PDA

View Full Version : Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?



David Merrill
05-05-11, 11:10 PM
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
05-05-11, 11:27 PM
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
05-06-11, 04:25 AM
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
05-06-11, 10:37 AM
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
05-06-11, 02:26 PM
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
05-06-11, 02:59 PM
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
05-06-11, 03:38 PM
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
05-06-11, 06:21 PM
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
05-06-11, 09:13 PM
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
05-06-11, 11:47 PM
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
05-07-11, 12:25 AM
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
05-09-11, 03:41 AM
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
07-05-11, 03:55 AM
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
04-02-12, 12:35 AM
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
04-02-12, 01:55 AM
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
04-02-12, 02:03 AM
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
04-02-12, 04:02 PM
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
04-03-12, 11:05 AM
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
04-03-12, 01:36 PM
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
04-03-12, 03:24 PM
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
04-03-12, 08:16 PM
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
04-04-12, 02:03 PM
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
04-04-12, 02:14 PM
"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
04-04-12, 05:49 PM
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
04-05-12, 01:18 AM
"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
04-09-12, 06:19 AM
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
04-09-12, 09:25 AM
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
04-09-12, 03:37 PM
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
04-09-12, 07:49 PM
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
04-10-12, 02:57 AM
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
04-10-12, 03:07 AM
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
04-10-12, 03:24 AM
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
04-10-12, 01:43 PM
"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
04-10-12, 02:03 PM
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
04-10-12, 10:55 PM
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
04-11-12, 12:16 PM
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
04-11-12, 01:34 PM
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
04-11-12, 02:27 PM
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
04-26-12, 06:49 PM
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
04-28-12, 02:06 AM
.....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
04-28-12, 08:16 PM
Thanks for the information and welcome MacaddictJay.

macaddictjay
05-15-12, 07:45 PM
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
05-15-12, 08:21 PM
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
05-15-12, 09:39 PM
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
05-16-12, 03:01 AM
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
05-16-12, 03:44 PM
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
05-17-12, 03:05 AM
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
05-17-12, 03:11 AM
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
06-08-12, 06:27 PM
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
06-08-12, 07:59 PM
.....
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
06-10-12, 03:43 AM
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
06-10-12, 12:32 PM
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
09-10-12, 05:43 PM
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
09-10-12, 08:21 PM
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
09-10-12, 11:15 PM
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
09-11-12, 12:51 AM
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
09-11-12, 01:49 AM
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
09-11-12, 04:27 PM
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
09-11-12, 09:36 PM
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
12-04-12, 06:30 AM
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
12-05-12, 08:29 AM
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.

John Howard
06-30-13, 03:16 PM
Quite simply put, Pete signed endorsement of private credit from the Fed. He therefore owes a Return of that Income.
I previously asked "Where is this expressed in a statute?" Nationwide gave us this (http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2945&start=15) over on the other forum. Scroll to June 30.

ManOntheLand
06-30-13, 07:27 PM
I previously asked "Where is this expressed in a statute?" Nationwide gave us this (http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2945&start=15) over on the other forum. Scroll to June 30.



Good find, John Howard (and a great post by Nationwide as well)!! The post you link to has a link to the Veazie Bank v. Fenno case in 1869. Richard Di Mare provides an interesting analysis of that case in his book Lawful Income Tax Avoidance. The law passed by Congress on July 13, 1866 laid an income tax upon "the amount of notes of any person, State bank, or State banking association, used for circulation and paid out by them..."

According to Di Mare: "The heavy federal tax levied on the issuance of its banknotes was simply because the Veazie Bank, like thousands of other state banks, was inordinately competing with federal currency-creation powers." [Emphasis added.]

More Di Mare commentary: "No new taxing power was needed to levy this indirect "death tax" on private banks and their notes."



From the Veazie case itself, some very interesting dicta from the Chief Justice:

"[United States notes], issued directly by the government for the disbursement of the war and other expenditures, could not, obviously, be a proper object of taxation."
[emphasis added]


"It can hardly be doubted that the object of this provision was to inform the proper authorities of the exact amount of paper money in circulation, with a view to its regulation by law."

"..in the case before us the object of the taxation is not the franchise of the bank, but property created, or contracts made and issued under the franchise, or power to issue bank bills."
[emphasis added]


"...the government is responsible for the redemption of both [referring to previously mentioned "United States notes and notes of the National banks"]"

"Having thus, in the exercise of constitutional powers, undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may, constitutionally, secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation...[t]o the same end, Congress may restrain, by suitable enactments, the circulation as money of any notes not issued under its own authority." [emphasis added]



In light of the last quote above, the income tax on currency not issued directly by the U.S. can be seen as a means for Congress to ensure that lawful public money issued directly by the U.S. remains available and competitive.

However, an inelastic currency over time becomes artificially undervalued and in practice gets driven out of use by an elastic currency, which iin time becomes overvalued. For example, I have a silver dollar coin from 1900 with a face value of $1. But I would be foolish to use it to buy a "dollar" worth of goods, because it is worth about 20 "dollars" in FRN's to a coin collector (mostly due to the silver content I am guessing). The FRN "dollar" is worth about 1.5 cents in cotton fiber paper. But because I can get a "dollar" worth of goods or services for it, I use the FRN instead of my silver dollar coin.

Btw, how does Federal Reserve get away with using the word "dollar" on its notes? I think that is proof on its face that you enter a contract and an agreed upon fiction of law by the use of an FRN, since the definition of a dollar in federal law remains a certain weight of gold.

Perhaps a better question is, how does the United States get away with using the word "dollar" on its notes, when they refuse to redeem their notes for the federally defined "dollar" weight in gold? I guess we are still technically in an emergency, since the President and Secretary of Treasury retain the power to declare a bank holiday any time.

The decision to simply stop circulating U.S. notes in 1971 was probably helpful in preventing this issue coming up very often.

Brian
07-01-13, 06:32 PM
I previously asked "Where is this expressed in a statute?" Nationwide gave us this (http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2945&start=15) over on the other forum. Scroll to June 30.

YES! They flipped that tax over onto its head and instead of taxing the bank directly for the note issue they now tax anyone who uses them.

bobbinville
07-02-13, 03:17 PM
However, an inelastic currency over time becomes artificially undervalued and in practice gets driven out of use by an elastic currency, which iin time becomes overvalued. For example, I have a silver dollar coin from 1900 with a face value of $1. But I would be foolish to use it to buy a "dollar" worth of goods, because it is worth about 20 "dollars" in FRN's to a coin collector (mostly due to the silver content I am guessing). The FRN "dollar" is worth about 1.5 cents in cotton fiber paper. But because I can get a "dollar" worth of goods or services for it, I use the FRN instead of my silver dollar coin.



I'm not going to go into all of the issues on this post; but the reason why your 1900 silver dollar is no longer rationally used to buy just a dollar's worth of goods is that silver, like gold or copper, is essentially a commodity. For a long time, the price of silver was such that our coins contained no more than their face value of the metal contained in them; but when that price began to rise due to market pressures, it no longer made sense to keep silver in our coins. We either had to downsize the coins or change their composition; and by far the most practical course of action was to change the composition. Nowadays, given the way that silver prices fluctuate, it would be impossible to come up with a viable silver coinage -- and I'm not even going to get into the deflationary aspects of tying our monetary system to a precious metal.

David Merrill
07-02-13, 03:40 PM
Good point!

That is a big consideration that I have been overlooking by and large. I would simplify it that elastic currency is solely to blame, as the inelastic currency would remain stable. But the truth is that the value of the precious metal (silver) varies by its need to fill roles in technology and other industrial uses; plus the aesthetic value in jewelry etc. The population growing and landmass staying the same plays a big factor too. Gold's use in electronic devices is a big consideration too.

ManOntheLand
07-02-13, 05:57 PM
Nowadays, given the way that silver prices fluctuate, it would be impossible to come up with a viable silver coinage -- and I'm not even going to get into the deflationary aspects of tying our monetary system to a precious metal.

Though we do not have a formal gold standard for the dollar, as of April 2011 the Federal Reserve maintained a 17.5 percent partial gold reserve against the base money supply, (a kind of shadow gold standard) according to James Rickards in his book Currency Wars. Historically the Fed maintained about a 40 percent partial gold reserve after abandonment of a formal gold standard.

Gold and silver were commodities when they were used to formally back the dollar as well. The most significant difference now is that the paper "dollar" is now in far far greater supply because of its elasticity. The value of silver has always and will always fluctuate based on free market forces--which is better than having a government arbitrarily set its value. A silver backed dollar would cause fluctuations in the value of the dollar, due to the fluctuation of silver. But so what? The value of the dollar would remain relatively stable if formally backed (even partially) by a precious metal, a welcome alternative to the cumulative 2253% inflation of the dollar since 1913. Indeed the dollar may have to return to at least partial backing by gold or silver to restore confidence in it as a viable currency in the long run.

Btw, one of the biggest reasons for fluctuation of silver and gold prices, other than using an elastic paper dollar to measure their value, is the issuance of "paper gold" and "paper silver" which is also done fractionally and over-represents the supply of these commodities. This market manipulation keeps the price of gold and silver artificially low to disguise how depreciated the paper dollar really is.

bobbinville
07-03-13, 12:40 AM
The problem with that analysis is that during our history, a large increase in the supply of either gold or silver raised havoc with our economy; and when there was too little gold around to provide us with an adequate money supply, our economy suffered -- that's why countries like the US and France, which stuck to the gold standard as long as possible, suffered worse than countries like the UK, which abandoned it during the 1920s. Then, look at Spain -- all that gold and silver extracted from the new world didn't make them into a world power. In fact, it did the opposite.

Another factor to consider is the supply of gold and silver in today's world. It's getting harder and harder to get the stuff out of the ground; and the countries which still produce a lot of it have enough of it so that they could, if they so chose, manipulate metal prices (and thus our money supply) just like OPEC does with oil. Sorry -- but after having seen gold and silver soar in price since 2008, and then give back over half of the gains, I don't buy the premise that a silver-backed dollar would remain relatively stable.

David Merrill
07-03-13, 04:26 AM
The "paper gold" is SDR's - Special Drawing Rights.



http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/SeizeGold.jpg


Take a look here too. (http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/releases/intlsumm/usresvassets20120531.htm#fn1r)



Gold held "under earmark" at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

JohnnyCash
07-03-13, 05:34 AM
bobbinville, I took the liberty of editing:

I'm not going to go into all of the issues on this post (lest you start to realize who I am); but the reason why your 1900 silver dollar is no longer rationally used to buy just a dollar's worth of goods is that silver, like gold or copper, is essentially a commodity (of course not the reason but I must state things like I'm an expert & to set the stage for what follows). For a long time (too long, how could the banking cartel steal from a populace using real coins? "Oh hi we're from the Federal Gold Reserve here to clip 6% from all your coins."), the price of silver was such that our coins contained no more than their face value of the metal contained in them; but when that price began to rise due to market pressures, it no longer made sense to keep silver in our coins (silver is money; so what I just said was "the price of money was such that your money contained no more than their face value of the money contained in them" :D ). We (elite) either had to downsize the coins (too obvious) or change their composition; and by far the most practical course of action was to change the composition (I mean c'mon, we can't let you have REAL MONEY alongside our debt-note money, did you even notice we removed the copper from your penny in 1981?). Nowadays, given the way that silver prices fluctuate (thanks to us rigging the COMEX & LBMA), it would be impossible to come up with a viable silver coinage (not really, America has billions of silver coins but we banksters run this country)-- and I'm not even going to get into the deflationary aspects of tying our monetary system to a precious metal (like paying less for goods is bad. Oh, what a masterwerk of disinfo!).

bobbinville
07-03-13, 11:56 AM
Please don't do me any favors, JohnnyCash. I didn't go into all of the points in ManOnTheLand's post because I didn't think them worthy of being addressed; so I limited my response to what I know as a result of decades as a coin collector and as someone with a background in finance. I'll limit my response, this time, to one point: deflation occurs when too little money is available to support the economy. That's what happened from 1929-33, and is why the initial years of the Great Depression were as bad as they were. It's also why the Recession of 1938 occurred, as cuts in federal spending took money out of the economy. If there is too little silver and gold around to support the need for circulating money (and there are a lot more industrial uses for gold and silver than there were 50 years ago), deflation will occur; and if it continues for too long, recession and maybe depression follow.

Paying less for goods is no benefit to us if we don't have the money to buy what's out there, or if people cease production because they cannot get a profitable price on the things that they sell.

David Merrill
07-03-13, 03:32 PM
Please don't do me any favors, JohnnyCash. I didn't go into all of the points in ManOnTheLand's post because I didn't think them worthy of being addressed; so I limited my response to what I know as a result of decades as a coin collector and as someone with a background in finance. I'll limit my response, this time, to one point: deflation occurs when too little money is available to support the economy. That's what happened from 1929-33, and is why the initial years of the Great Depression were as bad as they were. It's also why the Recession of 1938 occurred, as cuts in federal spending took money out of the economy. If there is too little silver and gold around to support the need for circulating money (and there are a lot more industrial uses for gold and silver than there were 50 years ago), deflation will occur; and if it continues for too long, recession and maybe depression follow.

Paying less for goods is no benefit to us if we don't have the money to buy what's out there, or if people cease production because they cannot get a profitable price on the things that they sell.


It is wonderful to have you posting here! Please do not be swayed by presumptions of others.

Bentley
07-03-13, 03:58 PM
The problem with that analysis is that during our history, a large increase in the supply of either gold or silver raised havoc with our economy; and when there was too little gold around to provide us with an adequate money supply, our economy suffered -- that's why countries like the US and France, which stuck to the gold standard as long as possible, suffered worse than countries like the UK, which abandoned it during the 1920s. Then, look at Spain -- all that gold and silver extracted from the new world didn't make them into a world power. In fact, it did the opposite.

Another factor to consider is the supply of gold and silver in today's world. It's getting harder and harder to get the stuff out of the ground; and the countries which still produce a lot of it have enough of it so that they could, if they so chose, manipulate metal prices (and thus our money supply) just like OPEC does with oil. Sorry -- but after having seen gold and silver soar in price since 2008, and then give back over half of the gains, I don't buy the premise that a silver-backed dollar would remain relatively stable.

Greetings bobbinville,

And what do you use as a comparative yardstick... the FRN? When was the last time the fiat dollar held a steady value? What has the value of the FRN done for the last 100 years? Nixon was the president that finally took us off the gold standard circa 1971. Low and behold, now we have a 17 trillion dollar debt. The two observations are inseparable. The debt we have today is a direct result of coming off the gold standard. Commodity based money will act, at least, as a throttle of runaway inflation. Right now we have nothing but incurable inflation, and it will only get worse.

Bentley

JohnnyCash
07-03-13, 04:12 PM
Spoken like a bankster protectionist, bobbinville. My study of history reveals the bankers caused the Great Depression with the oversupply of money initially (Roaring 20's) and then contraction of same, intentionally. I would gladly take deflation over our current bankster oppression.

Coin collector? you don't sound like any coin collector I know. Here's a 1900 silver dollar from my collection: http://jesse2012.com//1900_Morgan.jpg

I now know that the Federal Reserve/IRS scam is optional, that we need to be persuaded into it, and sending agents here for that purpose seems perfectly logical to me. Remember what FDR said "And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress."
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ppotpus/4925381.1933.001/49?rgn=full+text

Yes it's wonderful to have a representative of the banking cartel posting here. I may have further questions for you. I see that the suspected agents Skankbeat, freeme & cadman777 all stopped posting at the LostHorizons forum after they were outed. Hopefully you'll stick around.

bobbinville
07-03-13, 07:49 PM
Bully for you! I've been collecting coins for 54 years now.

I'm not going to enter into a debate on economics with you; but most people disagree with yout theory about the Great Depression. As for your FDR quote -- he was trying to get people to stop hoarding cash in mattresses, etc. and get it back into circulation, so that the effects of deflation could be reversed. You really need to study the early years of the Great Depression some more -- the loss of jobs, the closing of businesses, and so on -- and you'll see that deflation can be just as bad as inflation. Lower prices do you no good if you can't get enough money to buy anything, or if you have it but hoard it on speculation that prices will go lower still.

JohnnyCash
07-03-13, 09:23 PM
Can't get enough money to buy anything? Are you serious? This is America, [redacted], we use anything & everything from bitcoins to our signatures to buy stuff.

Your statements are dubious. Since you brought up the subject of your 1900 silver dollar, may we see a photo of yours alongside some evidence that it is in fact, yours?

David Lyn
07-04-13, 01:36 AM
Yeah, the problem in 38 was not enough government spending. Always need more govt spending, right Mr Keynes?

bobbinville
07-04-13, 02:12 AM
Jay who? That isn't my name or handle.

bobbinville
07-04-13, 02:17 AM
I'm not your Economics professor, Johnny. Read up on "deflation" -- Wikipedia is not a bad place to start; but at any rate bitcoin didn't exist in 1929. A little research will come up with other examples where deflation crippled an economy. Of course, it can also benefit an economy, where inflation is a problem; but during 1929-33 it hurt ours pretty badly.

bobbinville
07-04-13, 02:20 AM
If you are asking me to post photos of my own silver dollars, or any of my coins, to prove that they are mine -- no. For one thing, it is no one's business but my own what coins I have; and for another, I could just as easily borrow a coin and scan it. I will say that the bulk of my collection consists of Canadian, British, German and Swiss coins -- especially for the latter three, finding a bargain is easier.

bobbinville
07-04-13, 02:22 AM
That's not what I said. Sometimes there is too much government spending; sometimes there is not enough, and sometimes there is just the right amount. Call it the "Goldilocks Theory", if that will help you.

JohnnyCash
07-04-13, 03:21 AM
Oh! a quadruple posting; so like someone else I know. I just wanted to see your 1900 silver dollar. Most collectors are quite proud of their coins and eager to show them off - unless of course - you don't own one. That would be embarrassing wouldn't it? To say you're a coin collector, talk about a 1900 silver dollar and then not be able to provide a picture of it like I did!

I know a bit about the Great Depression, my Dad was born into it and as a kid went shoeless all summer. It's funny but as poor as the family was, he recalls those days like they were the best years of his life.

Did I call you [redacted] (http://jesse2012.com/Forbes2012.JPG)? I'm sorry; Freudian slip. Would you like me to remove it? Hey, speaking of Freud ... did you know that Edward Bernays, the father of PR & propaganda, was Freud's double nephew?

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.[14] - Edward Bernays in Propaganda (1928)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

David Merrill
07-04-13, 01:29 PM
I think it is a big Internet JohnnyCash. Additionally the "Q" is quite frankly lacking a dimension of entertainment since I have been banished too so it makes sense that some of the members there might be meandering over here.

My point is that I feel your presumptions that everybody who makes some traditional party line opinions, in your opinion deserves to be badgered about being an attorney "Q" type. Please limit your badgering and accusations to one or two posts and then let it go.

bobbinville
07-04-13, 03:03 PM
Thanks, David. I came onto this forum to share what I have to say, when I have something which I feel with be helpful to the posts which I see here; and beyond that I don't care to take up space with extended arguments.

Noah
07-04-13, 04:29 PM
Mr. Bobbinville, I purchased this coin from a fellow in Germany. What do you make of it?
And a very happy Fourth of July holiday to all.

http://i.imgur.com/QdTsYAr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/mbwctch.jpg

JohnnyCash
07-04-13, 07:02 PM
ooo very nice Noah, thank you. Yes David, the Q has lost most all entertainment value without you. Though it's perfectly understandable why they would banish. After all I waltzed in there a rank HENDRICKSON beginner, discovered the quatlosers had no real answer to redeeming lawful money & nothing but ridicule for you. So I parlayed that into remedy and a 6-year victory (http://jesse2012.com/SSA_E3.jpg) over the bankster's IRS. They couldn't risk that happening again!

And look who is following along with our conversation as revealed at FreedomWatch (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526-cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson). Yes our beloved "jesse james" who you see adopted a nasty tone towards me (for what purpose I can only guess). Perhaps he forgot I'm immune to his venom.

Yes, I may be wrong about "bobbinville" ... but perhaps I see things others don't. What if half the logins here belong to the Q?
I wonder who bobbinville's expert is? Pottapauq?.

bobbinville
07-04-13, 07:02 PM
That's a very nice piece, Noah. One of my specialties is German coins of the Second Reich. It looks like the Long Beard variety, which in 2006 was worth $250 in Fine condition. The "D" means that the coin was struck at the Munich Mint (which still strikes coins today).

For the sake of you Suitors who are not coin collectors: after 1873, all Germans used the same coins from 1 Pfennig up through 1 Mark. For 2 Mark, 3 Mark and 5 Mark coins (silver) and 5 Mark (briefly), 10 Mark and 20 Mark (gold), most coins bore the portrait of the Kaiser and King of Prussia; but the other German kingdoms, principalities. grand duchies, duchies, free cities and so on were allowed to mint their own coinage, using the common reverse and the imperial coinage standards. The Duchy of Saxe-Meiningen was located in what is now the "Land" (State) of Thuringia; and the last Duke abdicated in 1918. Noah has, not just a valuable and attractive coin, but a nice piece of history -- which is one reason why I, too, collect German coins.

bobbinville
07-04-13, 07:03 PM
As for whether any Quatloosians are over here under other guises... so what? If you believe in what you say, you should be able to defend it to anyone.

Noah
07-04-13, 09:03 PM
That's a very nice piece, Noah. One of my specialties is German coins of the Second Reich. It looks like the Long Beard variety, which in 2006 was worth $250 in Fine condition. The "D" means that the coin was struck at the Munich Mint (which still strikes coins today).
No, that is Short Beard variety of Georg II - Large Crowned Imperial Eagle with the cropped beard, 90% silver. See here is the Long beard (http://www.coindatabase.com/coin_detail_germany.php?cdb=Ar100101) - notice the end of the beard is rounded and nearly touches the ring of dots.

bobbinville
07-05-13, 01:01 AM
Thanks for the correction. I didn't have a pic of the short beard variety; but I'll save your database as a resource.

JohnnyCash
07-05-13, 04:10 PM
Well, well, well. Bobbinville failed the test. Thank you Noah.
The self-described coin collector of 54 years specializing in German coins of the Second Reich ... erred on a Second Reich coin. Why am I not surprised.

I would just like to alert members that some posters are very likely not who they purport to be. It's easy enough to get a login & hide behind a fake-IP. Indeed if Martha Stout (http://jesse2012.com/1in25.jpg) is correct, some users might be that 1/25th of the populace without a conscience, who can lie and not feel bad about it.. at all. And wouldn't such a user be useful to the banksters or the Cabal controlled U.S. Government who must rely on the compliance and conditioning of the masses?

You have been warned. I will leave it at that.

David Merrill
07-05-13, 04:21 PM
ooo very nice Noah, thank you. Yes David, the Q has lost most all entertainment value without you. Though it's perfectly understandable why they would banish. After all I waltzed in there a rank HENDRICKSON beginner, discovered the quatlosers had no real answer to redeeming lawful money & nothing but ridicule for you. So I parlayed that into remedy and a 6-year victory (http://jesse2012.com/SSA_E3.jpg) over the bankster's IRS. They couldn't risk that happening again!

And look who is following along with our conversation as revealed at FreedomWatch (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526-cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson). Yes our beloved "jesse james" who you see adopted a nasty tone towards me (for what purpose I can only guess). Perhaps he forgot I'm immune to his venom.

Yes, I may be wrong about "bobbinville" ... but perhaps I see things others don't. What if half the logins here belong to the Q?
I wonder who bobbinville's expert is? Pottapauq?.

I imagine Poppycock is reading here daily if not a registered member. I think that with all the conversation we had I would recognize him very quickly should he start to post. I am blessed to have much healthier things on my mind.

I do not disqualify your intuition. Try imagining yourself in my position though. I do not enjoy contemplating banishing somebody, for whatever reason, and that may be especially because they tote an attorney's perspective and experience. I enjoy skepticism as it hones the effectiveness of remedy. - Rather than debunks it.

If somebody can debunk remedy as we describe it here, that is good too. I pursue truth.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Rubber_Stamp_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Rubber_Stamp_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Default_Judgment_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Default_Judgment_2.jpg

bobbinville
07-06-13, 12:59 AM
Even if I was Pottapauq, so what? I've certainly avoided stirring up arguments like you see regularly on Quatloos; and as I said in my last post, that's not why I'm here. As for experts, there are plenty to choose from. If you're talking about the law, I have several college classmates who are lawyers (one, who works for the IRS, has been very helpful about how the IRS just doesn't bother with some people because the collection effort isn't worth the expected recovery. If coins, several of my friends are nationally prominent in the hobby.

As for being wrong about the German coin: I tend to concentrate on the minor coins, not on the German states silver/gold issues; and lately I have tended to work much more on Swiss coins (1850 to date). I only began a significant German collection within the last 10 years; before that, it was mostly British Commonwealth.

David Merrill
07-06-13, 10:08 AM
Even if I was Pottapauq, so what? I've certainly avoided stirring up arguments like you see regularly on Quatloos; and as I said in my last post, that's not why I'm here. As for experts, there are plenty to choose from. If you're talking about the law, I have several college classmates who are lawyers (one, who works for the IRS, has been very helpful about how the IRS just doesn't bother with some people because the collection effort isn't worth the expected recovery. If coins, several of my friends are nationally prominent in the hobby.

As for being wrong about the German coin: I tend to concentrate on the minor coins, not on the German states silver/gold issues; and lately I have tended to work much more on Swiss coins (1850 to date). I only began a significant German collection within the last 10 years; before that, it was mostly British Commonwealth.

and


As for whether any Quatloosians are over here under other guises... so what? If you believe in what you say, you should be able to defend it to anyone.

That is fairly convincing - not Jay but Poppycock. So what? Primarily it means that you would be casting direct slurs about remedy as I present interpretation of §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411 in accord with Wserra's blog on "Q". - But rather with me having to display directly intrusive privacy violations I can continue to enjoy the people exercising remedy from this website do so from their own understanding of it, rather than depending on proven examples. Around here most members seem to believe JohnnyCash and other sanitized examples as true. More importantly though, the metaphysics around successful application of remedy comes from heart math.

I maintain my theory that what killed Q in popularity and interesting reading was when Wserra began linking the Libel of Review cases published on PACER. Showing good people's private information for ridicule feels bad and that is what does it - when people identify with being "outed" from anonymity on the Internet.

This is Bobbinville's first Post:


Isn't there a difference between numismatic value and the value of a piece of currency? I've got some US Notes; but there's no way that I would ever spend them because of their value as a collectible item.

Bobbinville's most recent post:


The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means; so unless Doreen can convince a court that CtC is correct, she's in trouble. If you operate on the assumption that the courts are corrupt, then arguing a legal principle in them, which they don't like, is like playing craps with someone who brings loaded dice to the game.

The problem is that judges don't like to overturn precedent; so Doreen's best hope may lie in the political/legislative sphere.

With JohnnyCash's intuition in support it certainly makes sense that Poppycock would become bored with Q and find himself registering here. Quite directly then:


Are you Pottapauq?


I enjoy the probability that you are because it really does make comment how Q has become so boring without Harvester and Myself shredding Wserra's slurs. Of course Webhick has programmed the website chat area so that I am blind unless I borrow an IP by proxy or surf on anybody else's computer. - Which I also find highly entertaining that she would trouble with me; trying to keep me from reading such a boring website. So let's pretend that you intend to behave indefinitely... I will be treating you appropriately and reading your posts much more carefully for the gist that you are intending to attack remedy according to law.


The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means...

It is amusing to me that I can address your first and last posts at once:




In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and




United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.




Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

I amplify your point with Colorado constitutional law being that only the county court judges are allowed to practice law at all. The appeals justices are bound to "authority" or case law (common law) stare decisis.


http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/3940/practicelawfrombenchsma.jpg


However I believe that my days of moderating you, or many others for that matter are coming to a close. I might well be casting an advertisement for all registered members ever here to take another look around and well, since they are already registered users there might be a flurry of interest in American Remedy. It could be that I would be overwhelmed from brain trust and other career interests to maintain this as "my" website feeling responsible for defending the integrity of remedy here by being a watchdog against the Poppycocks of the Internet.


Regards,

David Merrill.

shikamaru
07-06-13, 11:25 AM
Isn't there a difference between numismatic value and the value of a piece of currency? I've got some US Notes; but there's no way that I would ever spend them because of their value as a collectible item.

Market vs. stamp value

The essence of legal tender laws? The attempt to stop Gresham's Law?
This presumes we are speaking of precious metal specie vs. clad coinage.

bobbinville
07-06-13, 12:08 PM
No. I am not here to attack remedy, redeeming lawful money, R4C, AFV or anything of the sort. However, since people seem more focused on who I am rather than what I have to say, and seem ready to nitpick my posts on the assumption that I am Pottapauq, maybe it's time to say so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen goodbye. I had hoped to be here and offer the occasional nonconfrontational comment; but it's clear that I can no longer do so. In closing, though, I will say that I go onto this site, and Quatloos, not to be entertained but to be educated and informed.

Good luck, Suitors.

shikamaru
07-06-13, 12:22 PM
No. I am not here to attack remedy, redeeming lawful money, R4C, AFV or anything of the sort. However, since people seem more focused on who I am rather than what I have to say, and seem ready to nitpick my posts on the assumption that I am Pottapauq, maybe it's time to say so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen goodbye. I had hoped to be here and offer the occasional nonconfrontational comment; but it's clear that I can no longer do so. In closing, though, I will say that I go onto this site, and Quatloos, not to be entertained but to be educated and informed.

Good luck, Suitors.

Don't go :).

Sure, we can be a rough bunch at times, but stand your ground!

By the way, welcome to the forums.

David Merrill
07-06-13, 01:00 PM
That was the presumption.

I have enjoyed establishing a sound basis about redeeming lawful money around here. Now I am debating whether or not to leave the foundation and let things take the course they will - only bringing up defense when it is brought to my attention.

Then again I could just drop it. Last I heard Q is doing some pretty good advertising for us here at StSC. If you read my post carefully it was encouraging you to stay and learn here. Being that you came here from there I will be looking for opportunities to explain the benefits of American Remedy as found in the law.

If you would like to discuss the intricacies of coins, great! I suggest that you might start new threads when posts start getting off the thread topic.

JohnnyCash
07-06-13, 04:20 PM
Aww, he is taking his ball and going home. Pity. Maybe he was afraid we'd ask another numismatic question (http://jesse2012.com/halfcrown.JPG).

Noah
07-12-13, 05:49 PM
That's a very nice piece, Noah. One of my specialties is German coins of the Second Reich. It looks like the Long Beard variety, which in 2006 was worth $250 in Fine condition. The "D" means that the coin was struck at the Munich Mint (which still strikes coins today).Only 20,000 minted of both varieties. I would sell it for 2 bitcoin.

bobbinville
07-12-13, 08:41 PM
No; it's just that I'm tired of nitpicking like yours, and obsession over whether I am a Quatloosian in disguise rather than what I have to say. At any rate, any further posts from me will be of the most innocuous sort.

Actually, the picture in your post, being of a British half crown, is right up my alley, since I've specialized in British coinage (especially farthings; I've got all but three die varieties from 1860 on) for much longer than I've specialized in German coinage (and again, I concentrate on the national issues, not on the minor royalties, although I have a few of them). When I retire, I may well expand into the minor royalties, as well as trying to complete my Swiss (1850-) collection.

But then, David makes a good point about this thread getting off-topic; so I'll say no more about coins here.

JohnnyCash
07-13-13, 03:47 AM
Yes David makes lots of good points. Welcome back Poppinsville; it's great to have you posting again. I must say you brought that on yourself.

I'll stack my numismatic knowledge up against yours any day.

David Merrill
07-13-13, 07:24 AM
I will start a thread... (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?931-American-Numismatic-Association&p=11297&viewfull=1#post11297)


That is only an example though. Unless you wish intentionally to combine CtC with numismatics, just start a thread somewhere appropriate.



P.S. I called bobbinville Poppinsville? A subconscious slip I guess.

Goldi
07-14-13, 12:01 AM
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.

Yes, and the W4 or W9 you signed set you up to be obligated to a Subtitle A tax liability, collected by your employer operating as a withholding agent (as defined in 26 USC 7701a16). Had you known or been informed of exactly what that tax was and who it by law applies to and that you could opt out of it using a 26 CFR 31.3402(n) citation on the W4 or W9, you most certainly would have. And since there was no full disclosure, then you could not have formed an intent of purposeful availment to obligate yourself to a tax imposed on 26 CFR 1.1441, 1442 and 1443 described individuals/entities, and therefore the signature on that W4 / W9 is an unauthorized signature.

TMI
08-12-13, 05:00 AM
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".

Might I suggest CAUTION in considering Team Law. I don't know what they are now promoting, but Eric Madsen's promotion of filing 1041 in treating the SSN as a trust account back in the late 90's is causing trouble. See
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Examples-of-Abusive-Tax-Schemes-Fiscal-Year-2013 and drill down to Former Illinois Town Supervisor Sentenced for Tax Fraud. I know of another who's brother was caught up in this too.

Madsen's advice led to difficulty for me, which led me to PH's CtC. The statutory logic I find to be quite clean. My concern is hearing stories that people are running into trouble in the back end. Further, I went some time with no presumption and no need to file. Now, with this new 1099-K, radar is back on and the seed was sown, now reaping in the form of a NtcO'Lvy. Can you hear the sucking sound? I have two years to deal with and don't wish to wait much longer for fear of falling deeper into a $h!thole! I wish to stop the bleeding, but eating the red pill makes it very difficult to just throw up my hands. However, I have some precious cargo to lose now that I did not have in the earlier years.

Here is what I wish to know. In learning the Lesson Plan at StSClub, what might one form as an expectation to be able to accomplish through the use of your information?

I read through this thread so far with attachments. Help me understand the benefit of the trust and LOR when they approach from the living man, and yet my understanding is that the strawman is the entity under irs attack.

Further, have any of you studied creditorsincommerce.com?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Treefarmer
08-13-13, 01:23 AM
Might I suggest CAUTION in considering Team Law. I don't know what they are now promoting, but Eric Madsen's promotion of filing 1041 in treating the SSN as a trust account back in the late 90's is causing trouble. See
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Examples-of-Abusive-Tax-Schemes-Fiscal-Year-2013 and drill down to Former Illinois Town Supervisor Sentenced for Tax Fraud. I know of another who's brother was caught up in this too.

Madsen's advice led to difficulty for me, which led me to PH's CtC. The statutory logic I find to be quite clean. My concern is hearing stories that people are running into trouble in the back end. Further, I went some time with no presumption and no need to file. Now, with this new 1099-K, radar is back on and the seed was sown, now reaping in the form of a NtcO'Lvy. Can you hear the sucking sound? I have two years to deal with and don't wish to wait much longer for fear of falling deeper into a $h!thole! I wish to stop the bleeding, but eating the red pill makes it very difficult to just throw up my hands. However, I have some precious cargo to lose now that I did not have in the earlier years.

Here is what I wish to know. In learning the Lesson Plan at StSClub, what might one form as an expectation to be able to accomplish through the use of your information?

I read through this thread so far with attachments. Help me understand the benefit of the trust and LOR when they approach from the living man, and yet my understanding is that the strawman is the entity under irs attack.

Further, have any of you studied creditorsincommerce.com?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Hello TMI, welcome to the forum.

DH and I also got burned by dabbling with Pete H's CtC, and it cost us lots of time and money.
We did some experimenting, because we have little to loose and no dependents.

The Libel of Review is a great learning experience for those of us who never learned to contract properly, but the i r s completely ignores it, as it issues from living men and women, not PERSONS, which is all they deal with. They do not perceive live humans.

After experimenting with Lawful Money and tax returns, I came to the following conclusion:
When a man/woman signs a W-4 or gives an SSN to receive a 1099, for the purpose of getting paid in bank checks, which are then deposited or cashed at a bank where said man/woman has a PERSONAL or BUSINESS bank account, tied to an SSN or TIN, that man/woman's PERSON is then considered to be engaging in a "trade or business" with the UNITED STATES and is a TAXPAYER, obligated to file INCOME TAX RETURNS with the i r s.

Or in other words, anyone getting paid via bank checks or direct deposits is a slave who has no rights or freedoms whatsoever, a mere "human resource" of the bankers.

IMO, the only real Lawful Money there is is gold and silver coin or other precious commodities with intrinsic value, and in desperate times FRNs in the form of cash can also be used as Lawful Money, IF they are not going through a bank account.

The two bankers I've conversed with on this topic both said that 12 USC 411 has nothing to do with banking or income taxes.

I still use the LM verbiage recommended here on StSC on the back of checks, but I don't have a bank account anymore.
The i r s lost interest in me after I gave up PERSONAL banking.
I consider all checks made out to my PERSON to be taxable income because they issue from a US bank to a US PERSON (slave), but I never get high enough amounts in any given tax year to have to file a return.

There are other members here who do not at all agree with my assessment of the situation, but these are my personal conclusions, based on my personal experiences.

Others have other experiences, based on their own circumstances.
I believe that taking "lawful money deductions" on i r s tax return filings, while being engaged in banking as a US PERSON will ultimately result in frivolous filing penalties, just like CtC filings did after some years of seeming success.

This is my 2 cents worth.

David Merrill
08-13-13, 01:58 AM
Thank you Treefarmer;


Being in the middle of a high number of suitors who have filed the Libel of Review and gone through the Lesson Plan I find your perspective and perceptions agreeable. I get a statistical gist that people who become suitors from Pete's CtC drag a residual attachment to private credit. Another factor seems to be being in the financial industry - as it is endorsement by trade.

I reconcile this to your experience in that a bank account may be assigned like a financial endeavor for profit. Evidence of being a state bank so to speak. However the remedy is for state banks so to me, the baggage comes from Pete's CtC. I stretch to make these correlations make sense though. I have a great memory for these details and categorize events as I hear of them.

EZrhythm
08-13-13, 10:25 AM
Now, with this new 1099-K, radar is back on and the seed was sown, now reaping in the form of a NtcO'Lvy.

1099's are information returns that are REBUTTABLE! :cool:
http://freedom-school.com/citizenship/corrected-info-return-letter.doc

David Merrill
08-13-13, 12:25 PM
The two bankers I've conversed with on this topic both said that 12 USC 411 has nothing to do with banking or income taxes.


This comment lingered. I read it as a commentary on either banker ignorance or obfuscation. Title 12 of the USC is titled Banks and Banking (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9024/titlesoftheuscode.pdf).

EZrhythm
08-13-13, 11:50 PM
This comment lingered. I read it as a commentary on either banker ignorance or obfuscation. Title 12 of the USC is titled Banks and Banking (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9024/titlesoftheuscode.pdf).

Oooo, that's CLASSIC!

Treefarmer
08-14-13, 03:27 AM
This comment lingered. I read it as a commentary on either banker ignorance or obfuscation. Title 12 of the USC is titled Banks and Banking (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9024/titlesoftheuscode.pdf).

Yes, that's the central irony of it all, I'm glad you pointed this out David.
This is more evidence that logic and reason have no place in the beast power structure.

At the same bank where the manager told me that 12 USC 411 has nothing to do with banking, a teller told me that an SSN is not at all a TIN and does not serve the same function, even though the bank document which I was filling out, over which we were having this conversation, stated above the box in question: "enter Social Security number (TIN) here".

This is the reality we have to live with.
This is why I closed my last bank account.
I like logic and reason, and this illogical and un-reasonable banking system is repugnant to my way of thinking, besides being in transgression of Yehovah Elohim's Law of Liberty (http://www.whiteestate.org/books/da/da65.html).

David Merrill
08-16-13, 09:48 AM
Thanks again Treefarmer! I wanted a link to the entire passage:



"The two bankers I've conversed with on this topic both said that 12 USC 411 has nothing to do with banking or income taxes." This comment lingered. I read it as a commentary on either banker ignorance or obfuscation. Title 12 of the USC is titled Banks and Banking (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9024/titlesoftheuscode.pdf).

Yes, that's the central irony of it all, I'm glad you pointed this out David.
This is more evidence that logic and reason have no place in the beast power structure.

At the same bank where the manager told me that 12 USC 411 has nothing to do with banking, a teller told me that an SSN is not at all a TIN and does not serve the same function, even though the bank document which I was filling out, over which we were having this conversation, stated above the box in question: "enter Social Security number (TIN) here".

This is the reality we have to live with.
This is why I closed my last bank account.
I like logic and reason, and this illogical and un-reasonable banking system is repugnant to my way of thinking, besides being in transgression of Yehovah Elohim's Law of Liberty (http://www.whiteestate.org/books/da/da65.html).

JohnnyCash
08-17-13, 05:30 AM
What do they say? Never trust a banker. Of course the SSN is a TIN, and an EIN (employer identification number) is a TIN too.

I was talking with a relative of my wife's over vacation, a retired DC attorney, about how I discovered the hoax of our monetary system a few years back. How the bank monetized my signature to create new currency they then loaned me, how our currency is no longer backed by anything rea (www.youtube.com/watch?&v=EdSq5H7awi8&t=843)l, etcetera. I don't recall the exact words but his immediate reaction was like "of course the banks do that, I learned that long ago, this is how modern economies run." I don't think he was trying to BS me (suppose anything is possible); in his mind it was just perfectly normal.

David Merrill
08-17-13, 10:33 AM
What do they say? Never trust a banker. Of course the SSN is a TIN, and an EIN (employer identification number) is a TIN too.

I was talking with a relative of my wife's over vacation, a retired DC attorney, about how I discovered the hoax of our monetary system a few years back. How the bank monetized my signature to create new currency they then loaned me, how our currency is no longer backed by anything rea (www.youtube.com/watch?&v=EdSq5H7awi8&t=843)l, etcetera. I don't recall the exact words but his immediate reaction was like "of course the banks do that, I learned that long ago, this is how modern economies run." I don't think he was trying to BS me (suppose anything is possible); in his mind it was just perfectly normal.


I do not buy that the SSN is the TIN. When you write it into a form, where the TIN goes and you think that you write in the SSN, then you create that illusion...

TMI
08-17-13, 10:54 PM
So from what I see, there really is nothing that works effectively at this time when it comes to earning a living and not having to file and pay the machine. As I interpret things, this is largely due to the fact that we generally in one way or another have been forced to operate with the strawman front, and since we use the FRN private credit and no entity recognizes or honors 12-411 redemption, nor do they recognize the private setoff and settlement in the public, one is incessantly pursued to PAY UP!

Yes, you can mow lawns or do something else that keeps you in the cash arena and not create income presumptions (information returns) and be left alone. However, if one wishes to do anything that might involve collecting earning using credit cards or other means of getting ahead...forget it, yes?

Treefarmer
08-18-13, 02:37 AM
So from what I see, there really is nothing that works effectively at this time when it comes to earning a living and not having to file and pay the machine. As I interpret things, this is largely due to the fact that we generally in one way or another have been forced to operate with the strawman front, and since we use the FRN private credit and no entity recognizes or honors 12-411 redemption, nor do they recognize the private setoff and settlement in the public, one is incessantly pursued to PAY UP!

Yes, you can mow lawns or do something else that keeps you in the cash arena and not create income presumptions (information returns) and be left alone. However, if one wishes to do anything that might involve collecting earning using credit cards or other means of getting ahead...forget it, yes?

In a nutshell, yes.

David Merrill
08-18-13, 09:26 AM
So from what I see, there really is nothing that works effectively at this time when it comes to earning a living and not having to file and pay the machine. As I interpret things, this is largely due to the fact that we generally in one way or another have been forced to operate with the strawman front, and since we use the FRN private credit and no entity recognizes or honors 12-411 redemption, nor do they recognize the private setoff and settlement in the public, one is incessantly pursued to PAY UP!

Yes, you can mow lawns or do something else that keeps you in the cash arena and not create income presumptions (information returns) and be left alone. However, if one wishes to do anything that might involve collecting earning using credit cards or other means of getting ahead...forget it, yes?

I am witness to many people with bank accounts who are getting full income tax refunds. Believe it or not we consider it a great success story whenever a suitor has two or more years of redeeming lawful money refunds applied to back taxes. This demonstrates contemplation by the IRS and its attorneys quite convincingly. They evaluate the refund quite carefully and then apply it against past liabilities.

It is blatant admission that our interpretation of making this demand is correct:


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


We do have some problems however, mainly with three suitors who are all in the financial markets - financial advisers and a banker working in International Settlements for a major international bank. Otherwise like with Treefarmer there are several suitors who are recovering Pete victims dealing with past tax liabilities and fairly innocuous FrivPens that are consistently managed, mostly by Refusal for Cause (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf).

JohnnyCash
08-26-13, 06:14 PM
I can testify that redeeming lawful money works. As learned from David, I've been doing it for years, received a full IRS refund in 2008 and have no IRS issues.

Recently I have noticed very little activity from the agent provocateurs at other freedom-oriented sites, but observe they remain quite active here. This would elevate SavingToSuitorsClub.net to the premier site on the internet for freedom, tax honesty & all things sovereign.

And if any quatlosers are here I observe they are not using their same usernames. This seems to say they prefer anonymity, that they realize they would likely lose any argument based on facts, law & logic and such loss would reflect poorly on them and their brand. In other words, they can't bring it. They've admitted loss from the get-go.

I have observed the agents can be grouped into categories:

THE COMPLICATOR
This persona will take a fairly simple concept and add revisions to the point of complication. The purpose is probably to render it ineffective, or perhaps make it difficult to comprehend.

THE DEMORALIZER
The attitude here is nothing works; it's hopeless, just give up. If remedy can be stopped by thought patterns then here is your clue. We suitors are experiencing a 90 to 100% victory over the IRS depending on the definition of success.

THE DISTRACTOR
This one likes long, rambling posts often full of statutory mish-mash like 3141(a) wages and so forth. The point here is probably just to have seekers chase their tails on fools errands.

THE DUMMY
This one is usually a brief I don't understand, can you explain it all ... in detail ... step-by-step? Of course not everyone asking for explanation is an agent which makes this one hard to ferret out. I'm uncertain what the purpose is here. Maybe just to waste the respondent's time or to ascertain their level of understanding ... for further targeting by the Odgen campus(?)

THE MIMIC
This one just mimics what they've learned here, sometimes answering another agent. Not sure of the point. Maybe just to establish cred to then later come in to slur remedy.

THE RIDICULER
This one is easily spotted - he thinks you're all paranoid nut cases. I don't think we've had any here since JesseJames.

David Merrill
08-26-13, 10:52 PM
Whenever anybody was pushing 1099 stuff (http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/5431/1099oidrefund.pdf) I would always request they select the Application from the Instructions they were utilizing.




Specific Instructions for Form 1099-OID

• File Form 1099-OID, Original Issue Discount, if the original issue discount (OID) includible in gross income is at least $10 and you are any of the following:

• An issuer with any bond outstanding or other evidence of indebtedness in registered or bearer form issued with OID;

• An issuer of a certificate of deposit (CD) made, purchased, or renewed after 1970 if the CD has OID and a term of more than 1 year (see Caution on page 4);

• A financial institution having other deposit arrangements, such as time deposits or bonus-savings plans, if the arrangements have OID and a term of more than 1 year;

• A broker or other middleman holding an OID obligation, including CDs, as nominee for the actual owner;

• A trustee or middleman of a WHFIT or widely held mortgage trust (WHMT); or,

• A real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC), a holder of an ownership interest in a financial asset securitization investment trust (FASIT), or an issuer of a collateralized debt obligation (CDO).

Also, file Form 1099-OID for any person for whom you withheld and paid any foreign tax on OID or from whom you withheld (and did not refund) any federal income tax under the backup withholding rules even if the amount of the OID is less than $10.

David Merrill
08-26-13, 10:53 PM
Whenever anybody was pushing 1099 stuff (http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/5431/1099oidrefund.pdf) I would always request they select the Application from the Instructions they were utilizing.




Specific Instructions for Form 1099-OID

• File Form 1099-OID, Original Issue Discount, if the original issue discount (OID) includible in gross income is at least $10 and you are any of the following:

• An issuer with any bond outstanding or other evidence of indebtedness in registered or bearer form issued with OID;

• An issuer of a certificate of deposit (CD) made, purchased, or renewed after 1970 if the CD has OID and a term of more than 1 year (see Caution on page 4);

• A financial institution having other deposit arrangements, such as time deposits or bonus-savings plans, if the arrangements have OID and a term of more than 1 year;

• A broker or other middleman holding an OID obligation, including CDs, as nominee for the actual owner;

• A trustee or middleman of a WHFIT or widely held mortgage trust (WHMT); or,

• A real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC), a holder of an ownership interest in a financial asset securitization investment trust (FASIT), or an issuer of a collateralized debt obligation (CDO).

Also, file Form 1099-OID for any person for whom you withheld and paid any foreign tax on OID or from whom you withheld (and did not refund) any federal income tax under the backup withholding rules even if the amount of the OID is less than $10.

Chex
08-28-13, 11:48 AM
“I don’t care what the answer is. Give us an answer so that if we want to do a legislative fix to take care of the people who actually work for us. I mean, they’re going to be the only set of federal employees that actually get paid by the federal government that have to go into the exchange. [OPM knows] the answer—they just won’t share it. And I want time to legislate on it before we lose half our staff.”

http://www.inquisitr.com/884086/obamacare-congress-exempt-from-affordable-care-act/

David Merrill
08-28-13, 05:14 PM
Good point!

Chex
08-29-13, 11:36 AM
The Temple Cleansed Again.

[This chapter is based on Matt. 21:12-16, 23-46; Mark 11:15-19, 27-33; 12:1-12; Luke 19:45-48; 20:1-19.]

At the beginning of His ministry, Christ had driven from the temple those who defiled it by their unholy traffic; and His stern and godlike demeanor had struck terror to the hearts of the scheming traders. At the close of His mission He came again to the temple, and found it still desecrated as before. The condition of things was even worse than before. The outer court of the temple was like a vast cattle yard. With the cries of the animals and the sharp chinking of coin was mingled the sound of angry altercation between traffickers, and among them were heard the voices of men in sacred office. The dignitaries of the temple were themselves engaged in buying and selling and the exchange of money. So completely were they controlled by their greed of gain that in the sight of God they were no better than thieves. http://www.whiteestate.org/books/da/da65.html

"I either consented to give a SSN and sign a W-4 or I did not. What I am claiming the employer did to me is so obviously wrong legally as to be almost self-evident. Other than "did this really happen?" there is no debate!! Unless you want to argue that it is somehow okay that my employer coerced me!"

Feds serve America every day. They serve in every corner of the country doing the business of our nation. They're committed to the health, safety, prosperity, and well-being of every American. We salute them. We admire them. We believe in their dedication and we believe in their cause. Our brother’s keepers.

Manontheland, I guarantee you that if you asked an IRS agent what Subtitle tax were you purportedly liable for, the answer would be a Subtitle A "income" tax. That makes your employer taking your money and handing it over a "withholding agent" which is defined at 26 USC 7701 (a)(16), which further describes who a withholding agent can withhold from as found in 26 CFR 1.1441, 1442, 1443 and 1461...all of which are foreign corps, foreign orgs and non resident alien/foreign persons.

Here at the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM), we're charged with meeting the needs of these Feds—all two million of them—providing for their health, managing their benefits, and promoting their cause. What we do requires an elite workforce with the energy, skills, expertise, and personality to help run our nation.

That means that there was misrepresentation of the facts, undue influence, deceit, trickery and a lack of full disclosure of the knowledge that under 26 CFR 31.3402(n), you could have filled out a W-4 certifying to not having a Subtitle A tax liability as you are not a foreign person. Now how can you possibly form an intent to avail yourself of a purported tax liability without all the cards on the table? You couldn't. That makes the signature on the W-4 form "unauthorized" and effectively a forgery.

Federal employees should eat their own cooking.
Because most Congressional staffers are poorly paid, but are paid enough to not have eligibility for the Obamacare subsidies that low-income Americans will receive, losing their current health insurance subsidies would be a big financial blow. Many members fear that their staffers would leave for better-paying jobs in response.

26 CFR 1.1461 creates a liability on the employer if he continues to withhold when you make the claim of exemption from a Subtitle A tax. The definition of withholding agent is one who is allowed to withhold from a 26 CFR 1.1441 foreign person, a 1.1442 foreign corp. or a 1.1443 foreign organization. If you are not one of those, then the authority to withhold is destroyed, making the employer vulnerable to be sued. It's really not a matter of "standing up" to the IRS.

Employees of the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services should also be required to join Obamacare’s exchanges. Not surprisingly, federal employees are unhappy about that prospect. The labor union representing IRS agents has urged its members to tell Congress that they are “very concerned” about such an outcome. At a House Ways and Means hearing yesterday, acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel endorsed this view. “I can speak for myself—I prefer to stay with the current policy that I’m pleased with, rather than go through a change,” said Werfel. Werfel likes his plan, and wants to keep his plan, as President Obama promised he could. Not all Americans will have that luxury. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/02/congressmen-rejoice-govt-to-subsidize-their-health-insurance-through-obamacares-exchanges/

U.S. Office of Personnel Management: https://www.google.com/search?q=U.S.+Office+of+Personnel+Management&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs

Elaine Kaplan was appointed as Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on April 15, 2013. She served as OPM's General Counsel from March 17, 2009 to April 14, 2013, before taking over from then-Director John Berry at the end of his four-year term. As General Counsel, Kaplan has provided legal and policy advice regarding all aspects of Federal personnel management to Director Berry and to officials across the Executive Branch. The Washington Post reported last month Berry may be in line to be the next Ambassador to Australia.

Multi-State Plans: In one of our newest responsibilities, OPM will establish and administer the Multi-State Plans set out in the Affordable Care Act. The Multi-State Plans will be affordable, quality health insurance options made available on the Exchanges currently being established in each state and the District of Columbia. Our most important deadlines for Multi-State Plans will come this year – so the plans can be in place when open enrollment begins on October 1.

Why is it that they always use the term District of Columbia like it’s a place of its own?

Our mission, oh boy, look who at the reprehensive picture they have as their mascot. http://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-mission-role-history/ OPM provides human resources, leadership, and support to Federal agencies and helps the Federal workforce achieve their aspirations as they serve the American people. " We're responsible for keeping the government running smoothly — a responsibility that has daily consequences for every citizen.

It's a matter of reading that code and being in compliance with it or get your butt handed to you in court.

David Merrill
08-29-13, 01:40 PM
It's a matter of reading that code and being in compliance with it or get your butt handed to you in court.

Of course that is a matter of being in contract. I still subscribe to getting your full refund without involving your employer but this W-4 is amusing. (http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3316/rq8.pdf)

John Howard
08-29-13, 02:05 PM
My humorous sanitized version. :)

I may be counting my chickens before they're hatched but I thought I might as well put that extra space on lines 5, 6 and 7 to good use.

John Howard
08-29-13, 02:14 PM
“I don’t care what the answer is. Give us an answer so that if we want to do a legislative fix to take care of the people who actually work for us. I mean, they’re going to be the only set of federal employees that actually get paid by the federal government that have to go into the exchange. [OPM knows] the answer—they just won’t share it. And I want time to legislate on it before we lose half our staff.”

http://www.inquisitr.com/884086/obamacare-congress-exempt-from-affordable-care-act/

Congress knows a bad deal when they inflict one on us. They originally exempted themselves from Social Security.

David Merrill
08-29-13, 02:52 PM
Interesting! That is the sort of thing I like to get source material on. Then I can grab a doc from the federal repository and share it here and with the suitors' brain trust too.

Brian
08-29-13, 10:45 PM
Interesting! That is the sort of thing I like to get source material on. Then I can grab a doc from the federal repository and share it here and with the suitors' brain trust too.

IF Social Security is a tax and Medicare/caid is also a tax and O blah blah care is also a tax then how can the government tax itself? Doesn't that violate some kind of cardinal rule? Kind of like how they don't tax municipal bonds as it would be one sector of government taxing another sector?

Jaro
08-30-13, 05:44 AM
Guys, you want solutions? No Problemo! For starters, just sign everything with
All rights reserved
All benefits accepted under protest
Without prejudice

And you can add that verbage to all your past applications, agreements and contracts with the US, by amendment.

If you're an SSN-carrying State resident/citizen of the District of Columbia, AKA the United States, then even demanding lawful money won't help you much, since as a corporate US citizen you're subject to their corporate gov't definitions, including defining their funny-money FRNs as lawful money.

So you gotta first kill or cripple the SSN and maybe the BC also. And it's easy to cripple the SSN. Just send them a note that you only use it under protest and under duress. In which case it no longer can be considered a benefit, tying you into their corporate matrix and its legaleze, and if it's not a benefit, using it can't create any liability.

So you've crippled the SSN, and can keep using it without any liability. And if the money-changers don't like that, they can CANCEL it. In which case you can apply for a 98-series EIN, to operate in their corporate Matrix as a foreigner (non-resident alien), who's not subject to taxation. So you WIN either way :-)

Jaro
08-30-13, 06:07 AM
Oh, and let's not forget that Congress' legislative authority doesn't extend past District of Columbia and territories. So if you're not their 14th Am. corporate citizen (federal benefit recipient), and are domiciled in a state of the Union, Congress' legislation doesn't apply to you, and neither should IRS's jurisdiction.

BTW, there's no such thing as a United States citizen, other than the 14th Am. citizen, since 1868. After that year, you're either a US (federal) citizen or a sovereign state Citizen, when INSIDE USA. State Citizens are only considered to be US citizens, OUTSIDE of USA.

So if you're inside of USA, and admit to be a US citizen, you're admitting to be a 14th Amendment (federal) citizen of a Democracy, and certainly NOT a state Citizen of the Union/Republic. In other words, in order to claim protection of the ORGANIC United States Constitution, you gotta be either a state Citizen or state Inhabitant.

Robert Noad
08-30-13, 01:02 PM
I am from South Africa one of the countries that has a Reserve Bank - private institution that prints the Reserve Bank notes and loan "money" to banks can someone please tel me how it would work here in SA?
Robbie on Land SA

David Merrill
08-30-13, 06:11 PM
Oh, and let's not forget that Congress' legislative authority doesn't extend past District of Columbia and territories. So if you're not their 14th Am. corporate citizen (federal benefit recipient), and are domiciled in a state of the Union, Congress' legislation doesn't apply to you, and neither should IRS's jurisdiction.

BTW, there's no such thing as a United States citizen, other than the 14th Am. citizen, since 1868. After that year, you're either a US (federal) citizen or a sovereign state Citizen, when INSIDE USA. State Citizens are only considered to be US citizens, OUTSIDE of USA.

So if you're inside of USA, and admit to be a US citizen, you're admitting to be a 14th Amendment (federal) citizen of a Democracy, and certainly NOT a state Citizen of the Union/Republic. In other words, in order to claim protection of the ORGANIC United States Constitution, you gotta be either a state Citizen or state Inhabitant.


That agrees with PADELFORD (http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/281/padelfordvcityofsavanna.pdf).



No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it.

Looking at the Constitution sure enough, it was ratified by States. The representatives of the States were elected or appointed by the state citizens sure enough.

Good point!

David Merrill
08-30-13, 06:12 PM
I am from South Africa one of the countries that has a Reserve Bank - private institution that prints the Reserve Bank notes and loan "money" to banks can someone please tel me how it would work here in SA?
Robbie on Land SA

We have a very bright suitor on the brain trust who is from South Africa. I will check into it!

Jaro
08-31-13, 07:38 AM
That agrees with PADELFORD (http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/281/padelfordvcityofsavanna.pdf).


"No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it."

Looking at the Constitution sure enough, it was ratified by States. The representatives of the States were elected or appointed by the state citizens sure enough.

Good point!

David, you as a state Citizen may not be party to the constitution, but you're still protected by it. That court cite just means that you can't sue the US civilly for damages. It doesn't mean that you're not protected by the organic US Constitution, or that you can't assert its protection, or that violation of your constitutional rights by public officials, isn't a crime.

Jaro
08-31-13, 08:08 AM
Robert, you can make a demand for lawful money, in any country that uses fiat currency. As a man you're entitled to get paid in REAL MONEY, silver and gold coins, NOT in their money SUBSTITUTE. Just because they're bankrupt and have no real money to give you, is not your problem. Just make your demand every time you deposit a check in one of their banks. Here's the special endorsement I use on all my paychecks:

Special Deposit.
Demand is made for lawful money,
pursuant to title 12 USC 411.
Jaro Smith; dba JARO SMITH

BTW, legal tender paper 'money', is a money substitute, just like tokens are money substitute in casinos. Which is why they can confiscate them without a court order. With real silver/gold money, they can't do that, unless you're under their corporate jurisdiction.

David Merrill
08-31-13, 09:09 AM
I am from South Africa one of the countries that has a Reserve Bank - private institution that prints the Reserve Bank notes and loan "money" to banks can someone please tel me how it would work here in SA?
Robbie on Land SA


The "S" at the end of BRICS is for South Africa. You might become a bigger figure than Nelson MANDELA by simply stultifying the conditioning in between the ears of a few of your countrymen?


Think about it.



P.S. There was talk of reforming BRICS to BRICI - replacing South Africa with Indonesia...

Treefarmer
09-02-13, 01:32 AM
So you gotta first kill or cripple the SSN and maybe the BC also. And it's easy to cripple the SSN. Just send them a note that you only use it under protest and under duress. In which case it no longer can be considered a benefit, tying you into their corporate matrix and its legaleze, and if it's not a benefit, using it can't create any liability.

So you've crippled the SSN, and can keep using it without any liability. And if the money-changers don't like that, they can CANCEL it. In which case you can apply for a 98-series EIN, to operate in their corporate Matrix as a foreigner (non-resident alien), who's not subject to taxation. So you WIN either way :-)




Interesting suggestion, Jaro.
Have you tried this out yourself?
What has been your experience with this action?
Thank you.

David Merrill
09-02-13, 07:08 AM
Robert, you can make a demand for lawful money, in any country that uses fiat currency. As a man you're entitled to get paid in REAL MONEY, silver and gold coins, NOT in their money SUBSTITUTE. Just because they're bankrupt and have no real money to give you, is not your problem. Just make your demand every time you deposit a check in one of their banks. Here's the special endorsement I use on all my paychecks:

Special Deposit.
Demand is made for lawful money,
pursuant to title 12 USC 411.
Jaro Smith; dba JARO SMITH

BTW, legal tender paper 'money', is a money substitute, just like tokens are money substitute in casinos. Which is why they can confiscate them without a court order. With real silver/gold money, they can't do that, unless you're under their corporate jurisdiction.



Please examine this video. (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbTlZVjBCM081dFE/edit) Do you see what is happening there mathematically? [Notice the US Treasury logo on the doors to the vault.]

There is approximately the gold backing the US notes estimated to be out in circulation. It is located on the SE Corner of this Golden Rectangle.

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/7127/numismaticmuseum.jpg

It is interesting to watch the state citizenship applied in California and Texas - both recently properly ratified states at the time of the War of Rebellion (Civil War). But Colorado is a war chest for the current Emergency - Title 12 USC §95 still in effect. Page 1 (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412.jpg), Page 2 stipulations (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412_stipulation.jpg).


1277


At the center of the Golden Rectangle we find METRO - the cities and their suburbs in I Chronicles 6.


http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9579/templestonesmogandavid.jpg


If you think about it this is the mantle Daniel BELSHAZZAR wore as the chieftain of the Babylonian Sorcerers and Astrologers. He even changed the Israelite's alphabet incorporating a new math - ALEPH now has two yods and a vaw = 26 instead of 1. Some would say METRO is the City of Babylon found in the Book of Revelation. Colorado was never quite cured a Territory in 1861 so you might see how it defaults into my perpetual inheritance (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/544/charteroffreedomsandexe.pdf) (Chapter 6).


1278


Ministerial Authority 'saving to suitors'. Get it?

David Merrill
09-02-13, 07:37 AM
P.S. Interesting exhibit there at the ANA! MONEY OF THE CIVIL WAR.

David Merrill
09-02-13, 07:53 AM
This might help you get it - from The Science of Mind:


http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/4061/claimallthatthereis.jpg

David Merrill
09-02-13, 01:30 PM
Guys, you want solutions? No Problemo! For starters, just sign everything with
All rights reserved
All benefits accepted under protest
Without prejudice

And you can add that verbage to all your past applications, agreements and contracts with the US, by amendment.

If you're an SSN-carrying State resident/citizen of the District of Columbia, AKA the United States, then even demanding lawful money won't help you much, since as a corporate US citizen you're subject to their corporate gov't definitions, including defining their funny-money FRNs as lawful money.

So you gotta first kill or cripple the SSN and maybe the BC also. And it's easy to cripple the SSN. Just send them a note that you only use it under protest and under duress. In which case it no longer can be considered a benefit, tying you into their corporate matrix and its legaleze, and if it's not a benefit, using it can't create any liability.


So you've crippled the SSN, and can keep using it without any liability. And if the money-changers don't like that, they can CANCEL it. In which case you can apply for a 98-series EIN, to operate in their corporate Matrix as a foreigner (non-resident alien), who's not subject to taxation. So you WIN either way :-)


Interesting suggestion, Jaro.
Have you tried this out yourself?
What has been your experience with this action?
Thank you.



This relates heavily to The Atmosphere of Our Thinking by Ernest Shurtleff (http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2504/namemetaphysics.jpg) - NOT Ernest HOLMES. There stems the psychotomimetic delirium of pseudonomania that throws off the entire concept of Spiritual Mind Treatment (http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5125/spritualmindtreatment.jpg). I call this a fundamental internal communications error - bad math.

http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/7910/namemetaphysicsclose.jpg

In other words Paul claimed METRO jurisdiction, not state citizenship. Remember how he testified he was from Tarsus - no mean City?


Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

Paul got eligibility for his Roman citizenship because his father was part of Cilicia (the province/state) helped to quash a people's rebellion against Rome a generation earlier. Paul was not entitled to Roman Citizenship - he had to pay for it.


Act 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
Act 22:28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

See there? The chief captain was a countryman of Celicia who had bought Roman citizenship like Paul did in Cyprus on his way back to Israel from the mission fields in Turkey - Asia Minor. This one verse is loaded with Masonic keys:


Act 21:16 There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.

A mason, by whatever name, an esoteric school or Lodge lied on the stand that the ship passed by Cyprus, yet Mnason (not his name as in One Mason) was a Cypriot Jew! So look at the first page of this 1995 METRO Article (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1355/metro1313overview.pdf).



Article VI of this charter states, "They (the Patroons) shall forever possess and enjoy all lands lying
within the aforesaid limits..." One of the possessions the Patroons were granted to "forever possess" is
Manhattan Island, the financial center of the world.


Especially one fine estate of Teunis Jansen Laenan VAN PELT who built a large stone wall around it... Wall Street. The original BoE (http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8445/billofexchange.pdf) was served on Richard GRASSO at the top of the Proof of Service.

All this is peppered around the Internet and especially this website. My point is that METRO began a simultaneous decay and rise to prominence in 1958 or so (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?766-Terrible-1313-Revisited-by-Jo-HINDMAN&highlight=metro+1313+hindman). It would seem as though the falsity eats the heart of METRO organization as quickly as the Internet and world travel and communications propagates it. Damascus (Syria) is the world's oldest capital City. My novel point is that once one gets hold of true Keys they lead to other keys and it is no surprise that the first manifestation of a government fully turning on the people who created it in a sustained warfare would be out of Damascus?

Jaro
09-03-13, 11:52 PM
Interesting suggestion, Jaro.
Have you tried this out yourself?
What has been your experience with this action?
Thank you.

I've only sent the IRS that notice a few days ago, so I'll have to wait what response, if any I get from them. In any case, I'll be sending a copy of that notice to any taxman who thinks I'm liable, as a proof of my NON-voluntary use of their SSN benefit. Here's what I've sent them:

"My use of the Social Security number, as well as other United States benefits, such as the Federal Reserve Notes, is only under duress and under protest. I wish to cancel that Social Security number, but the ssa.gov website clearly states that it cannot be cancelled, which makes it impossible for me to do so. Therefore I only use it under duress and under protest. And I hope you realize that without an agreement, such as a voluntary use of a benefit, there can be no liability."

Treefarmer
09-04-13, 01:31 AM
I've only sent the IRS that notice a few days ago, so I'll have to wait what response, if any I get from them. In any case, I'll be sending a copy of that notice to any taxman who thinks I'm liable, as a proof of my NON-voluntary use of their SSN benefit. Here's what I've sent them:

"My use of the Social Security number, as well as other United States benefits, such as the Federal Reserve Notes, is only under duress and under protest. I wish to cancel that Social Security number, but the ssa.gov website clearly states that it cannot be cancelled, which makes it impossible for me to do so. Therefore I only use it under duress and under protest. And I hope you realize that without an agreement, such as a voluntary use of a benefit, there can be no liability."

Somehow this strikes me as being reminiscent of a cigarette smoker who claims he only smokes because he is hopelessly addicted and not because he enjoys it, and that he should therefore not be subject to the adverse effects of lung cancer or the high price of cigarettes.
Unfortunately, I don't think life on planet earth works this way.

Nevertheless, I wish you the best of luck with your endeavor.

Treefarmer
09-04-13, 02:11 AM
....

Act 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
Act 22:28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

See there? The chief captain was a countryman of Celicia who had bought Roman citizenship like Paul did in Cyprus on his way back to Israel from the mission fields in Turkey - Asia Minor.....


It's always baffled me how on planet Merrill Acts 22:27-28 can have the exact opposite meaning of what it clearly states, namely that Paul did NOT have to buy Roman citizenship like the chief captain, whose place of origin is nowhere mentioned in the Bible AFAIK, because Paul was "free born".

Either Paul was free born or he had to buy "freedom", i.e. Roman citizenship, it cannot be both, and the scriptures do say that he was "free born".

This does not appear to be a translation error either, because other English versions as well as the German Martin Luther translation that I have checked all agree that Paul was born a Roman citizen. No Bible I've ever read stated that Paul bought Roman citizenship at any time or place in his life.

Acts 22:28 in other translations reads:

NKJV---The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.” And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.”

NLT---“I am, too,” the commander muttered, “and it cost me plenty!” Paul answered, “But I am a citizen by birth!”

NIV---Then the commander said, “I had to pay a lot of money for my citizenship.” “But I was born a citizen,” Paul replied.

NASB---The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.”

RSV---The tribune answered, "I bought this citizenship for a large sum." Paul said, "But I was born a citizen."

ASV---And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this citizenship. And Paul said, But I am a Roman born.

YLT---and the chief captain answered, 'I, with a great sum, did obtain this citizenship;' but Paul said, 'But I have been even born so.'

HNV---The commanding officer answered, "I bought my citizenship for a great price." Sha'ul said, "But I was born a Roman."

Jaro
09-04-13, 11:50 PM
Somehow this strikes me as being reminiscent of a cigarette smoker who claims he only smokes because he is hopelessly addicted and not because he enjoys it, and that he should therefore not be subject to the adverse effects of lung cancer or the high price of cigarettes.
Unfortunately, I don't think life on planet earth works this way.

Nevertheless, I wish you the best of luck with your endeavor.

Obviously then, you know nothing about contracts. A voluntary use of a benefit constitutes an agreement, i.e. a contract, which makes one liable to obey the rules of the benefit provider. An involuntary use of a benefit, does NOT constitute an agreement, and consequently can't subject one to any liability. Duh!

I thought you guys would have learned it by now, especially since that's what you're doing when you demand redemption of your paychecks in lawful money. Without that demand, your use of FRNs is VOLUNTARY, which makes you LIABLE for income tax, among other things. But making that LM demand makes your use of FRNs INVOLUNTARY, which means that you can't be held liable for the national debt. And FRNs are a United States BENEFIT.

It's the same with other benefits also, especially with benefits which they WON'T let you cancel, like the SSN. You just can use those under PROTEST, since they are required to get a job and function in a society. It's basically a counter-offer, which gives them a choice to either cancel that benefit, OR let you use that benefit without any liability on on your part.

Don't forget, in states of the Union, United States is just another corporation, with the exception of interstate commerce.

Jaro
09-05-13, 12:31 AM
Regarding that citizenship, there are two kinds;
A natural-born, which in USA is state Citizenship, and STATUTORY, which in USA is 14th Amendment US citizenship. Which is why in this country we have sovereign state Citizens, who used to be called US Citizens before 1868, and District of Columbia (AKA the United States) citizens, who are gov't subjects. And of course the statutory citizenship can be bought.

Michael Joseph
09-05-13, 02:50 AM
Obviously then, you know nothing about contracts. A voluntary use of a benefit constitutes an agreement, i.e. a contract, which makes one liable to obey the rules of the benefit provider. An involuntary use of a benefit, does NOT constitute an agreement, and consequently can't subject one to any liability. Duh!

I thought you guys would have learned it by now, especially since that's what you're doing when you demand redemption of your paychecks in lawful money. Without that demand, your use of FRNs is VOLUNTARY, which makes you LIABLE for income tax, among other things. But making that LM demand makes your use of FRNs INVOLUNTARY, which means that you can't be held liable for the national debt. And FRNs are a United States BENEFIT.

It's the same with other benefits also, especially with benefits which they WON'T let you cancel, like the SSN. You just can use those under PROTEST, since they are required to get a job and function in a society. It's basically a counter-offer, which gives them a choice to either cancel that benefit, OR let you use that benefit without any liability on on your part.

Don't forget, in states of the Union, United States is just another corporation, with the exception of interstate commerce.



Excellent analysis.

Absent accommodation, absent suretyship, without prejudice and without recourse and demand is made for lawful money per 12U.S.C.A.411 by:

A creator is liable for his/her creation. It is so simple. The only way to make someone else liable is if they VOLUNTEER to be liable! Ref CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST. Ref Common Law = UCC.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

David Merrill
09-05-13, 03:31 PM
I've only sent the IRS that notice a few days ago, so I'll have to wait what response, if any I get from them. In any case, I'll be sending a copy of that notice to any taxman who thinks I'm liable, as a proof of my NON-voluntary use of their SSN benefit. Here's what I've sent them:

"My use of the Social Security number, as well as other United States benefits, such as the Federal Reserve Notes, is only under duress and under protest. I wish to cancel that Social Security number, but the ssa.gov website clearly states that it cannot be cancelled, which makes it impossible for me to do so. Therefore I only use it under duress and under protest. And I hope you realize that without an agreement, such as a voluntary use of a benefit, there can be no liability."


Somehow this strikes me as being reminiscent of a cigarette smoker who claims he only smokes because he is hopelessly addicted and not because he enjoys it, and that he should therefore not be subject to the adverse effects of lung cancer or the high price of cigarettes.
Unfortunately, I don't think life on planet earth works this way.

Nevertheless, I wish you the best of luck with your endeavor.


Great analogy Treefarmer.


Therefore I only use it under duress and under protest.

That is a conundrum wrapped in a monkey's puzzle! If you need it, then why are you trying to expunge it? If you use it then they will not cancel it...

Quit using it! I have no SSN. I cancelled it. I did that by never saying it or writing it down. If somebody else does that, especially the SSA that is an act of forgery and likely identity theft too.

David Merrill
09-05-13, 03:48 PM
It's always baffled me how on planet Merrill Acts 22:27-28 can have the exact opposite meaning of what it clearly states, namely that Paul did NOT have to buy Roman citizenship like the chief captain, whose place of origin is nowhere mentioned in the Bible AFAIK, because Paul was "free born".

Either Paul was free born or he had to buy "freedom", i.e. Roman citizenship, it cannot be both, and the scriptures do say that he was "free born".

This does not appear to be a translation error either, because other English versions as well as the German Martin Luther translation that I have checked all agree that Paul was born a Roman citizen. No Bible I've ever read stated that Paul bought Roman citizenship at any time or place in his life.

Acts 22:28 in other translations reads:

NKJV---The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.” And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.”

NLT---“I am, too,” the commander muttered, “and it cost me plenty!” Paul answered, “But I am a citizen by birth!”

NIV---Then the commander said, “I had to pay a lot of money for my citizenship.” “But I was born a citizen,” Paul replied.

NASB---The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.”

RSV---The tribune answered, "I bought this citizenship for a large sum." Paul said, "But I was born a citizen."

ASV---And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this citizenship. And Paul said, But I am a Roman born.

YLT---and the chief captain answered, 'I, with a great sum, did obtain this citizenship;' but Paul said, 'But I have been even born so.'

HNV---The commanding officer answered, "I bought my citizenship for a great price." Sha'ul said, "But I was born a Roman."

Paul was not born in Rome. He was born in Tarsus, Cilicia. The political situation formed a generation earlier when a small rebellion against Roman rule was quashed by offering free Roman citizenship and its benefits to anybody who would fight for Rome. Paul's father apparently did so. This citizenship did not extend entitlement to Paul, but granted eligibility. For Paul as the original grantee's child to become a Roman citizen it cost a pretty penny, as indicated by the Roman soldier in identical political circumstances. This is only fact according to a reputable historian.

One day while short on change I read about all this in an old history book about Paul. Two days later I returned extremely disappointed to discover the shop owner had sold my book to somebody else! So I cannot show you why I have this interpretation.

It is however my interpretation and it fits well with a bad light upon Paul's integrity and motivations. Partially this radical view (http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9826/yvi.pdf) stems from The Nazarene Gospel Restored but any of these sources only contributes to my perspective and perceptions.

Treefarmer
09-08-13, 02:34 AM
Obviously then, you know nothing about contracts. A voluntary use of a benefit constitutes an agreement, i.e. a contract, which makes one liable to obey the rules of the benefit provider. An involuntary use of a benefit, does NOT constitute an agreement, and consequently can't subject one to any liability. Duh!

I thought you guys would have learned it by now, especially since that's what you're doing when you demand redemption of your paychecks in lawful money. Without that demand, your use of FRNs is VOLUNTARY, which makes you LIABLE for income tax, among other things. But making that LM demand makes your use of FRNs INVOLUNTARY, which means that you can't be held liable for the national debt. And FRNs are a United States BENEFIT.

It's the same with other benefits also, especially with benefits which they WON'T let you cancel, like the SSN. You just can use those under PROTEST, since they are required to get a job and function in a society. It's basically a counter-offer, which gives them a choice to either cancel that benefit, OR let you use that benefit without any liability on on your part.

Don't forget, in states of the Union, United States is just another corporation, with the exception of interstate commerce.


Do please keep us updated on how this is working out for you.
I'm especially curious to see any correspondence you may get from the I R S in this matter.
Thank you.

John Howard
09-20-13, 03:01 PM
I was just reading from Nationwide's (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2998&p=29462#p29462)commentary. :cool:

John Howard
09-20-13, 08:01 PM
But Pete remains as unconvinced as ever.

amosfella
11-11-13, 09:02 PM
US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

I've been looking this over and over... It makes me wonder, as another version of this that I have seen states that US notes are not to be used to pay tariffs as well, if that is the reason the the IRS is not keeping the withholding. US notes demanded cannot be used to pay the national debt, while at the same time they cannot be used to pay a tariff.

I have heard it said that because the tax is sent to a separate jurisdiction, that it is a tariff. I could be wrong with all of this, but thought I'd make my 'revelation' known...

I am having trouble with the Canadian tax collectors, and have been looking at the same remedy for myself.

David Merrill
11-12-13, 01:52 AM
US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

I've been looking this over and over... It makes me wonder, as another version of this that I have seen states that US notes are not to be used to pay tariffs as well, if that is the reason the the IRS is not keeping the withholding. US notes demanded cannot be used to pay the national debt, while at the same time they cannot be used to pay a tariff.

I have heard it said that because the tax is sent to a separate jurisdiction, that it is a tariff. I could be wrong with all of this, but thought I'd make my 'revelation' known...

I am having trouble with the Canadian tax collectors, and have been looking at the same remedy for myself.

Searching Canadian Remedy I found this thread (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?79-a-little-history-of-shock-testing-in-Canada).

BigBlueOcean
11-16-13, 04:17 AM
Hello All,

If I may weigh in on the Lawful Money proviso. Lawful money implies UN-Lawful Money (anti-bacterial soap implies PRO-bacterial soap http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/images/smilies/confused.png). Try this perspective.

Foreign goods transported into the US by way of the various 5 ports of entry into the US (Ports, AirPorts, Post Office, Banks, Hospitals) carries with the importation of foreign goods Impost, Duty and Excise taxes. Goods arriving into a port is registered and ledgered as an asset and legal title provided to be traded. I always thought it odd that food is imported en masse when we are purportedly the 'bread basket of the world' until I look at the taxation resulting, although I am weighing in on Lawful Money.

When the govt abdicated their money authority entrusted to 'them' by the grantors granting 'coining money, treaties and maintaining a Navy' under the original Trust Indenture named the Constitution for the United States of America which was put in place to carry out the Treaty with the peoples embodied in the Declaration of Independence pledging to provide Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, we the beneficiary/posterity regained that authority to 'coin' money backed by the Treasury promising to pay all our debts under the New Deal. The original Trust was vacated under Lincoln who created a corporation to carry on the business of the vacant trust by incorporating the 10 sq miles of DC into municipal corporation (like Puerto Rico and Andora and Vatican city states) that used the original Constitution indenture as the Articles of Incorporation until Roosevelt, who nationalized all the assets of the US into a private trust off of which script receipts called FRNs have been drawn against the real assets belonging to the beneficiaries/posterity/you/me ledgered in Puerto Rico protectorate.

My election to convert the value of my private labor into public cash by endorsing an instrument (pay check) and depositing the instrument into the port/Bank provided by the Trustees over my/your/our beneficial birthright. The moving of private assets from the private venue into the public venue is re-venued and called revenue.

If the instrument is endorsed in blank, the default credit used to covert the value is the Federal Reserve foreign credit line, bringing foreign goods into the US resulting in impost, duty and excise taxes which require no special authorization by congress since congress has had the plenary right all along.
However, my the addition of the election to convert the value of private labor into public cash using the Domestic Line of credit under Title 12 §411, removes the unlawfulness by NOT putting the treasury into more debt by covering the cash conversion into Foreign Credit. The domestic credit is MY credit against MY birthright and any taxes collected would be paid to ME the source (imho).

By adding more restrictive endorsements I further protect the value of the asset (my labor) from confiscation like in Cyprus 'Bail-In' or any other interloper, or diminishment from bounced check fees when the maker is insolvent or whatever reason. Here's my restrictive endorsement:

Special Deposit for [cash|credit to account ####]
Redeem in Lawful Money i.a.w. Title 12§411
---Signature---
WITHOUT RECOURSE

As the Grantor endorsing the instrument and original owner of the asset deposited/registered, I and only I can correct any mistake or rebut any presumption on the nature and character of my intent behind any and EVERY deposits/registrations. I have written notices to the IRS collectors on the bankruptcy and the banks noticing them that the any and all deposits registered with the various banks or ports or registrars are Special in Nature that are to be ledgered to have been redeemed in lawful money in accordance with Title 12§411. This notice is notice from the originator of the value of the assets deposited specially or registered specially serves as rebuttal of any presumption contrary to the intent expressed herein.

Now that the value of my private labor asset is held in trust by whomever received delivery of that asset (delivery being one way to create a trust), I proceed to correct the character of the source of the asset that is presumed by the IRS (presumptions stands as fact until rebutted) to be Corporate Income Class 2 rather then Donor Income Class 5.

The IRS Transcripts showing income report the income/revenue as Class 2 on the transcript. Class 2 requires one of the 1040'ish returns. The Class 5 requires a Form 709 return that carries with it a fund to reimburse any (unlawful) taking of funds contrary to Class 5. If one looks at IRS Form 8822, boxes #1 & #2 mention both types of returns 1040 and 790.

Here is a link to the package. I make no claim that I am the brilliant person who brilliantly caught the presumption by the IRS.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6SD92Byh7o2bDlmQnl3dTVaNms&usp=drive_web#


Kind discussion on this post welcomed.
BigBlueOcean

David Merrill
11-16-13, 03:12 PM
Welcome Big Blue!


It is a pleasure to read your opening post!

Treefarmer
11-28-13, 02:10 AM
Hello All,

If I may weigh in on the Lawful Money proviso. Lawful money implies UN-Lawful Money (anti-bacterial soap implies PRO-bacterial soap http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/images/smilies/confused.png). Try this perspective.

...snip

The IRS Transcripts showing income report the income/revenue as Class 2 on the transcript. Class 2 requires one of the 1040'ish returns. The Class 5 requires a Form 709 return that carries with it a fund to reimburse any (unlawful) taking of funds contrary to Class 5. If one looks at IRS Form 8822, boxes #1 & #2 mention both types of returns 1040 and 790.

Here is a link to the package. I make no claim that I am the brilliant person who brilliantly caught the presumption by the IRS.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6SD92Byh7o2bDlmQnl3dTVaNms&usp=drive_web#


Kind discussion on this post welcomed.
BigBlueOcean

Hello BBO, welcome to the club.
I appreciate your discussion.
When I tried to access your link at https://drive.google.com/folderview?...usp=drive_web#,
I got "Access Denied, You need permission".
Perhaps you can fix the link so we can see it?
Thank you

Freed Gerdes
11-28-13, 03:18 PM
Good analysis, BBO, but the Internal Revenue Code (found in Title 26) requires the filing of an income tax return only if you have taxable income, and as you point out, income redeemed in public money is not taxable, thus no return is required. Basically, for all the reasons you point out (re-venue status), public money is not revenued (it is already in this venue), thus public money is not within the purview of Title 26. Thus, no income, no income tax return, no tax.

craneman3355
12-31-13, 03:03 AM
Hello all, I have just been enlighted to the redeem for lawful money and am in need of some assistance if you can be so kind. I had followed the UCC process for years and it seemed to work well until the IRS roared it's ugly head. I keep digging and trying to learn every day. I read CTC and thoguht it had some good info but, I had seen that it was flawed just like the UCC process. The IRS is garnishing my paychecks and would really like to get them to stop. Can anyone provide me guidance to help me.

Chex
02-22-14, 03:04 PM
the Internal Revenue Code (found in Title 26) requires the filing of an income tax return only if you have taxable income, and as you point out, income redeemed in public money is not taxable, thus no return is required........

..................unless you have lawful money to be returned.

Frivolous arguments: The IRS is not a big fan of these, so if you're tempted to say that you don't owe taxes because they're voluntary or you didn't get due process or some other goofy argument, it won't work.


The "zero wages" lie: In this fraud, the taxpayer submits a Form 4852 (a substitute W-2) or a "corrected" Form 1099 to make their income look lower and avoid paying taxes. The IRS takes a dim view of this and could hit you with a $5,000 penalty.

http://news.yahoo.com/39-pay-taxes-now-arrested-39-dirty-dozen-012840024--abc-news-topstories.html

So let them audit you..........

The Internal Revenue Service is tracking down people who may be shorting the tax man by understating their income, exaggerating tax breaks and skipping out on other tax liabilities. And it isn’t just the rich and famous that agents are going after. Six percent of the IRS audits conducted on individuals in 2012 were for people who made between $200,000 and $1 million, according to IRS data.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-ways-avoid-irs-audit-123014838.html

JohnnyCash
02-24-14, 02:52 PM
It would appear I'm one of the rare HENDRICKSON success stories, but owing only to discovering David Merrill & lawful money in time. Here's the timeline:

- - 2007 As an independent business (receiving 1099s) I paid quarterly estimated taxes and filed annual 1040s like many Americans; a good sheeple.
1 - 2008 I read Pete's Cracking the Code and learned the truth about misapplied taxation. Successful at requesting most of the 1099s to stop. Filed a knowledgeable 1040 return: Page1 (http://www.jesse2012.com/1040_1.jpg) Page2 (http://www.jesse2012.com/1040_2.jpg) and received a full refund (http://www.jesse2012.com/refund.jpg).
2 - 2009 no 1099s to speak of. Nothing withheld & no income tax paid. No return filed.
3 - 2010 no 1099s to speak of. Nothing withheld & no income tax paid. No return filed.
4 - 2011 no 1099s to speak of. Nothing withheld & no income tax paid. No return filed.
5 - 2012 received a 1099 (to prove Famspear wrong). Nothing withheld & no income tax paid. http://www.jesse2012.com/my109912.jpg
6 - 2013 received a 1099 (to prove Famspear wrong). Nothing withheld & no income tax paid. http://www.jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg
7 - 2014 Nothing withheld & no income tax paid.
latest Social Security Earnings Report (http://www.jesse2012.com/SSA_E14.jpg)

Within this same time period I began redeeming checks into lawful money according to law. Since the IRS has had all these facts & figures, for years ... I would ask this of the naysayers; where's my friv pen? where's the levy? where's the subpoena for tax evasion?

Chex
02-24-14, 04:09 PM
It would appear I'm one of the rare HENDRICKSON success stories, but owing only to discovering David Merrill & lawful money in time.

By the way thank you David for the pointing out the truth and the law.

HENDRICKSON success stories would of two fold if just reading the law David pointed out to HENDRICKSON or just skipped the IRS code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26)altogether and went right in the law (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/3/XII/411).

The FRB does not run this country; it’s a business that prints that our congress though they would take care of.

The Federal Reserve's recent decision to begin scaling back its monetary stimulus jolted global financial markets, particularly stocks which benefited in the past several years from record low interest rates and money created by bond buying policies.

Lawful money is an RSS feed for us, we are waiting for the IRS to say the law is frivolous, and then let the game of arms begin.

Can you imagine the chaos that will happen between congressional laws the world’s largest collections of legal resources is challenged when the IRS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Lew)code butts heads with congress?

When people read (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1013-Just-A-Review&p=12139&viewfull=1#post12139)the redemption sees the difference of lawful money and how they have been screwed they will start coming out of the woodwork.

Gov_ Enema'S_Rule 23 hours ago
GDP= (Globally Dependent People) of the world. Which the G-20 bunch, in collusion with each other, try's to push down the throats of most countries politicians. Central banks like the terms (austerity) and (level playing field) and use them frequently to hide their real and wicked intent of making all nations their economic slaves to be controlled by them. Financial aid (for a fee) by them, is just a smoke screen of deception to make them seem like they're helping people. Globalist bankers are the true Hydra of Greed consuming the entire world one nation at a time. Wake up World. 2 trillion $$'s is just a pittance when compared to the estimated 400 trillion $$'s that the Rothschild's banking empire controls along with the help of its puppet and (phony) Fed. Reserve of the US. The blatant buying up of the US (one brick at a time) and called (Stimulus) for the easily deceived is rampant. The banksters do encourage investors to rush in and play the (Stock Market) game they own, while moving the money around under a habitual (Shell Game) of their design. All this, with the blessings of our (bought out government) since 1913 when our (bi-partisan) Congress allowed the enactment of the (phony and privately owned) never audited (Federal Reserve) to control US money. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/g-20-vows-boost-world-economy-2-trillion-081316842--finance.html?bcmt=1393168994184-900fcecd-2069-4d90-b9f0-4342ea25d561

And if congress tries changing this law in favor of the FRB, civil disobedience will surly rise.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Everyone’s situation is unique redeeming payroll checks into lawful money according to law, but in the end it’s the law.

There are refunds coming with interest in lawful money for the people who been unlawfully fined for frivolous penalties and levy’s.

Chex
02-24-14, 05:27 PM
It would appear I'm one of the rare HENDRICKSON success stories, but owing only to discovering David Merrill & lawful money in time.

By the way thank you David pointing out the law and the truth.

HENDRICKSON success stories would of two fold if just reading the law that David pointed out. HENDRICKSON should of just skipped the IRS code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26)altogether and went right to the law.

HENDRICKSON was found guilty of 10 counts of filing false documents by a federal jury in October. Would the jury have put HENDRICKSON in incarceration if he brought the law to them?

HENDRICKSON quote (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2998&p=29462#p29462)“Dave Merrill may say brilliant things about the nature of FRNs. But if he, or you or anyone else, says that FRNs are relevant in any way to the application of the tax, he, you or the other guy is simply wrong. Don't say it again here. This is a place for accuracy, not error, and this error has been debunked so many times on these pages that I am sick of it.”

At first HENDRICKSON sounded good but he had nothing backing it, all he had to do was insert the law (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/3/XII/411)in his complaint, subpoenaed congress in front of that jury, explaining. What jury is going to say congress you’re frivolous.

The FRB does not run this country; it’s a business that prints that our congress though would take care of.

The Federal Reserve 's recent decision to begin scaling back its monetary stimulus jolted global financial markets, particularly stocks which benefited in the past several years from record low interest rates and money created by bond buying policies.

Lawful money is an RSS feed for us, we are waiting for the IRS to say the law is frivolous, and then let the game of arms begin.

Can you imagine the chaos that will happen between congressional laws the world’s largest collections of legal resources is challenged when the IRS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Lew)code butts heads with congress?

Front page news, not only that when the people read the redemption (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1013-Just-A-Review&p=12139&viewfull=1#post12139)sees the difference of lawful money and how they have been screwed they will start coming out of the woodwork.

Like Gov_ Enema'S_Rule 23 hours ago.

GDP= (Globally Dependent People) of the world. Which the G-20 bunch, in collusion with each other, try's to push down the throats of most countries politicians. Central banks like the terms (austerity) and (level playing field) and use them frequently to hide their real and wicked intent of making all nations their economic slaves to be controlled by them. Financial aid (for a fee) by them, is just a smoke screen of deception to make them seem like they're helping people. Globalist bankers are the true Hydra of Greed consuming the entire world one nation at a time. Wake up World. 2 trillion $$'s is just a pittance when compared to the estimated 400 trillion $$'s that the Rothschild's banking empire controls along with the help of its puppet and (phony) Fed. Reserve of the US. The blatant buying up of the US (one brick at a time) and called (Stimulus) for the easily deceived is rampant. The banksters do encourage investors to rush in and play the (Stock Market) game they own, while moving the money around under a habitual (Shell Game) of their design. All this, with the blessings of our (bought out government) since 1913 when our (bi-partisan) Congress allowed the enactment of the (phony and privately owned) never audited (Federal Reserve) to control US money. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/g-20-vows-boost-world-economy-2-trillion-081316842--finance.html?bcmt=1393168994184-900fcecd-2069-4d90-b9f0-4342ea25d561

And if congress tries changing this law in favor of the FRB, civil disobedience will surly rise.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Everyone’s situation is unique redeeming payroll checks into lawful money according to law, but in the end it’s the law.

Where’s My Refund is the question. There are refunds coming with interest in lawful money for the people who been unlawfully fined for frivolous penalties and levy’s and I want it in lawful money, not fiat.

That’s when a reasonable fee schedule should come into play for your time and effort. Isn’t everyone on the payroll but you?

Nutcase (http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1695080)?

How to steal a nation from the people who own it, or owned it once (http://compleatpatriot.blogspot.com/2009/09/dollar-defined.html).

On another note All I am saying is that’s its claptrap. Opinions mean nothing. Show me the proof that the STATE owns the account/entity/person otherwise it hearsay and it does not exist. http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1084-What-s-in-a-NAME&p=13121&viewfull=1#post13121

Congress has guaranteed me the 'exclusive original cognizance' of the US government since 1789! You are in breach of contract, aka Default Judgment, Business here is concluded. Have a nice day!

Become your own court of competent jurisdiction. That's what sovereignty it all about.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?671-Another-trick-courts-are-using-re-R4C&p=7934&viewfull=1#post7934

JohnnyCash
02-26-14, 04:16 AM
But just so you remember if you're gonna try this tack ...
PROFESSIONAL NONTAXPAYER ON CLOSED COURSE. DO NOT ATTEMPT.

JohnnyCash
12-04-14, 05:00 AM
I have some observations to share as a successful 7 year nontaxpayer thanks to LAWFUL MONEY remedy learned from David Merrill. This was something I discovered after reading Pete HENDRICKSON'S Cracking the Code book in 2008. Pete has a forum for readers of his CtC book called LostHorizons (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=2) and since then I've participated in & monitored this forum.

I witnessed many odd & interesting things there; I recall the alligator pit/sandbox debates, tales of wage levies, liens & penalties, watched users come & go. I recall the ramblings of user skankbeat which never seemed to say anything helpful (almost like random phrases strung together). The main thing is, Pete seems to have little tolerance for debate & discord whether real or manufactured (by the quatloser personas). ForumAdmin has deleted posts & banished many users over the years and even wiped the forum 3 times, removing most if not all previous threads.

So as not to keep you waiting, here is my thesis. LostHorizons.com has been completely infiltrated and dominated by disinfo agents. And more importantly, these agents have confirmed LAWFUL MONEY REMEDY as a winner by their attacks.

BS76 FOUND LYING ABOUT HIS OCCUPATION
New user BrainySmurf76 joined about a year ago and quickly became its most frequent poster (751 posts in a year). I suspected BS76 was our familiar Quatloser attorney, Famspear. BS76 had said "I myself drive 18 wheeler (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3088&p=30226#p30226)" and sensing an opportunity we had user Homie post an untitled photo (http://www.ctcwarrior.com/Untitled.jpg) of the underside of a tractor trailer and ask BS76 what it was. His answer, "looks like an air tank or water pump unit.. (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3179&p=31710#p31707)," in comparison to the same question posed to a real trucker, "That's an air tank. Looks to be in between the tandems under the trailer. Tandems are the sets of tires on a trailer (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3179&p=31710#p31772)." indicates BS76 was guessing & knew not whereof he spoke; not a truck driver at all.

BS76 FORGETS WHERE HIS PERSONA IS FROM
On May 24th BrainySmurf76 says "My technically sufficient return (victory) can be seen here, (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3140&p=30985#p30985)
http://losthorizons.com/tax/taximages2/JDavis/2013FedDocs.pdf
http://losthorizons.com/tax/taximages2/JDavis/Fed2013RefundNotice.JPG
Docs show he's from state of OK with an OKC employer. BS76 & Homie share some banter and Homie takes up BS76 on his offer to ride around town, mentioning OKC. On June 24th BS76 replies with "what's that about OKC and friends? I don't live in OKC but I do go through there sometimes. [...]I'm born n raised in Jojuh (Georgia). You have me confused with someone else? (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3140&start=15#p31251)" Then perhaps realizing his mistake, on the same day BS76 edits and removes the link to his fed docs.

BS76 ADMITS TO GAMING THE FORUM
Homie and the suspected agents go back & forth and on July 6th BS76 seems a little surprised someone is documenting the holes in his stories. He replies with "Some good sleuthing there Homie but you're in error. I post things in certain ways to get a profile/pattern/fingerprint based on how you reply. I can see you with pen and paper jotting things down so you can recall them later here. You're good at copying and storing data. Do you have each forum members name with specific things noted? It appears you do. I make you think what I want, when I want and get the replies I expect. (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3131&start=15#p31384)" A rather frank admission there.
I've got other data points too and they all support the premise - BS76 will go to great lengths, willing to do or say anything to perpepuate central banking.

LAWFUL MONEY REMEDY INTRODUCED AT LOSTHORIZONS
The remedy from Federal Reserve banking, and thus federal income excise tax, has been introduced several times at Lost Horizons by various patriots over the years. And each time a curious thing happens ... many users come out of the woodwork to respond! An example can be found in the Glaring Omission From the Frivolous List (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3057) topic which to this day stands as the most replied-to thread on the site. If all income is "income" then we should see "Contention: Lawful Money of the US is not income" on the Frivolous List. Respondent BS76 (Famspear) leads the psyop followup with his own special blend of nasty disinfo.

OTHER AGENTS REVEALED BY THEIR SUPPORT OF BS76
Logic says if one agent can be effective, go undetected, then multiple agents should be even better. Several users came forward to support BS76, and thus came under suspicion. Many posters who initially appear to be genuine, can be identified as agents by their words. It would appear each agent has their own role to play in the script.
craneman3355 - is all about common law but can never supply a victory scan
TallyGator - is illogical & goes a little haywire flooding the forum with his "Troll Alert"s
stein51 - provides distraction & badmouthing
cadman777, Greencode, Jbirddurango, jhwniklas, etc. Really, the list is too lengthy to publish. These chameleons generally support each other and he keeps a few logins on ice, ready to post a newbie question at any time. Fake questions, fake answers, fake discussions. No doubt some of it designed to lead sheep into an IRS campus for shearing.

AGENTS VALIDATE LAWFUL MONEY
What this increased activity level reveals to me is the dangerous truth of LAWFUL MONEY remedy. The bank agents simply cannot have folks learning LM remedy & putting into practice. They can't have people running the FED. So they spam the thread. They engage the psyop. Confusion, distraction, disinfo, fear, name-calling, it's all part of the game. The naysayers call it outside the CtC book, a scam, a scheme. Even TruthBearer reveals himself with "I concluded that it is not a position that I wanted to hang my hat and financial future on (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3188#p31988)."
DING.

Conversely, when the patriots stop posting, the agents quiet down. I don't believe Homie and the patriots have posted since October and predictably, activity has decreased. BS76 has just a few posts all month. The forum is quiet. Not much more than a few fake questions with fake answers. No discord. I also believe the agents have goaded Pete to alienate & boot his own followers. And if you've booted most of your followers, who is left? Yep, quatlosers masquerading as followers. Anyway have a look and decide for yourself, it's all on display.

David Merrill
12-04-14, 08:41 AM
LB BORK and others fall into a similar category as I sort out ways to save time. For me one great big Sort is gurus who have a book out. HENDRICKSON of course has Cracking the Code and Famspear I think it is - Bernard S. SUSSMAN is a trained attorney who became a law librarian for his active career - Shoonra - who wrote Idiot Patriot Arguments; in two renditions. Writing a book for profit about remedy strikes me as a mental trap. Especially when the author excludes the remedy from his thinking! So now the author is stuck defending his own doctrine.

LB BORK as I see it, and Pete HENDRICKSON too albeit less formally, both have built a quasi-pyramid scheme around their book. In order to post with either of these two you must buy, read and agree with the author of the website's book. If you do not then you are out.

With Pete there was something very annoying. If you received a Zero-Income Refund using his method you were encouraged to post it on his Forum. If the IRS began to recant and want the funds back the Member usually would expect for Pete to take down the Image of the Refund Check. Instead the Member would be banished and the Image would stay, supporting that the Zero-Return method was successful. This gives the poor victim of Cracking the Code the extra insult to injury of feeling dishonest too; leading more readers into making the same mistake.

Quatloos was quite a growing experience for me. Recently I started a document Quatloos Wisdom. Not much there yet because it is really just a couple gems on my mind... But it still seems in better taste than to just link people to Wserra's thread about Redeeming Lawful Money there, which turned out to be the best recommendation ever!


David Merrill and friends are under the delusion that, once you maker a demand for lawfulmoney under 12 USC 411, your FRNs transubstantiate into United States Notes and, among other things, are no longer taxable under the income tax laws. To give but one example of how idiotic David and his minions are, they believe that the words "In God We Trust", appearing on FRNs, establishes some sort of legal trust (and if you want an explanation, go to his site. I've had enough of his brand of idiocy).


Merrill actually, sorta, kinda got one almost right, but close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades, and nuclear war, or so I'm told, since I don't play at any of them. Originally FRN’s weren’t “lawful money” for some reason, I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen an explanation of that, but there you are, they weren’t, and particularly not the large denomination bills, 100's, 10,000's, and 100,000 dollar bills that were used as non-circulating, internal transfer funds. It was a lot easier to shore up a bank with one or two bills/notes as they actually are than sending a carload of smaller ones just to have them sit in the bank’s vault, and when they had the funds they returned the bills to the FED and paid off the loan. Not real complicated. The redeeming lawful money bit was so that if one of the banks had to actually cash one of those non-circs, they could go to their local FED and get small bills to stand against say a run on the bank, or a short term need for a large cash volume. OK, all past history, very past history. In 1933, Congress undid all that by passing 31 USC sec 5103 making them once and for all “lawful money” by making them LEGAL TENDER. These days FED does all its transfers by wire and book keeping entry these days so the redeeming bit really is superfluous. The only time they send out actual currency these days is when a bank buys extra or needs replacement bills, and it is a one for one swap when they do. So Merrill has the delusion that you can redeem “lawful money”(FRN’s) with “lawful money”(FRN’s), silly, but harmless other than defacing countless bills that then get sent back to the FED for destruction since they have been defaced. I suppose he could be charged with defacing currency if someone were feeling pissy about it. The thing I don’t understand, and that he has never actually explained, is why/how claiming he has redeemed“lawful money” somehow makes it tax free. There is the full on cra cra!!!!, and it’s just gullible and stupid on the part of his followers, and even more so, I really don’t understand how scrawling all over your paycheck, red crayon or otherwise, does anything to it either, since it only represents an effectively electronic bookkeeping payment to your account. But then, if it actually had anything behind it, it wouldn’t be a tax avoidance scam, now would it.

So far as I know, all of Merrill’s suitors have met the same end in tax court and court in general, ABJECT and ABSOLUTE FAILURE. Wes, are you still keeping score on their efforts?


notorial dissent wrote:....Originally FRN’s [Federal Reserve notes] weren’t “lawful money” for some reason, I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen an explanation of that....


Regarding the term "lawful money" (or "lawful currency"), here's the excerpt from the Slindee letter that is quoted in various places:


.....the term "lawful money" has not been defined in federal legislation. It first came into use prior to 1933 when some United States currency was not legal tender but could be held by national banking associations as lawful money reserves. Since the act of May 12, 1933, as amended by the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, makes all coins and currency of the United States legal tender and the Joint Resolution of August 27, 1935, provides for the exchange of United States coin or currency for other types of such coin or currency, the term "lawful currency" no longer has such special significance.


---Michael E. Slindee, Acting Treasurer of the United States, in a letter to Mr. A. F. Davis of Cleveland, Ohio dated Dec. 29, 1947, published in "A Dollar Is a Dollar Is a Dollar," American Affairs, Vol. 10, p. 88 (April 1948), as re-printed in Money and Banking: Theory, Analysis, and Policy, p. 5, ed. by S. Mittra (Random House, New York 1970); also cited in Paul M. Horvitz, Monetary Policy and the Financial System, p. 28, footnote 3, Prentice-Hall, 3rd ed. (1974).


Back in 1862, when the United States Notes (a genuinely fiat currency) was issued, the statute authorizing it declared the US Notes to be both legal tender and lawful money. It turned out that there had been two proposals for the USNs working through the chambers, one used one term and the other used the other term, and evidently in conference someone rather casually decided to use both terms together. Many years later the Dept of Treasury legal office issued an official opinion that the two terms were simply two names for the very same thing; which, I might add, is not everyone's opinion. In 1913, in the Federal Reserve Act, FRNs were intended to serve as a sort of scrip circulating among the banks and exchangeable for "lawful money" - which, to me and the courts, meant that FRNs were either money or as good as money or usable as money. In 1934, an Act of Congress made ALL the coins and currency issued by the federal govt at any time as "legal tender" (and expressly included FRNs in this law).

Legal tender is the "highest" sort of money; one cannot insist on being paid a superior sort of currency if payment is offered in legal tender. Until 1934, silver coins were legal tender but silver certificates, which promised to be exchangeable for silver coins, were not. However, silver certificates were perfectly acceptable in ordinary business and nearly everybody was satisfied to be paid with silver certificates, which made the silver certificates "lawful money" if not also legal tender; the silver coins were both. Legally, until 1934, a contract could insist on payment in silver coins and the creditor could refuse to accept silver certificates as a substitute, notwithstanding any bank would make the exchange effortlessly.

About the only federally issued currency which was not made legal tender was the China trade dollar, a rather odd (and now extremely rare) silver coin issued circa 1880, intended exclusively for transactions in China. It was an odd weight, different from any of the US silver dollars.

Besides court decisions that FRNs are now both legal tender and (under the Federal Reserve Act) lawful money, the fact that $1 FRN can be readily exchanged for 100 US Mint pennies, or ten dimes, etc. shoud be proof that it is lawful money.


I recall writing a Blog at the very beginning for StSC here about being Thick-Skinned with the Quatlosers in mind. I really was expecting a much bigger attack than occurred. Potapaug dropped in and even registered. He finally got disgusted with that first quoted remark - that I have connected the IN GOD WE TRUST on the bills to the Oath of Office and State Comptrollers. I find that pretty amusing!

I thought posting Pragmatism on Sui Juris Club might get mention on Quatloos too. Nope! Not yet anyway...

If you recall I was a monopoly on entertainment value at Quatloos and when they banished me, the place dried up permanently! I even became bored watching how everybody left but the core group formed around attacking me! And they were just busy trying to keep up the ridicule without me there. It was so sad.


Thanks for the evaluation on your take of the Echo Chamber, as I have been calling it.

David Merrill.


P.S. Pete has always kept me banished from Lost Horizons. Also BORK's website too. Other websites keep me monitored, viewing my posts before viewing etc...

David Merrill
12-04-14, 09:07 AM
Upon posting, I noted Solutions?

I suppose maybe I came across the solution. As I was writing Pragmatism (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbjlBXzcxX0UwSG8) I kept it in mind as an essay, not a book. I am not intending to profit from it, and I expect that some concerned folks may steal it and change it all around. It is possible I may even be confronted by zealots. But as I finished my first final draft... well there you see it. I will change it as I will change it. No final draft at all!

That is because I am learning while I teach and do not separate either experience!

Chex
12-04-14, 01:22 PM
What’s so foreign about gold or silver (coins) if it’s mined in Nevada?

Why it is the other counties are hording gold and silver? Because its called a commodity?

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103)

Funny I don’t see anything about incoming it’s all about paying out.

The Coinage act of 1873 (a.k.a. the Crime of ’73) put a stop to this by suspending production of Silver Dollars. (http://www.coinweek.com/featured-news/the-history-of-the-trade-dollar)

LOL euros (http://news.yahoo.com/vatican-finds-hundreds-millions-euros-tucked-away-cardinal-131617994.html)

Who surly knows I don't I am not the bookkeeper. (http://www.bing.com/search?q=The+Roman+Catholic+Church+controls+approx imately+60%2C350+metric+tons+of+gold&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR02)

David Merrill
12-05-14, 02:41 PM
Who surly knows I don't I am not the bookkeeper. (http://www.bing.com/search?q=The+Roman+Catholic+Church+controls+approx imately+60%2C350+metric+tons+of+gold&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR02)


Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml)has something to say along those lines.


And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an end.

The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?

Chex
12-05-14, 03:45 PM
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml)has something to say along those lines.

Funny I was wondering about
And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?

What I don’t get is who is the Commercial Contract King from here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?454-The-King-s-Commerce) and here (http://thoughts-and-stuff-zwright.blogspot.com/2011/08/hidden-contracts-banking-string-that.html).

Now maybe I will get and answer.

David Merrill
12-05-14, 08:01 PM
The answer abounds:


2066

I have a perpetual inheritance in the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions Granted to Patroons but that would make me special. Being special builds ego and that would destroy it... Get it?

The King be You!

Jesus said it eloquently - He who will lay down his life lives forever. Miyamoto Musashi demonstrated it well, a rogue Samurai with 65 confirmed victories and he died a natural death. Dead Leaves they called it. Musashi thought himself dead already.

JohnnyCash
12-20-14, 04:14 PM
This was just posted at Freedomwatch. (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526--cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson)..


BrainySmurf76 commented · December 20, 2014 9:58 AM ·

Wish I had the FRN's or Lawful Money of a trucker in Oklahoma, an electrician in Iowa and a crane man in North Carolina. But I'm just one man. Cont'd
Not changing teams or anything but that Jay Adkisson fella is handsome. Now who is this Famspear you keep yapping about?
On page 12 to page 13 you'll see you're a mess.

I believe the founder of quatloos.com (http://ctcwarrior.com/scammer.jpg), Jay Adkisson, has just admitted he is the following personas, which I've suspected for quite awhile now:
"trucker in Oklahoma" = BrainySmurf76
"electrician in Iowa" = jesse james
"crane man in North Carolina" = craneman3355

stoneFree
03-17-15, 11:19 PM
Pete HENDRICKSON closed his national forum today with this message:
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3226

This was brought to our attention over at Freedom Watch (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526--cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson) by our former user "jesse james."

Chex
06-12-15, 12:06 PM
The Government Doesn't Agree. News story (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061015-756727-justice-department-subpoenas-reason-foundation.htm?p=full)

Brady Ness's testimony, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5lmWkvDlWk&feature=youtu.be

Tim Kendrick's testimony, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKVpiYKi9ag&feature=youtu.be

Kennard Van Camp Testifies, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9C0n6wa3Xs

As a judge wrote Doreen testimony, Doreen refused to sign the judges own essay and they throw Pete's wife in jail.

And Brian Harriss's Testimonial Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMonVyyigAA

Coupled with "Lawful Money" its a "Honest" and " Lawful" situation.