to me. I don't plan on changing my name this late in life.
2) become proficient at Record-Forming-I'll work on that.
3) redeem lawful money- Will do.

[David Merrill]

The Lesson Plan is:

1) learn your true identity I checked, my parents did not lie to me. I don't plan on changing my name this late in life.
2) become proficient at Record-Forming-I'll work on that.
3) redeem lawful money- Will do.

It is of course a good thing to check. I trust your parents were not offended by you checking.

It may be that upon a cursory glance you have still not discerned your true identity residing in your true name. Look very carefully at these Black's Fifth definitions:



http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_NameDefinition.jpg

Do you see how "name" in a legal/law dictionary is in quotation marks. This convention means it is a special use of the term. - Like in Private Use. Or maybe better "private use".


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_legal.jpg


That definition compiles the story. Legal name is the same things as "name" within the same dictionary! In other words the lawyer/attorney will upon dictionary examination come away with the impression that Name and Legal Name are synonyms.

So for use in the Lesson Plan true name and true identity mean Given or Christian Name or Names; the First and Middle names only. Do not reject your family heritage; I certainly do not being a Patroon (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/544/charteroffreedomsandexe.pdf). There is no denying that I have a perpetual inheritance (Section VI (http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4227/freedomsandexemptions1.jpg)). And unless you understand the superior court of public record and notice for a non-statutory abatement for misnomer, this is a silly thing to bring up in any inferior jurisdiction. However knowing who you are is fundamental in understanding the basic trust structure (http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7013/generalpublictrust.pdf) put in place to affect endorsement at large among the supporters of government debt (http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg) called the US Dollar (implemented 1933). This is expecially important since the world considers the US Dollar the Reserve Currency of the World.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I just noticed the serendipity of keeping "Naked" in the image for "Name"! When you sign the backside of a paycheck that is obviously a "naked" contract agreement by signature. I believe I will write some verbiage about Naked Contract into the Libel of Review (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWY1MzE0YWYtNWIzYy00NzYzLWI1MTQ tNDdjNDczNWE4MzJh&hl=en_US) template. It certainly supports the idea that without consideration the entire government bonds scheme is completely without enforcement power, as if I had been informed in good faith I would have redeemed lawful money since my first paycheck ever!

[JHV]

My proposition is that once one begins to redeem lawful money, that they can apply remedy retroactively by one or both methods.


1) Stand on the accusation of Fraud by Omission. That is that the contract demanding Information and Self-Assessment (1040 Form) is vitiated by that fraud and that our civics teachers, parents and bank tellers are not to blame for the fraud, but rather are victims of the same fraud.

2) Stand on being a peaceful inhabitant. There has been some discussion here about that - being a conduit and allowing the State (by militant occupation) own the assets, but give you the usage. This involves volunteering to help the trustee settle up the account, after establishing that you know of the remedy and are consistently applying it. There is some evidence that this will "Satisfy" the IRS or DoR agent and cause setoff even for tax years prior to when the suitor began to redeem lawful money.

The above is from post #1 in this thread, and this much I actually understand. "Fraud vitiates everything." I hope so. So in my next letter to my Senator who offered to help me, only to send everything to the Taxpayer Advocate, I plan to give a notice of revocation for all previous returns, (without apology, it seems silly to me to apologize to the criminals who defrauded me) and submit new returns as if I had not been the victim of fraud by omission. I will also humor them in their interpretation of the code and enter the exact W-2 amounts, only to deduct them later with my lawful money redemption claim. After all, that is what I would have done from my first paycheck had I not been so victimized. Maybe this will get me out of the "no soup for YOU!" club at last.

As for the name stuff, it reminds me of an old Doors tune- "no one remembers your name, when you're strange."

[David Merrill]

When you're strange?

Maybe more peculiar treasure. You best have a Libel of Review (https://docs.google.com/document/d/18eglCMnLuLDn1dxW_JLdKZlzd65p6fxsmnKFeYcPxxA/edit) and a default judgment (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImOGFiNzI4YTMtZmY2NC00NTM0LTlmNTQtZTRmZ DBjMTNhNDYz/edit) in place for collateral copies of that accusation. You want a record of everything in the USDC to try something bold like that.



Maybe consider that you should be operating your legal identity as a trust. Knowing the difference between your true name and legal or full name is very powerful in that context.

[allodial]

So for use in the Lesson Plan true name and true identity mean Given or Christian Name or Names; the First and Middle names only. Do not reject your family heritage; I certainly do not being a Patroon (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/544/charteroffreedomsandexe.pdf). There is no denying that I have a perpetual inheritance (Section VI (http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4227/freedomsandexemptions1.jpg)).

Usually doesn't take long for some to 'get' the notion of there being a complete difference between, say, my name and the name of my household. Some however cannot even mentally compute or conceive of this for whatever reason. To be Roy and to be, say, Roy Smith are two different things. Its interesting how not being stupid about basic grammar or use of the English language makes some bureaucrats angry. I am convinced that even with dropping the 'last name', one can keep up family heritage by... simply through wise and sound management of the household. I'm just unaware how the name of any household with which I associate would be my name. :) Is the name of one's city one's name? John de Chicago? John van Hamburg? If the idea of the last name is to help make distinctions, well seems there'd be around 2,853,114 people around Chicago with the 'von Chicago' 'surname' no? Why isnt David Van Chicago also David Van Illinois or or David Van Der Loop? The purported 'justifications' start clearly breaking down and their silliness revealed in their trying to force or impose upon us some kind of 'surname'. They they might say "van Chicago" isnt enough? Why isnt it enough? Distinguishing 2,853,114 folks from 6 billion others isn't enough!?!? So how about the kazillion John Rogers or Sarah Jones?

Also, its interesting that in German folks are asked "What are you called?" rather than "What is your name?"



P.S. I just noticed the serendipity of keeping "Naked" in the image for "Name"! When you sign the backside of a paycheck that is obviously a "naked" contract agreement by signature. I believe I will write some verbiage about Naked Contract into the Libel of Review (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWY1MzE0YWYtNWIzYy00NzYzLWI1MTQ tNDdjNDczNWE4MzJh&hl=en_US) template. It certainly supports the idea that without consideration the entire government bonds scheme is completely without enforcement power, as if I had been informed in good faith I would have redeemed lawful money since my first paycheck ever!

Whats interesting is the similarity between the backside of a check and a 'skeleton bill'.... Regarding consideration...the Government is perhaps :) providing consideration in the form of cancellation of debt.

[JHV]

When you're strange?

Maybe more peculiar treasure. You best have a Libel of Review (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWY1MzE0YWYtNWIzYy00NzYzLWI1MTQ tNDdjNDczNWE4MzJh&hl=en_US LoR) and a default judgment (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImOGFiNzI4YTMtZmY2NC00NTM0LTlmNTQtZTRmZ DBjMTNhNDYz/edit) in place for collateral copies of that accusation. You want a record of everything in the USDC to try something bold like that.



Maybe consider that you should be operating your legal identity as a trust. Knowing the difference between your true name and legal or full name is very powerful in that context.

OK- I got all the default judgment docs but but the LoR link isn't working.

Peculiar is good...

[JHV]

A good fraud by omission (http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/civil-causes-of-action-fraud/) definition.

Libel of review (http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/libel-of-review/) definition. So many new concepts, so little time.

[JHV]

"Fraud in the factum means fraud in the obtaining the execution of the agreement or delivery of a document. As opposed to fraud in inducing someone to sign a document, it is fraud regarding the contents of the document, so that the person defrauded is unaware of what they are signing."

As in the back of a check.

[David Merrill]

The Judiciary Act of 1789 (http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/834/judiciaryactof1789.pdf)invented the District overlays on the States. By 1790 the purpose in doing so (http://img824.imageshack.us/f/1790districtsestablishe.jpg) was also clarified. On Page 77 we find the 'saving to suitors' clause (http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/6862/savingtosuitors.jpg) amidst the nature of municipal insurance (bottomry) the Admiralty. Therefore it behooves the man on the land to approach (see the word appear in approach? Restricted Appearance (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_E) - Rule E(8)) and to inform that domain of his true identity and that they will no longer be splashing navigable waters on his yard and home through that little federal enclave, the mailbox.


"Fraud in the factum means fraud in the obtaining the execution of the agreement or delivery of a document. As opposed to fraud in inducing someone to sign a document, it is fraud regarding the contents of the document, so that the person defrauded is unaware of what they are signing."

As in the back of a check.

I discovered that I included "Naked" when I photographed "Name" in Black's Fifth:



http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_NameDefinition.jpg

In my description and you will find it in the Instructions at the bottom of the Libel of Review (https://docs.google.com/document/d/18eglCMnLuLDn1dxW_JLdKZlzd65p6fxsmnKFeYcPxxA/edit#), the fraud is deeper than even NLP goes; that you own your mailbox just because government has tricked you into paying for it.

The LoR can easily be described as fluff around your first R4C (Refusal for Cause) where you start regulating the presentments in your life, mostly through the mail, that will turn into agreements by and large through acquiescence and negative averment; perfectly acceptable commercial practices...

In the admiralty!

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAVID BOSSET,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:07-CV-967-T-30MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,



Contrary to Plaintiff?s characterization of the case, nothing in the complaint suggests that this case is within the Court?s admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction exists only if the complained of incident occurred on navigable waters or is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.

See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 533 (1995);

Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 364 (1990).

It is plain from the face of Plaintiff's original and amended Complaints that neither admiralty nor maritime law is implicated here. There are no allegations in either complaint of any maritime activities, no allegations of any incident having occurred on navigable waters of the United States, and no suggestion that any maritime vessel (i.e., boat, ship, barge, etc.) is implicated. As far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff?s claims relate to the assessment and collection of taxes. This matter is, therefore, governed by the General Provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Plaintiff?s motion to strike is frivolous and should be denied.

[David Merrill]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAVID BOSSET,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:07-CV-967-T-30MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,



Contrary to Plaintiff?s characterization of the case, nothing in the complaint suggests that this case is within the Court?s admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction exists only if the complained of incident occurred on navigable waters or is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.

See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 533 (1995);

Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 364 (1990).

It is plain from the face of Plaintiff's original and amended Complaints that neither admiralty nor maritime law is implicated here. There are no allegations in either complaint of any maritime activities, no allegations of any incident having occurred on navigable waters of the United States, and no suggestion that any maritime vessel (i.e., boat, ship, barge, etc.) is implicated. As far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff?s claims relate to the assessment and collection of taxes. This matter is, therefore, governed by the General Provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Plaintiff?s motion to strike is frivolous and should be denied.

Thank you for that citation and opinion BY. I am processing this...

[Chex]

Contrary to Plaintiff?s characterization of the case, nothing in the complaint suggests that this case is within the Court?s admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction exists only if the complained of incident occurred on navigable waters or is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.

Does not the long arm of the law have reach to all it?s members?

Some understand when a jury seas the truth in ?things?, even though they were not a jury of his peers i.e. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest. http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42749/

Even the family sort of agrees?but they missed an important word.
Basically, liens and levies are claims upon the property of a person based either on the operation of law or of contract. however, that NO NATURAL PERSON can be liable for personal income taxes under subtitles A and C. http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/4.21ChallengeAllLevies.htm

Even the irs has sympathy??..
In my description and you will find it in the Instructions at the bottom of the Libel of Review, the fraud is deeper than even NLP goes; that you own your mailbox just because government has tricked you into paying for it.
(5) Undelivered mail. Mail, addressed to any person, which has not been delivered to the addressee. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6334 from here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6331

I truly believe that it would be Inconvenience (In the rule that statutes should be so construed as to avoid inconvenience," this means, as applied to the public, the sacrifice or jeopardizing of important public interests or hampering the legitimate activities of government or the transaction of public business, and, as applied to individuals, serious hardship or injustice.) if Provision and funding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare): were taken away from the zombies.

I believe many went interregnum (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7meziIVP0xcAc4FXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&fr=b1ie7&p=interregnum+definition&rs=0&fr2=rs-top)because of words? Incompetency. Lack of ability, knowledge, legal qualification, or fitness to discharge the required duty or professional obligation. A relative term which may be employed as meaning disqualification, inability or incapacity and it can refer to lack of legal qualifications or fitness to discharge the required duty and to show want of physical or intellectual or moral fitness. County Bd. of Ed. of Clarke County v. Oliver, 270 Ala. 107, 116 So.2d 566, 567.

Reread the court documents?..
Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.

See also Person.

As an adjective, "individual" means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto.

Individual assets. In the law of partnership, property belonging to a member of a partnership as his separate and private property, apart from the assets or property belonging to the firm as such or the partner's interest therein.

Individual debts. Such as are due from a member of a partnership in his private or personal capacity, as distinguished from those due from the firm or partnership.

Individually. Separately and personally, as distinguished from jointly or officially, and as opposed to collective or associate action or common interest.

Have you see the commercial for chase with the take a picture of your check and deposit it electronically?

The signature on an instrument of a person who has the liability thereon of an indorser. Any signature in an ambiguous capacity is an indorsement. U.C.C. ? 3-402. As applied to documents, the term means the signature thereon of a person to whose order the document runs.

An indorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder and on the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof. An indorsement is effective for negotiation only when it conveys the entire instrument or any unpaid residue. If it purports to be of less it operates only as a partial assignment. U.C.C. ? 3-202.

Accommodation indorsement. In the law of negotiable instruments, one made by a third person without any consideration, but merely for the benefit of the holder of the instrument, or to enable the maker to obtain money or credit on it.

Unless otherwise explained, it is understood to be a loan of the indorser's credit without restriction.

Accommodation indorser is not liable to party accommodated. U.C.C. ? 3-415.

Makes you wonder why?

Skeleton bill = Health care bill.

Now what?

[David Merrill]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAVID BOSSET,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:07-CV-967-T-30MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,



Contrary to Plaintiff?s characterization of the case, nothing in the complaint suggests that this case is within the Court?s admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction exists only if the complained of incident occurred on navigable waters or is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.

See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 533 (1995);

Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 364 (1990).

It is plain from the face of Plaintiff's original and amended Complaints that neither admiralty nor maritime law is implicated here. There are no allegations in either complaint of any maritime activities, no allegations of any incident having occurred on navigable waters of the United States, and no suggestion that any maritime vessel (i.e., boat, ship, barge, etc.) is implicated. As far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff?s claims relate to the assessment and collection of taxes. This matter is, therefore, governed by the General Provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Plaintiff?s motion to strike is frivolous and should be denied.


I have spent a bit of time mostly just to acquire the story behind the quote. What you have done is blend BOSSET with a couple other opinions. In BOSSET (http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2779/davidbossetvusa.pdf), the plaintiff failed to serve the Secretary (US Governor for the IMF) properly so the DoJ should not have responded at all. However they could not help getting their jab in at process (BOSSET obviously stumbled across Are You Lost at C? and he utilized its Memorandum of Law in adding respondents). However the judge dismissed the case with prejudice because the Respondent was never properly served a summons.

Just because the Defendant says he is not affiliated with the IMF does not mean that it is true. Look at Page 8 of the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements (http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3599/publiclaw94564.pdf). The Secretary has since alienated himself from the position, US Governor for the IMF by delegation. He is still very much the principal for operations of the Treasury internationally.

I believe that some of the other case opinions arise from a non-suitor, not being instructed and taught as he goes, using the Libel of Review and misunderstaning its intent is to open up an evidence repository so the man on the land can keep a record of truth and become the court of record. What a few folks have done is to put the dismissal into the appeal process, where it generates a published opinion. That is called bad precedent.

I have looked into that in the past and not encountered any names of current or former suitors. Any navigator of a LoR in contact with me understands that he will be seeing the LoR dismissed and be taught how to manage the remaining evidence repository.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[macaddictjay]

By way of introduction to this forum, I read Cracking the Code several times before filing in the "CtC-educated" manner. For the first two years, I got full refunds, and was emboldened to file amended returns for two previous years. Then, the series of letters began from the IRS. I followed the examples of replies to these letters found on Pete's site, until I got letters assessing me multiple $5K "frivolous" penalties. Pete maintains that those who send timely replies to these letters, and don't back down, ultimately prevail. I will never know if this would have been true in my case; after missing a reply deadline, the IRS proceeded to levy my assets and announced their intent to lien all future income. My wife prevailed upon me to hire an attorney, and it hasn't gone so well since. It doesn't seem to matter (to my attorney and my CongressCritter) that the IRS ignores the law and their own procedures.

I've been reading with interest your websites, forum and source materials, and have a few comments on the post quoted below:


By signing a 1040 Form under the penalty of perjury the IRS agent is compelled to honor the initial assessment and send the Refund Check. Pete's book however leaves people in the lurch though, upon a reassessment based on the 1099 and W-2 Forms.


My insight, as is typical is from a suitor who was applying CtC methods to garnishments by the IRS and state DoR. He had Pete for a houseguest for strategy sessions. Cracking the Code is not about what it pretends to be about. The suitor disclosed to me, It is all about the Right to be Heard. Since I have not read it, I am going on that testimony, that to the Reader, CtC is about something else while the real operation of law is that Taxpayer Signature under the Penalty of Perjury. Since the IRS in America is based in voluntary self-assessment that means unless the IRS agent is willing to stop processing on the spot to investigate the 1040 Return Form, he is compelled to send the Refund Check.

Pete maintains that all "CtC-educated" returns are immediately forwarded to the department that investigates suspect claims, and the refunds are sent out with their foreknowledge?indicating that there is some strategy involved here, not just the compulsion of law (which they flout regularly). I have (what I thought was) written evidence that a human eye had examined my return and agreed with my self-assessment that I had no "income." (Do I see an entrapment scheme here?) My attorney had taken an IRS "tour" and saw the computer systems that auto-respond to return data, and is of the opinion that no human eye necessarily "saw" my return. (I remain skeptical of this.) He also said that the IRS can make any "mistake" they want with impunity.

I posted most of my "interactions" with the IRS on my blog (http://arewebozos.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-scary-letter-ho-hum.html), but am now faced with updating all these posts with the foreword/disclaimer, "kids, don't try this at home." The most recent relevant post is here (http://arewebozos.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-was-right-everything-i-knew-was-wrong.html), where I was introduced to your forum.

Again, I will never know if simply responding to all the IRS letters within the stated deadlines would have saved me from the levy. I agree with other forum members here that Pete's analysis of tax law is correct, as far as it goes. One key aspect of taxation that Pete does not address (or seem to recognize) is the nature of money, and the fact that all IRS rules apply to what everyone assumes is "money," while what we commonly (and usually unknowingly) deal with in commerce is actually certificates of debt, masquerading as money. The acquisition of this perspective changes the whole ball game. Although I doubt that Pete will change his perspective, as he has a tremendous psychological investment in his analysis of the law, I hope he can see the bigger picture. The issue of money versus debt certificates is a realm of knowledge which lies outside of, or above, Pete's legal analyses. I hope he will come to see this, and not fall victim to his own hubris by dismissing the issue as just another "patriot myth."

Meanwhile, I look forward to learning more from this group, and finding an effective remedy for my current situation.

[Treefarmer]

.....SNIP...
Again, I will never know if simply responding to all the IRS letters within the stated deadlines would have saved me from the levy. I agree with other forum members here that Pete's analysis of tax law is correct, as far as it goes. One key aspect of taxation that Pete does not address (or seem to recognize) is the nature of money, and the fact that all IRS rules apply to what everyone assumes is "money," while what we commonly (and usually unknowingly) deal with in commerce is actually certificates of debt, masquerading as money....

Hello macaddictjay, welcome to the forum.

From personal experience with filing "HENDRICKSON" style, I can say that responding to every single IRS letter is the best way to go, as long as you respond by writing "Refused for Cause" with a thick red marker on every page they sent you. Then you send that back to them within 72 hours, by registered or certified mail, with green return receipt. You send a copy of that refusal for cause to a United States District Court near you, where you instruct the court clerk to file that copy into a miscellaneous case file, or if you go on the offensive, a civil case file.

In your correspondence with the court you use your true name so that they know that you are not a fictitious entity or trust account, because they have a bit of secret voodoo constructed around the legal name, which hinders them from seeing the living man.

There are instructions posted here in various places around the forum, search for "refusal for cause" or "refuse for cause", or R4C, as well as "Libel of Review" or LoR.
David Merrill is very knowledgeable about this, so if in doubt, ask him.

Pete HENDRICKSON interpreted the IRC in a logical and honest manner, IMHO, and fell into the trap that is built into the IRC for that type of personality.
I have noticed other traps that are built into the IRC, which are so clever and subtle that only haSatan himself could have devised it all.
That's a study unto itself, and various people have left evidence of it all over this forum.

For me the quest to figure out money and taxes started a long time ago; from the time that I found a token on the sidewalk which was inscribed FREEDOM on one side and NO CASH VALUE on the other, at the precise moment that I challenged the universe to show me truth about money, to filing tax returns HENDRICKSON style, to filing a Libel of Review and learning about law and identity. It's been an amazingly rewarding trip spiritually as well as physically.

Among other things, I have begun to understand what Yahushua (aka Jesus CHRIST) said in John 8:32:
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. "

Godspeed for your journey.

Shabbat Shalom

[David Merrill]

Thanks for the information and welcome MacaddictJay.

[macaddictjay]

Since my dropping of the ball as a "CtC-educated" filer (see my first post above), I've been looking here and elsewhere for alternative solutions to the IRS assault on my finances. In the category of "elsewhere," I found a website called "teamlaw.net" and its associated forum. In this thread (http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1022&sid=d8b7bcd897fe2f55f1909f313e275685), the forum takes up the topic of redemption of FRNs in lawful money, and has a different take than in this forum. Rather than copy/pasting this entire thread here, I ask that David and other readers of this forum visit the above link, and provide their feedback on this thread and/or the whole "Team Law" enterprise (they offer paid services in addition to the free areas of their site/forum).

The first post in the thread begins: "Can anyone comment on the suggestion that Sec.411 of Title 12 (Federal Reserve Act) is an inherent remedy?" and is answered by several posts and a comment from their Admin that states:

(You don't seem to) understand that the FRN:
Is not money;
Is not a ?private credit instrument?; and,
Is merely a rented transaction instrument.
Thus, the use of the instrument creates no such ?contract? with Corp. U.S. binding anyone to pay income taxes. Any obligation to pay income taxes must come from the law and not from some such alleged implied but non-existent contract. In fact, it is highly unlikely that people are involved in the process of income tax paying obligations at all. The parties so involved in the process of paying income taxes are ?taxpayers??all of which have Taxpayer Identification Numbers. From the evidences we have seen and reviewed, we have never seen people that were taxpayers unless they were linked to the taxpayer through a general partnership.

The bottom line: though we are not aware of where you got that understanding from; it is not supported by what Team Law presented in our presentation of Myth 22!
In the forum, "Myth 22" is a hyperlink which explains their take on what they categorize as a "patriot myth."

My criteria for choosing a personal defense/offense strategy with the IRS is more practical than theoretical. At this point, I care more about what will work than whose theory is correct. I'm not sure at this point if their core remedy and yours are mutually exclusive; it may be that an apparent conflict stems from different definitions of terms. Might there be a meeting of the minds here?

[David Merrill]

Since my dropping of the ball as a "CtC-educated" filer (see my first post above), I've been looking here and elsewhere for alternative solutions to the IRS assault on my finances. In the category of "elsewhere," I found a website called "teamlaw.net" and its associated forum. In this thread (http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1022&sid=d8b7bcd897fe2f55f1909f313e275685), the forum takes up the topic of redemption of FRNs in lawful money, and has a different take than in this forum. Rather than copy/pasting this entire thread here, I ask that David and other readers of this forum visit the above link, and provide their feedback on this thread and/or the whole "Team Law" enterprise (they offer paid services in addition to the free areas of their site/forum).

The first post in the thread begins: "Can anyone comment on the suggestion that Sec.411 of Title 12 (Federal Reserve Act) is an inherent remedy?" and is answered by several posts and a comment from their Admin that states:

In the forum, "Myth 22" is a hyperlink which explains their take on what they categorize as a "patriot myth."

My criteria for choosing a personal defense/offense strategy with the IRS is more practical than theoretical. At this point, I care more about what will work than whose theory is correct. I'm not sure at this point if their core remedy and yours are mutually exclusive; it may be that an apparent conflict stems from different definitions of terms. Might there be a meeting of the minds here?

Admin is Eric MADSEN up in Aurara, Colorado. He seems extremely clever but I find it impossible to teach him anything because he is a master of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming). He has weaponized it and admits doing so.

In the post you quote him describing or defining what Federal Reserve notes are. He is probably right. They are also stock certificates in the Fed according to many courts and I like to view them as insurance policies which I feel agrees with Eric in your post. - Well, sort of.

I will play around on the public forum at Team Law and maybe see if Eric has matured in being a little open minded. He has been around the block though, and is very intelligent.

[shikamaru]

Since my dropping of the ball as a "CtC-educated" filer (see my first post above), I've been looking here and elsewhere for alternative solutions to the IRS assault on my finances. In the category of "elsewhere," I found a website called "teamlaw.net" and its associated forum. In this thread (http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1022&sid=d8b7bcd897fe2f55f1909f313e275685), the forum takes up the topic of redemption of FRNs in lawful money, and has a different take than in this forum. Rather than copy/pasting this entire thread here, I ask that David and other readers of this forum visit the above link, and provide their feedback on this thread and/or the whole "Team Law" enterprise (they offer paid services in addition to the free areas of their site/forum).

The first post in the thread begins: "Can anyone comment on the suggestion that Sec.411 of Title 12 (Federal Reserve Act) is an inherent remedy?" and is answered by several posts and a comment from their Admin that states:

In the forum, "Myth 22" is a hyperlink which explains their take on what they categorize as a "patriot myth."

My criteria for choosing a personal defense/offense strategy with the IRS is more practical than theoretical. At this point, I care more about what will work than whose theory is correct. I'm not sure at this point if their core remedy and yours are mutually exclusive; it may be that an apparent conflict stems from different definitions of terms. Might there be a meeting of the minds here?

I have found keeping things simple is just as effective as anything, but I do delve into the complicated.

If a system is tremendously arduous and complicated, it is safe to deduce that something is being hidden or deception is being perpetrated.

[Treefarmer]

Since my dropping of the ball as a "CtC-educated" filer (see my first post above), I've been looking here and elsewhere for alternative solutions to the IRS assault on my finances. In the category of "elsewhere," I found a website called "teamlaw.net" and its associated forum. In this thread (http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1022&sid=d8b7bcd897fe2f55f1909f313e275685), the forum takes up the topic of redemption of FRNs in lawful money, and has a different take than in this forum. Rather than copy/pasting this entire thread here, I ask that David and other readers of this forum visit the above link, and provide their feedback on this thread and/or the whole "Team Law" enterprise (they offer paid services in addition to the free areas of their site/forum).

The first post in the thread begins: "Can anyone comment on the suggestion that Sec.411 of Title 12 (Federal Reserve Act) is an inherent remedy?" and is answered by several posts and a comment from their Admin that states:

In the forum, "Myth 22" is a hyperlink which explains their take on what they categorize as a "patriot myth."

My criteria for choosing a personal defense/offense strategy with the IRS is more practical than theoretical. At this point, I care more about what will work than whose theory is correct. I'm not sure at this point if their core remedy and yours are mutually exclusive; it may be that an apparent conflict stems from different definitions of terms. Might there be a meeting of the minds here?

About three years ago I also looked into Team Law, because their research seemed thorough and intelligent. But then I quickly ran into the "beneficiary" hurdle which is evidenced in the thread to which you linked.
Whereas I have no problem with compensating people for their labors and efforts, for it is written "the workman is worthy of his meat", I do have a problem with the secret society approach of Team Law.

If Team Law had insights which are liberating and conducive to the pursuit of happiness for many, then why wouldn't they want to make their material slightly more accessible?
The more accessible they made it, the more popular and widespread it would become, provided it's any good.

If I wanted secret knowledge which can only be obtained by joining an exclusive club with membership fees then why wouldn't I join the Freemasons?
Could Team Law be a branch of Freemasonry?

[David Merrill]

About three years ago I also looked into Team Law, because their research seemed thorough and intelligent. But then I quickly ran into the "beneficiary" hurdle which is evidenced in the thread to which you linked.
Whereas I have no problem with compensating people for their labors and efforts, for it is written "the workman is worthy of his meat", I do have a problem with the secret society approach of Team Law.

If Team Law had insights which are liberating and conducive to the pursuit of happiness for many, then why wouldn't they want to make their material slightly more accessible?
The more accessible they made it, the more popular and widespread it would become, provided it's any good.

If I wanted secret knowledge which can only be obtained by joining an exclusive club with membership fees then why wouldn't I join the Freemasons?
Could Team Law be a branch of Freemasonry?

Yes. Mormonism is a branch of Freemasonry. I have been shown by elders into the tabernacle area and it has many of the earmarks of the Lodge where Joseph SMITH derived the forms. It is likely that SMITH was shot for forming an unauthorized Lodge in Utah. There are many differences too though.

Eric is a Mormon.

[allodial]

I have found keeping things simple is just as effective as anything, but I do delve into the complicated.

If a system is tremendously arduous and complicated, it is safe to deduce that something is being hidden or deception is being perpetrated.

From experience, the true remedies are based on very simple principles but the concepts and linkages can be 'complex' or seem so. Some of them might be so simple that it might take a while (for some even years) for it to sink in.

[Treefarmer]

Yes. Mormonism is a branch of Freemasonry. I have been shown by elders into the tabernacle area and it has many of the earmarks of the Lodge where Joseph SMITH derived the forms. It is likely that SMITH was shot for forming an unauthorized Lodge in Utah. There are many differences too though.

Eric is a Mormon.

Very interesting, thank you for explaining this David.
I had not been aware of the Mormon connection with Team Law.

This reminds me of George MERCIER's Invisible Contracts (http://www.constitution.org/mercier/incon.htm). When I began to read it, at first it made all kinds of sense to me until it got into the Mormon theology discussions, at which point it stopped making sense.

I like to think though that I can learn something from everyone and everything that I come across.

[hobgoblin]

Hello and good day.
macaddictjay, as I find myself in similar circumstance I was wondering how you were making out....

Treefarmer, you mentioned a 72 hour window for proper use of the R4C. Can you expound on this significance? If I have not R4C within this time window what is the effect? Thank you.

[Treefarmer]

.....
Treefarmer, you mentioned a 72 hour window for proper use of the R4C. Can you expound on this significance? If I have not R4C within this time window what is the effect? Thank you.

It appears that 72 hours is the customary and traditional time span for considering a contract offer. If after 72 hours the offer has not been refused, it may be regarded as accepted.

Timing is everything, but who counts the hours?
I once R4C'd a wage garnishment which was 2 months old, but I successfully R4C'd it within 72 hours of discovering it's origin.

In the federal enclave which is traditionally called "my mailbox" there may be contract offers which I don't know about yet, because that federal enclave is a quarter mile away from a place I call my home on earth, and therefore I don't check it every day.

I count those 72 hours from the time that I discover a contract offer. This has worked well for me so far.
If I'm not ready to deal with paperwork, let's say on a Friday afternoon with the Sabbath hours drawing near, I don't even go near that federal enclave.

I also have CtC experience, and if you look around the forum you will find my posts on the matter.
The LoR has worked well for me and DH, and we've learned a lot in the process; like how to avoid excessive paperwork and persecution from the IRS for example and how to contract more successfully.

[hobgoblin]

It appears that 72 hours is the customary and traditional time span for considering a contract offer. If after 72 hours the offer has not been refused, it may be regarded as accepted.

Timing is everything, but who counts the hours?
I once R4C'd a wage garnishment which was 2 months old, but I successfully R4C'd it within 72 hours of discovering it's origin.

In the federal enclave which is traditionally called "my mailbox" there may be contract offers which I don't know about yet, because that federal enclave is a quarter mile away from a place I call my home on earth, and therefore I don't check it every day.

I count those 72 hours from the time that I discover a contract offer. This has worked well for me so far.
If I'm not ready to deal with paperwork, let's say on a Friday afternoon with the Sabbath hours drawing near, I don't even go near that federal enclave.

I also have CtC experience, and if you look around the forum you will find my posts on the matter.
The LoR has worked well for me and DH, and we've learned a lot in the process; like how to avoid excessive paperwork and persecution from the IRS for example and how to contract more successfully.

I hear what you are saying and thank you for the feedback. The ramifications of this knowledge are quite profound. I find it difficult to go through every day life, interacting with people the way I used to. It's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Even today, going to the ball game here in San Francisco, a gentleman came up to us parking the truck. He warned us about the local revenue agents ticketing for not parking close enough to the curb and "curbing" the tires. I have always been disdainful of what those in positions of so-called power had to say. The revenue generation goes on everywhere all around us like the lambs being lead....not to mention the slow degradation of the relationship between those in power and the great unwashed. The rise of the Praetorian class as I read it described recently. O/T I know. C'est tout.

[David Merrill]

Hello and good day.
macaddictjay, as I find myself in similar circumstance I was wondering how you were making out....

Treefarmer, you mentioned a 72 hour window for proper use of the R4C. Can you expound on this significance? If I have not R4C within this time window what is the effect? Thank you.

It is good to have such an inquiring mind here Hobgoblin;


I want to add that in these times I have heard of The Ten Day Rule built around the three-day rule. It goes something like this; two days (from the posting date) to get you the presentment in the mail, three days traditional for you to consult family, attorney etc. with an extra day for holiday weekend in there; three days to return it... a day or two for the presenter to open the mail.

If you have a presentment older than three days it is still good to set up the evidence repository around it for the first R4C. Maybe the opposing attorney will ignore it THIS TIME but you still get your court in order. NEXT TIME you will be prepared for a timely R4C.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[John Howard]

Quite simply put, Pete signed endorsement of private credit from the Fed. He therefore owes a Return of that Income.


Where is this expressed in a statute?

[David Merrill]

Where is this expressed in a statute?


That is quite amazing the brain power around here! That question led me to a great revelation. There is no statute! That is my entire point about redeeming lawful money - it is a private agreement on such a large scale that it seems public. - Or maybe better said that the Federal Reserve System seems like Government.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Chex]

It appears that 72 hours is the customary and traditional time span for considering a contract offer. If after 72 hours the offer has not been refused, it may be regarded as accepted.

Really!

I had some fools from a corporation survey me about the irs.

I don?t do surveys so I didn?t reply and believe it or not they stated in another letter the I contracted with them to do the survey.

Really!

Show me the contract!

[David Merrill]

It appears that 72 hours is the customary and traditional time span for considering a contract offer. If after 72 hours the offer has not been refused, it may be regarded as accepted.

Really!

I had some fools from a corporation survey me about the irs.

I don?t do surveys so I didn?t reply and believe it or not they stated in another letter the I contracted with them to do the survey.

Really!

Show me the contract!



Please scan and sanitize to your liking.

[John Howard]

That is quite amazing the brain power around here! That question led me to a great revelation. There is no statute! That is my entire point about redeeming lawful money - it is a private agreement on such a large scale that it seems public. - Or maybe better said that the Federal Reserve System seems like Government.





Regards,

David Merrill.

Yes, it is meant to look that way. The Fed is the RuPaul of monetary systems.

Now I have been given the opportunity to educate a revenue officer on the effects of redeeming lawful money, and of fraud by omission.

[John Howard]

I do not believe that Pete is a mere guru, else he could not post victories such as this one. (http://losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLooseIV.htm#39) I also do not believe that everyone here is engaged in tin-foil hat lunacy, as Pete asserts. (Heavy sigh. Can't we all just get along?)

[David Merrill]

I do not believe that Pete is a mere guru, else he could not post victories such as this one. (http://losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLooseIV.htm#39) I also do not believe that everyone here is engaged in tin-foil hat lunacy, as Pete asserts. (Heavy sigh. Can't we all just get along?)


What I believe is that examples like you have posted stay posted long after the IRS has come collecting the refund back. If whoever on the posting wants it removed, they are banished from the website.

Pete does not like me/us? That is odd since I/we are cleaning up after him often. You think he would appreciate me/us.

I got plenty of good information from a suitor who had Pete stay as a houseguest while trying to apply his CtC techniques. Pete's methodology failed and I believe that suitor is in prison. He may be out by now.

[Darkmagus]

I'd love to here the details of this as I am in the situation you describe with the IRS... thousands in penalties, wage garnishment and the like.



What I am talking about is that people may be able to recover from that misdirection with a Fraud by Omission countercharge based in the remedy found in full force and effect. That could get a whole bunch of people out of Pete's huge mess.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

I'd love to here the details of this as I am in the situation you describe with the IRS... thousands in penalties, wage garnishment and the like.

The Notice and Demand for lawful money can be presented through the US district court in several ways. Using the Miscellaneous Case ($46) is becoming difficult but might be solved by using a professional process server to file it. Apparently the clerks know failure to file a case is malfeasance and do not like to commit that on the record. There is the Libel of Review which establishes an evidence repository as well.

It can be discouraging because IRS agents are paid to generate these letters and fines; so they will continue doing so. Refusal for Cause can fairly consistently stop the process from developing to any levy or seizure. However many employers and bankers will relenquish funds to administrative letters so learning to be competent is really the mastery of metaphysics.

When the emotions associated with peace and forgiveness are genuine the universe takes (on) your order. Creation and communication are synonymous. Only beings of like order can truly communicate. Therefore when you project forgiveness then you can expect that forgiveness to be reflected back to you. This is the universe taking your order. You start creating forgiveness in the universe and should not expect that creation to come from the IRS but rather be the IRS complying with laws already in place. Metaphysics is the mental equivalence of your ideas of law being true - in coherence with the actual law.


Regards,

David Merrill.