PDA

View Full Version : IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?



JohnnyCash
11-13-12, 10:36 PM
http://jesse2012.com/IRSletter.jpg

certified mail green card (http://jesse2012.com/irs_greencard.jpg) shows IRS received it November 5th.

EZrhythm
11-14-12, 09:48 AM
Since you made your "demand", technically no rebuttal necessary but a return will still need to be filed and it may result in an audit. The path that leads to the least aggravations would be to rebut any 1099's and any other information returns.

JohnnyCash
11-14-12, 02:50 PM
A return is required if I have income above the statutory exemption amount, yes. But I believe these restrictively endorsed checks are not income under the Revenue Acts of Congress. Therefore if I have no statutory income and nothing is withheld from my pay there is no need to file.

JohnnyCash
12-07-12, 04:42 PM
I'd like to report that 30 days have passed with no response received to my inquiry.

David Merrill
12-08-12, 02:11 AM
Well put, John!

Treefarmer
12-10-12, 04:28 AM
A return is required if I have income above the statutory exemption amount, yes. But I believe these restrictively endorsed checks are not income under the Revenue Acts of Congress. Therefore if I have no statutory income and nothing is withheld from my pay there is no need to file.

In my experience, ANYTHING that gets reported to the IRS on an information return such as 1099 or W-2 or any other such form, is taxable income.
What you redeem that taxable income for AFTER you receive it is your business, but first the IRS will require you to pay tax on it.
The contract nexus is the bank, which is the "trade or business" (http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm)with the US.

I don't keep showing this document because of any remedy it may or may not contain, but because it does such an excellent job of documenting HOW one becomes a taxpayer slave.
To get free of income tax, one must have no bank accounts.

JohnnyCash
12-11-12, 10:21 PM
Yes, as a CtC-reader I'm aware of the custom "trade or business" definition. I would agree that anything reported on an info return such as a 1099 or W2 carries the PRESUMPTION of taxable income. Enough presumption for the IRS to run with, enough for the IRS to attempt to convince you you've made taxable income. Conditioning. Don't forget this is a scam run by banksters in conjunction with US government. As my letter of inquiry above reveals... these presumptions are mere hearsay, you have a right to be heard regarding the true nature of these payments.

In my experience the determinant of taxable income is endorsement of Federal Reserve credit. That is the contract nexus. I say this because I have bank accounts, correction, my PERSON has bank accounts, but I have been unmolested by the IRS for five (5) years because I deposit LAWFUL MONEY into those bank accounts via restricted endorsement. I am non-contracting. I have also seen with my own eyes, a corporation fully-ensnared in the matrix, who paid payroll taxes late and assessed penalties by statute because of it, threatened with levy, who then filed Form 843 with evidence OF HAVING REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY ... and won. The IRS backed down. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?681-Company-beats-IRS-penalties-with-Lawful-Money) They didn't want to go there. I have repeatedly seen the Feds not want to touch this issue of "Fed Reserve credit v. lawful money" with a ten foot pole. Says something, doesn't it. Lawful money remedy works for PERSONs and Corporations too.

Treefarmer, if the IRS is pursuing you for a period when you actually were endorsing Federal Reserve credit, well then, your options are limited. After all, you or your ENTITY was contracting wasn't it? Albeit a non-disclosed, hidden contract. You might sue for "fraud by omission" or hint at it anyway. After all, the IRS doesn't know exactly when you started redeeming lawful money. Can you imagine a lawsuit where the taxpayer was asked "on what date did you first restrictively endorse a check into lawful money?" NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I submit to you they absolutely cannot have any sort of this talk on the record, it would admit the scam. Therefore you might bluff them into a stand-down victory... with just the threat of a lawsuit.

JohnnyCash
02-01-13, 07:26 PM
I just received a Form 1099-MISC for 2012 (http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4776/my109912.jpg). As you know, this Box 7 amount is reported to the IRS and carries the presumption of statutory income. But it isn't, I redeemed lawful money the whole year. So I may have a complete success story to show later. Unfortunately this may take awhile to develop. The banksters/IRS won't know anything's amiss until April 15th when no matching Form 1040 (return of income) is filed.

Chex
02-01-13, 09:00 PM
Treefarmer, if the IRS is pursuing you for a period when you actually were endorsing Federal Reserve credit, well then, your options are limited.

Absolutely Not. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

mikecz
02-01-13, 09:41 PM
I just received a Form 1099-MISC for 2012 (http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4776/my109912.jpg). As you know, this Box 7 amount is reported to the IRS and carries the presumption of statutory income. But it isn't, I redeemed lawful money the whole year. So I may have a complete success story to show later. Unfortunately this may take awhile to develop. The banksters/IRS won't know anything's amiss until April 15th when no matching Form 1040 (return of income) is filed.

Sooo Johnny,

Basically what you are saying, the 1099 was given to you by a client, or "payer". With its receipt, you take that 1099 and fill in your 1040, I think line 12 in this case. The payer is just following his instructions, filling out a 1099 is part of filing his taxes. This is basically giving you a packaged amount to fill in your 1040 form. That money was paid to you, and is assumed to be private credit. Lets say for argument, the payer, unknowing about lawful money, between his ears assumed as much. Upon receipt of each payment, you had stamped your non endorsement, lawful money only. I see this 1099 more as an instruction to you how much was filed in your name or person. What you did or do with the money from that point on is what is filled in your tax return.

Ok now, 2 questions...

1.) Where/how are you filing in your tax form to indicate you received this money as lawful money? Are you even recognizing receipt of it on your return?

2.) I have an LLC, and basically pay myself. Is there a way to short circuit this mess and pay myself in lawful money (i.e. indicate that the written check is lawful money)

Thanks Johnny, this is a real world example, and you are definitely moving the ball forward.

David Merrill
02-01-13, 10:01 PM
I see it as Notice and Demand. But it is to the IRS which means it is limited. I believe that the IRS agents get guideline memorandums and last I checked (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145-Exactly-what-does-the-IRS-agent-think&p=9114&viewfull=1#post9114) these are no longer available for us as laymen to view. I find that encouraging.

This may be a little off point from the thread but I want to show you something. This is an indication of how one might be able to summon a response from the IRS attorneys through the federal court. I am using this process toward getting compliance toward settling a lien so I will be quiet about the details there. However you might get something out of these filings and the code too (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1782).


Title 28 USC §1782(a) The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The order may be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal or upon the application of any interested person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court. By virtue of his appointment, the person appointed has power to administer any necessary oath and take the testimony or statement. The order may prescribe the practice and procedure, which may be in whole or part the practice and procedure of the foreign country or the international tribunal, for taking the testimony or statement or producing the document or other thing. To the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A person may not be compelled to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing in violation of any legally applicable privilege.


(b) This chapter does not preclude a person within the United States from voluntarily giving his testimony or statement, or producing a document or other thing, for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal before any person and in any manner acceptable to him.

This came up with people in NY and elsewhere having trouble filing a Miscellaneous Case Jacket for an evidence repository for Notice and Demand (to redeem lawful money) like shown around here. So I used the PACER search engine to look up Miscellaneous Case usage and to conform the rules so that these new suitors could get their Notice and Demand published, therefore they can serve a certified copy on their bank instead of hassling with a Signature Card novation.

So you got it right if you figured it out on your own here. You want your Notice on Demand on the front page after your quick Application for whatever. In this case you want a correspondence back from the IRS. In a NY suitor's example he wants a response to the Notice and Demand ordered by the federal judge - from GEITHNER and BERNANKE too!

It does not matter if you get your response though. The purpose is that you get your Notice and Demand on the record in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US government so that you can use it in your court at your pleasure.

These attachments gave me an example of something that the clerk of court would recognize and file, giving the suitor an evidence repository.

allodial
02-02-13, 12:37 AM
You can always put in default responses--as in tell them what they are agreeing to if they don't reply--I'd be reasonable. I have issued demands for reply and have gotten them in exactly the time required. I have even gotten requests for more time to reply. I don't take an antagonistic approach with the IRS agents. Many of them are quite helpful and can be quite kind people. However, if they fail to reply you can simply follow up with your concept of what they are agreeing to and file it in a case jacket. If the USDC Clerk is shy about taking the other papers, the memo might not seem so 'scary'.

I have taken the perspective much like this: that in some way or another they work for me and so I help both the IRS agents and "clients" by getting matters resolved peacefully (ala conservator of the peace).


I see it as Notice and Demand. But it is to the IRS which means it is limited. I believe that the IRS agents get guideline memorandums and last I checked (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145-Exactly-what-does-the-IRS-agent-think&p=9114&viewfull=1#post9114) these are no longer available for us as laymen to view. I find that encouraging.

Yeah those memos can be handy. Like one that hinted at an "individual" being a trust. Nonetheless, one can keep an eye out for changes to the Internal Revenue Manual.

***

Re: 1099s. A 1099 doesn't necessarily evidence taxable income. It can simply indicate that some kind of 'flow' took place. It doesn't indicate that the amount in question was profit. A record of redemption for lawful money should serve as evidence in case of an audit. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Keywords: Gross income (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/grossincome.asp), taxable income, capital receipt (http://www.accountingexplanation.com/capital_and_revenue_receipts.htm), revenue receipt (http://www.accountingexplanation.com/capital_and_revenue_receipts.htm).

JohnnyCash
02-02-13, 03:22 AM
I notice the Form itself tells you the IRS has no procedure for recipient to correct an incorrect 1099:
Form 1099-MISC Incorrect? If this form is incorrect or has been issued in error, contact the payer. If you cannot get this form corrected, attach an explanation to your tax return and report your income correctly.

It's up to you, the recipient, to determine the correct amount of income; the 1099 is just a 3rd party hearsay report (and also a bit of social engineering; conditioning). If I redeemed lawful money all year the correct amount of income (under the Revenue Acts of Congress) is zero. And since nothing was withheld there is no need to file a return.

Hi Mike, I have worked for myself for years. About 2008-09 I discovered David Merrill and began redeeming lawful money. I managed to get most of the 1099 reporting to stop and stopped filing after 2008. No issues. I actually wanted a 1099-MISC this year to prove that one can win this despite "reporting." So the answer to 1) is: no, I don't even recognize receipt of it. I won't even file.

2) You and the LLC are 2 separate entities. I don't see any way to short circuit. The LLC issues payment (a check, presumably) and then the payee gets to choose whether to endorse private credit of the Federal Reserve, or redeem lawful money (http://jesse2012.com/slavefree.jpg).

I suspect the way this normally plays out: first a cordial letter from the IRS asking if I forgot something, inviting me to file. And then probably more threatening notices to intimidate me. Unless I am already on their radar as a leave this one alone. I do have an evidence repository setup - David helped me file the LoR - so I'm well prepared for whatever they throw at me. I'll keep you updated.

allodial
02-02-13, 03:39 AM
I notice the Form itself tells you the IRS has no procedure for recipient to correct an incorrect 1099

If you believe the issuer of the form is committing fraud there are forms for things like that too. If A claims to have paid B $10,000 when A only paid $1,500, B can demand the correction and cc the local IRS office on the communications. If A fails to correct, B can file an appropriate claim form.

The IRS Form 3949-A "Information Referral" seems to be appropriate to the above topic.

1107

Chex
02-02-13, 05:37 PM
Again Allodial nice work.

Is the Department of the Treasury — Internal Revenue Service a tax exempt Organization?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf

Postal Service says it’s immune from local traffic laws.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/usps-immune-local-traffic-laws-165944476.html

David Merrill
02-02-13, 09:59 PM
WoW! Allodial!

Great information! Thanks.

Treefarmer
02-04-13, 04:21 AM
I notice the Form itself tells you the IRS has no procedure for recipient to correct an incorrect 1099:

It's up to you, the recipient, to determine the correct amount of income; the 1099 is just a 3rd party hearsay report (and also a bit of social engineering; conditioning). If I redeemed lawful money all year the correct amount of income (under the Revenue Acts of Congress) is zero. And since nothing was withheld there is no need to file a return.
...


I'd be delighted if it turns out you were correct on this.
Somehow I don't think it's going to be this easy though.
Perhaps I'm just paranoid, being as I am the offspring of Nazis and Jews.

But if you are indeed correct and LM is the remedy to the income tax, I'd imagine that the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks) will suddenly be promoted in congress to replace the IRS income tax collection, in order to recapture the vanishing revenue stream.

Chex
02-05-13, 02:18 AM
A question for you JohnnyCash

What has this done to your Social Security Benefits?

Chex
02-05-13, 05:20 AM
I believe David's interpretation is the best; I have no SSN. But I can claim benefits by providing the SSN.

Ok then stoneFree how did you get around 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act and 42 USC § 405 (II)?

stoneFree
02-05-13, 05:27 AM
I just see a lot of rules and regs there; can you be more specific?

JohnnyCash
02-05-13, 06:13 AM
The benefits are still there, awaiting claim, even though I have not participated in SS since 2007; see below. And the estimates have grown since my last Earnings Report (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461&p=5059&#post5059).

http://jesse2012.com/SSA_E2.jpg

Chex
02-05-13, 02:28 PM
I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this letter.

In the first paragraph the federal law. Where is it?

The second paragraph cannot withdrawal from the program. Why not?

You can’t withdraw the taxes paid. Why not?

The fourth paragraph the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the ss program as well as the act. Where is it?

The fifth IRS has jurisdiction over the liability for SS taxes. Why?

1127

I read some have more than 1 set of account numbers and others that are visitors that work here don’t participate.

Besides ss being a welfare program it is a medical program now paying for other peoples health care and notice the voluntarily and mandatory words.

The act is a contract with one signature on it (mine) the rules are in the ss poms and in the ss act.

Do you understand this contract?

After extensive research into the issue of taxes and the use of the social security number. http://www.bibleprophesy.org/squaw.htm

United States Main article: Social Security number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number

Then it’s a National identification number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identification_number#United_States

David Merrill
02-05-13, 03:46 PM
My interpretation is that SSI is an insurance policy. You pay premiums and just because you did not get old yet you do not get to stop it while still alive and aging. Likewise you do not get your premiums back because you can always change your mind when you get old.

The terms as I understand them - meaning the terms when I signed on mean that after I pay premiums for 40+ quarters (10 years) I am eligible for life. I do not have a Social Security Number.

People wonder how I can put those sentences together.

For the purposes of posting on StSC, I have no SSN. I am not making an insurance claim. If you think your SSN is for revenue and income tax purposes you will be giving it for such purposes. If I thought that a SSN was for posting purposes then I could not truthfully tell you that I have no SSN, could I? I would defeat the purpose of the SSN by saying that here, supposing such a purpose existed.

Two keys opened this insight to me.

One was a visit to the Social Security Administration office - which I suggest you might try if you are serious about learning from your own works instead of trusting mine. The lady treated me like a financial terrorist when I demanded she remove my SSN from the records. She got the manager and was clearly expecting him to set me back right, in prison. He asked me when I applied for the number? - When I was twelve. Then he asked me how I keep the SSN in existence? - By writing it or saying it out loud. This was a long time ago but as I remember he suggested that I quit doing that.

[Let that slowly sink in between your ears!]

Key #2: I have heard that the terms of the contract about the 40+ quarters has been repealed... Not for me! Insurance is handled in admiralty (http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2149/libelinreview.pdf):


Citation #6: A cardinal principle, in which the practice of admiralty courts differs from that of courts of common law, permits the parties to a suit to prosecute and defend upon their rights as such rights exist at the institution of the action; the assignment of a right of action being deemed to vest in the assignee all the privileges and remedies possessed by the assignor...

Chex
02-05-13, 06:35 PM
Where does one get that Certificate of Search written in Key #2: at David?

I see where you coming from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/19/opinion/la-ed-socialsecurity-20110919

The Judge: Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1907141832001/the-judge-social-security-is-a-ponzi-scheme/

Keyser Soze
02-06-13, 03:17 PM
Although I have been redeeming lawful money, something I have been considering this year since my alleged tax burden will be a couple hundred at best, is to well-document a withdraw of lawful money from the bank, walk down to my local IRS office and get them to recognize that they are receiving lawful money in payment of this alleged debt. My question is, Can they accept payment?

JohnnyCash
02-07-13, 07:28 PM
I just received a reply:
http://jesse2012.com/response.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/response2.jpg

Chex
02-07-13, 08:15 PM
Key #2: I have heard that the terms of the contract about the 40+ quarters has been repealed... Not for me! Insurance is handled in admiralty:

Interesting case thank you David.

IN ADMIRALTY IN RE LIBEL OF REVIEW

Today he reiterated that the IMF does not issue or guarantee any obligations called "Prime Bank Notes," "Prime Bank Guarantees," "Bill of Exchange," or "Bill of Equity," or extend any credit lines through commercial banks or other agencies.

The IMF is an intergovernmental organization whose financial transactions and operations are carried out directly with its member countries and only through a fiscal agency designated by each member for this purpose (such as the member's Central Bank or its Ministry of Finance). The IMF does not operate through other agents and it does not endorse the activities of any bank, financial institution, or other public or private agency.

International Monetary Fund
Address: 700 19th St NW, Washington, DC 20431
Phone: (202) 623-7000

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/nb/1996/nb9614.htm

Freed Gerdes
02-15-13, 06:58 AM
Johnny's problem is that he does not intend to file a tax return, as he has had no taxable income. While the letter form of protest of the 1099 MISC hearsay is probably good, you as recipient of the payment are under no obligation to force the issuer to correct his 1099. Your duty is only to have records that show that you redeemed the payment. If the IRS gets 1099's, and no 1040, the flag will go up and you will get your chance to rebut the hearsay, probably under threat of an audit. In my letter enclosed with my return this year, I have asked the IRS to please advise me if they have a preferred method of justifying the differing amounts shown on 1099's vs 1040's, as there seems to be no instruction given for reporting lawful money transactions in 1099's. Indeed, lawful money transactions occur downstream of the issuer, so he has no way of knowing this event.

David Merrill
02-15-13, 09:45 AM
Where does one get that Certificate of Search written in Key #2: at David?

I see where you coming from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/19/opinion/la-ed-socialsecurity-20110919

The Judge: Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1907141832001/the-judge-social-security-is-a-ponzi-scheme/

Sorry I have not visited and noticed your question!

That cite is from Are You Lost at C (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf)? - the Memorandum of Law (http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2149/libelinreview.pdf).

JohnnyCash
02-15-13, 09:05 PM
Johnny's problem is that he does not intend to file a tax return, as he has had no taxable income. Yes, it is quite a problem isn't it? to make $79k documented from one source (http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4776/my109912.jpg) and have no taxable income. Yet I alone must bear the burden. I guess somehow someway the IMF-Deutsche Bank-HSBC-JPMorganChase banking cartel must find a way to carry on without Johnny's cash. Without taxing my labor; without running their SCAM on me. You can all watch as it unfolds.


In my letter enclosed with my return this year, I have asked the IRS to please advise me if they have a preferred method of justifying the differing amounts shown on 1099's vs 1040's, as there seems to be no instruction given for reporting lawful money transactions in 1099's. No letter; didn't happen. You're not gonna win this one, Jay.

Topgun
04-25-13, 02:49 PM
My status is this: I've been redeeming lawful money since 2010 (thank you David!!) and have been fortunate not to work since then -no bank acct, no employee status, no 1099 contractor, no filing requirements. I am a clean slate, especially for 2013 and beyond. I need to work again, and am able to work in a place of fine dining. My only intent is to do things lawfully.

I have heard that "under the table" work is not legal, but what defines that? Is it a company (entagled in state laws, taxes, etc) that pays the worker, therfore creating undocumented income? What if working for cash tips alone? The company pays you nothing, you are basically getting paid by the public... no different than a beggar or street busker on a subway, no? Can you AND/OR the company get in trouble if you and they agree on "free" work, ie. a volunteer? Must it be via private contract (and via verbage of lawful money for good measure?)

Now, what if that is not agreeable (or legal), and one still wants to work for JUST cash tips, but to keep the fine dining's accountant and owner stress free, you agree to provide a SSN, verbiage of lawful money, and expect the company to issue a 1099 (this has been offered)... How can a company claim on a 1099 they are paying you? Aren't they saying you were paid money by yet several other 3rd parties?

I am trying to place the best course of action over a time sensitive matter. I thank you all!

Topgun
05-08-13, 02:41 PM
Anyone? I am really hoping someone might be experienced in this area.

Freed Gerdes
05-14-13, 05:41 AM
Yours is an interesting situation, Topgun. The employer has some liability issues such that he is unlikely to want you 'working' in his place of business without some sort of contractual relationship, for insurance liabilities purposes at least, but he does not want to pay you minimum wage. If you are not an employee, paid by the employer, there is no way the 'employer' can then issue a 1099 to you for monies paid to you by others. You can probably get an insurance company to sell you a fairly cheap ($100) policy which constitutes a sort of bond, promising to indemnify the 'non-employer' for any problems you might cause. I had a contractor insurance policy for a while when working as a consultant inside a chemical company, which had $1 million umbrella coverage for about $100 (15 years ago, so maybe some inflation, ymmv). You might also want to register your NAME as a fictitious name, dba, so you can perform the service you provide. Then the 'non-employer' could contract with the NAME company for on-site services for a rate other than minimum wage, say $10/month... then when the NAME company obtains money for services provided, you set up a bank account for the dba, and redeem all monies received for lawful money per 12 USC 411, thus you get no 1099's and pay no taxes.

ManOntheLand
05-17-13, 12:40 AM
My status is this: I've been redeeming lawful money since 2010 (thank you David!!) and have been fortunate not to work since then -no bank acct, no employee status, no 1099 contractor, no filing requirements. I am a clean slate, especially for 2013 and beyond. I need to work again, and am able to work in a place of fine dining. My only intent is to do things lawfully.

I have heard that "under the table" work is not legal, but what defines that? Is it a company (entagled in state laws, taxes, etc) that pays the worker, therfore creating undocumented income? What if working for cash tips alone? The company pays you nothing, you are basically getting paid by the public... no different than a beggar or street busker on a subway, no? Can you AND/OR the company get in trouble if you and they agree on "free" work, ie. a volunteer? Must it be via private contract (and via verbage of lawful money for good measure?)

Now, what if that is not agreeable (or legal), and one still wants to work for JUST cash tips, but to keep the fine dining's accountant and owner stress free, you agree to provide a SSN, verbiage of lawful money, and expect the company to issue a 1099 (this has been offered)... How can a company claim on a 1099 they are paying you? Aren't they saying you were paid money by yet several other 3rd parties?

I am trying to place the best course of action over a time sensitive matter. I thank you all!


The 1099 is used to create the illusion of another basis for taxation, apart from the basis that arises from the receipt of FRN's. If the payer insists on collecting an SSN from you, flip around some of the digits in your SSN (you can claim dyslexia if it ever comes up) and consider giving him an alternate address (not one the IRS already has for you). Without the correct SSN and with a different address, the IRS will never be able to track the payment to you.

You can subtly note duress on the form he forces you to fill out with a "TDC" (for threat duress, coercion) so you can void the instrument later (especially if you are nervous about giving a false SSN, which Supreme Court says is not a crime BTW) but even this is not necessary if you are worried it will cause a problem with the payer. The duress is there whether you note it on the document or not.

Be sure to demand PAYMENT IN LAWFUL MONEY AND sign your name "without prejudice" on all forms he forces you to fill out, so that you cannot be deemed to be voluntarily accepting any undisclosed benefit (such as receiving elastic currency) or be held obligated to any undisclosed terms or obligations (such as the fact that many of the words on these forms you are signing have custom definitions in Federal law, and thus the form creates a presumption that your work is Federally connected, creating a basis for treating the payment as "gross income" received in connection with a "trade or business" within the "United States".

Years ago I declined to give an SSN to a payer, did not report the money he paid me, and never heard anything about it. I don't even know if he issued a 1099, but without an SSN it was pretty useless to the IRS.

TDL
05-18-13, 05:39 PM
... If the payer insists on collecting an SSN from you, flip around some of the digits in your SSN (you can claim dyslexia if it ever comes up) and consider giving him an alternate address (not one the IRS already has for you). Without the correct SSN and with a different address, the IRS will never be able to track the payment to you.
With all due respect, what you suggest is a rather "slippery slope" to go down. Afaik, in general, payors request that you tender a Form W-9 (or a derivative/equivalent form) which must be signed under PoP (Penalties of perjury). Moreover, it also goes to your intent, and intent leads to your character. Could you stand before a jury and swear to your action being the "truth and nothing but the truth"? Don't think so ...

Lastly, there's a special program in play by Auntie [IRiS] called "Identity Theft", which tracks just such activities and has a penalty-escalation provision in place as well. Upshot: don't do it -- you're apt to shoot yourself in the foot.

However, one perfectly legal route I found workable is to demand that the payor produce a fW-9 that bears a valid OMB-Control Number. I'd also state that when s/he does, I'd be glad to comply. Though I could be wrong, after years of looking, I have yet to find such form. Auntie [IRiS] clearly understands the form's deceptive (read:entrapment) nature, but cannot mandate its use for the non-federally-connected business sector. How do I know this? Since IRC Sec. 6109 is the governing statute (mandating SSN-use for all federally-connected purposes), it would be simple to get fW-9 OMB-approved, but it is not (yet).

John Howard
05-19-13, 01:04 AM
Years ago I declined to give an SSN to a payer, did not report the money he paid me, and never heard anything about it. I don't even know if he issued a 1099, but without an SSN it was pretty useless to the IRS.

I also did that once. I was hired on Monday, fired on Friday. But no W2. I decided that it was better to have a job and let them steal SS and medicare than to not have a job.

David Merrill
05-19-13, 03:53 AM
Check out the Diminished Money Counterclaim (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?874-Diminished-Money-Counterclaim) thread. By notifying the Fed there is really no need to involve the employer at all. And even if redeeming lawful money were to fail to get a Refund you are still better off usually to have a job and career.

Jethro
05-19-13, 11:31 PM
However, one perfectly legal route I found workable is to demand that the payor produce a fW-9 that bears a valid OMB-Control Number. I'd also state that when s/he does, I'd be glad to comply. Though I could be wrong, after years of looking, I have yet to find such form. Auntie [IRiS] clearly understands the form's deceptive (read:entrapment) nature, but cannot mandate its use for the non-federally-connected business sector. How do I know this? Since IRC Sec. 6109 is the governing statute (mandating SSN-use for all federally-connected purposes), it would be simple to get fW-9 OMB-approved, but it is not (yet).

I would avoid such a confrontational approach, particularly since it's unnecessary. Remember, "payers" are typically legal morons. They don't care about OMB numbers; all they care about is "not getting in trouble". So here is what I did recently in a similar situation...

I worked a job and after its completion was presented with a "Form W-9" and told it was "very important" to fill it out "right away". However, I told the lady who gave it to me, "This is the wrong form for me. Are you aware there are many other forms besides the 'W-9'?" She replied that she's heard of other forms before, but didn't know about them, much less have any of them with her. I told her that when I returned home I would supply her with the "most appropriate" form relative to me: a modified W-8BEN. (The "stock" IRS W-8BEN is to be avoided as it's chock full of nasty, presumptuous language repugnant to the rights of We the People.)

So I later sent her the modified W-8BEN form - certificate of foreign status - and told her they will be happy with this form because this is no 1099 reporting or backup withholding required with it. I send a long an excerpt of Publication 515 highlighted with the "Tip" that "Foreign persons who provide Form TIP W-8BEN, Form W-8ECI, or Form W-8EXP (or applicable documentary evidence) are exempt from backup withholding and Form 1099 reporting." The modified form also included a note that as a nonresident alien, I at no time during the year engaged in a "trade or business" in the U.S. I included no SSN or tax ID number. I did not hear a single peep of protest over this form, and I will not receive a 1099 or be subject to any "reporting" from this job.

It's vitally important, though, that before using this form you have proper standing to use it. For that, you need admissible evidence of your nonresident alien (to the "U.S.") status - without that, your form W-8 could be rightly rejected. David's libel of review/evidence repository may be one approach to accomplish that, though I took a slightly different route of publicly recording my status documents, then verifying the notary, and certifying the verification with the State.

ManOntheLand
05-20-13, 06:46 PM
With all due respect, what you suggest is a rather "slippery slope" to go down. Afaik, in general, payors request that you tender a Form W-9 (or a derivative/equivalent form) which must be signed under PoP (Penalties of perjury). Moreover, it also goes to your intent, and intent leads to your character. Could you stand before a jury and swear to your action being the "truth and nothing but the truth"? Don't think so ...

Lastly, there's a special program in play by Auntie [IRiS] called "Identity Theft", which tracks just such activities and has a penalty-escalation provision in place as well. Upshot: don't do it -- you're apt to shoot yourself in the foot.

However, one perfectly legal route I found workable is to demand that the payor produce a fW-9 that bears a valid OMB-Control Number. I'd also state that when s/he does, I'd be glad to comply. Though I could be wrong, after years of looking, I have yet to find such form. Auntie [IRiS] clearly understands the form's deceptive (read:entrapment) nature, but cannot mandate its use for the non-federally-connected business sector. How do I know this? Since IRC Sec. 6109 is the governing statute (mandating SSN-use for all federally-connected purposes), it would be simple to get fW-9 OMB-approved, but it is not (yet).


My intent would simply be to exercise my right to make a living without being compelled into a commercial contract with the United States. I could certainly swear truthfully that I was under duress in furnishing an SSN and submitting the W-9 or W-4 form absent proof that I am required to furnish this information in the first place. Such duress makes these forms voidable and invalid. And it is not "identity theft" to provide an incorrect number if you are not knowingly using someone else's number. Supreme Court ruled just a couple of years ago that it is not unlawful to provide an incorrect SSN, if you are not knowingly using someone else's number.

In a famous case involving Taco Bell years ago, a Federal Court established that a SSN could not be required for working in this country. SSA has admitted this as well. A payer who compels the use of a SSN is in violation of the law and exerting undue influence. You are therefore under duress and the W-9 and W-4 is voidable in any case.

ManOntheLand
05-20-13, 06:53 PM
I also did that once. I was hired on Monday, fired on Friday. But no W2. I decided that it was better to have a job and let them steal SS and medicare than to not have a job.

I agree it is best not to bite the hand that feeds you. To clarify, in the situation I described I was working as an "independent contractor" for the payer, he neglected to get an SSN from me or have me fill out a W-9, so I never had to "refuse" to give an SSN, until after the end of the year, when I no longer worked there. I mentioned this only to illustrate that without a valid SSN, it is much harder for Auntie to track payments made to you. Probably impossible if you give an address to the payer that Auntie does not have on file for you and/or use a slight variation of your name.

ManOntheLand
05-20-13, 07:42 PM
I would avoid such a confrontational approach, particularly since it's unnecessary. Remember, "payers" are typically legal morons. They don't care about OMB numbers; all they care about is "not getting in trouble". So here is what I did recently in a similar situation...

I worked a job and after its completion was presented with a "Form W-9" and told it was "very important" to fill it out "right away". However, I told the lady who gave it to me, "This is the wrong form for me. Are you aware there are many other forms besides the 'W-9'?" She replied that she's heard of other forms before, but didn't know about them, much less have any of them with her. I told her that when I returned home I would supply her with the "most appropriate" form relative to me: a modified W-8BEN. (The "stock" IRS W-8BEN is to be avoided as it's chock full of nasty, presumptuous language repugnant to the rights of We the People.)

So I later sent her the modified W-8BEN form - certificate of foreign status - and told her they will be happy with this form because this is no 1099 reporting or backup withholding required with it. I send a long an excerpt of Publication 515 highlighted with the "Tip" that "Foreign persons who provide Form TIP W-8BEN, Form W-8ECI, or Form W-8EXP (or applicable documentary evidence) are exempt from backup withholding and Form 1099 reporting." The modified form also included a note that as a nonresident alien, I at no time during the year engaged in a "trade or business" in the U.S. I included no SSN or tax ID number. I did not hear a single peep of protest over this form, and I will not receive a 1099 or be subject to any "reporting" from this job.

It's vitally important, though, that before using this form you have proper standing to use it. For that, you need admissible evidence of your nonresident alien (to the "U.S.") status - without that, your form W-8 could be rightly rejected. David's libel of review/evidence repository may be one approach to accomplish that, though I took a slightly different route of publicly recording my status documents, then verifying the notary, and certifying the verification with the State.

Nicely done Jethro! I have been considering the W-8BEN myself. Thanks for sharing the success story. I believe SEDM Family Guardian has a modified W8BEN. You might want to send a copy to auntie as well, specifically to Director of Foreign Operations District in DC.

For those who might want to try this if your payer refuses to accept a W-8BEN, you may want to request in writing an explanation for their refusal, default them when they inevitably fail to provide a satisfactory explanation, then attach the W-8BEN and proof of their refusal to honor it to whatever form they are forcing you to fill out--providing an incorrect SSN and noting the duress with a TDC on the form (also noting your attachment and perhaps noting your payer's refusal to accept it.

If it seems too confrontational and you feel it may threaten your job, you can skip the asking for an explanation part. You should keep a copy of the W-BEN they refused and the W-9 and or W-4 for your records and/or place into evidence repository.

Re: proof of foreign status. The "admissible evidence" can be the W-8BEN itself. The instructions for the form state that "a payer of the income may rely on a properly completed W-8BEN to treat a payment associated with the form W-8BEN as a payment to a foreign person who beneficially owns the amounts paid." Unless they have firsthand personal knowledge that you are a "U.S. person" (as well as the competence and authorization from you to make such a legal determination on your behalf) they have no choice legally but to accept your status as you give it to them. After all, if they were allowed to just do whatever they want with us and our money, why have us sign anything in the first place? They need the illusion of yoru consent!!

BTW I began filing 1040NR (non-resident alien return) a couple years ago, and the IRS completely accepted it no problem. I have a good friend who submitted a 1040NR to the Bankruptcy Court to comply with the requirement of being current on tax filings. The Trustee obviously thought the 1040NR was odd, and asked a question about it at the hearing. But the bankruptcy went through a few days later, no problem.

After obtaining my IRS Individual Master File through FOIA request, I saw that my mailing/filing requirement code reflects that they expect a 1040NR return from me not a 1040. To auntie it really doesn't seem to matter what I call myself; if they receive a 1099 or W-2 they will still presume I have a tax obligation. Nonetheless, I think it is important to get your foreign status established so that any debate can be properly focused on whether or not your payment received was income that was "effectively connected to a trade or business in the U.S." or from a "U.S. source". Since auntie would prefer that Americans think the tax falls on all of us "just because",I believe the declared non-resident alien status of an American living in America is valuable in that auntie does not want a discussion of this topic in court. I think it is good insurance from auntie's harassment in terms of staying out of court.

ManOntheLand
05-20-13, 09:56 PM
Check out the Diminished Money Counterclaim (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?874-Diminished-Money-Counterclaim) thread. By notifying the Fed there is really no need to involve the employer at all. And even if redeeming lawful money were to fail to get a Refund you are still better off usually to have a job and career.

David, I don't understand your reasoning that simply notifying the Fed that you are redeeming lawful money makes it unnecessary to involve the employer. Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is the following:

Your use of FRN's is only one basis for taxation--a contractual or quasi-contractual one--but it is certainly not the ONLY basis. The use of the SSN and federal "employment" indicated by a W-2, or "trade or business within the U.S." indicated by a 1099 form creates at least TWO other independent nexuses for taxation. Because of these two other nexuses, it does not matter if you demand that your payer pay you in lawful money or if you redeem the payment in lawful money (although I think doing at least the latter is necessary to avoid that particular nexus). The two other nexuses are as follows:

1) The use of the SSN in connection with your work performed connects your payment to the United States through the contractual FICA nexus. By "voluntarily" agreeing to have deductions made and paid into FICA, you are participating in the insurance program under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. You thereby accept a "benefit" of being one of the "insured" through the United States in bankruptcy, which obligates you as a surety for the U.S. debt and to pay income tax for those "wages"as defined in I.R.C. 3121.

This is, in truth, a compelled contract and compelled benefit. But you have no right to complain if you keep giving "your" SSN to "employers" who demand it from you without at least asking somebody why this is required and at some point recognizing and calling this what it is: threat, duress, coercion and FRAUD. Followed by disputing this "wage" reporting on the basis of said threat duress coercion and fraud.

This dispute of "wage" reporting must be made and resolved FIRST before you can claim you are not subject to income tax, and certainly before you can claim any refund without possibly causing yourself serious problems with auntie--this is where Peter Hendrickson got it wrong and still gets it wrong: he just includes the refund of FICA in the amount he reports for "federal tax withheld" on the 1040, while failing to adequately rebut the W-2 form.

As we all know, though Pete and his followers got 100% refunds for years this way, Pete eventually went to prison for filing false documents. The same thing could happen to lawful money folks who file returns trying to claim a lawful money deduction without recognizing the other nexuses for taxation. Auntie will not explain such nexuses to you. They are contractual--it is assumed you already KNOW. Auntie will simply hammer you with frivolous penalties and perhaps even criminal prosecution for filing "false" documents. I think this lawful money redemption is the real deal. Eventually, therefore, auntie will look for any way to shut it down it by discrediting it publicly--probably by sending somebody (or a few people) to prison who fail to use it properly in dealing with auntie.

PLEASE PLEASE get auntie to update her records first (or at least default auntie) to reflect that you were NOT paid "wages" as defined in Subtitle C, before you go claiming any refund of FICA with auntie. If you are not a "U.S person" the IRS requires that you go to the employer first to claim a refund for excess FICA withholding. If you do not receive such refund, then you may claim a refund from IRS on Form 843. I have no idea if that would work or not. If you are afraid to make the demand for refund from your employer, perhaps you could just tell the IRS that on your 843 form. Otherwise you have to just kiss that money goodbye. But you still don't have to agree to this compelled benefit.


Every time you voluntarily use "your" SSN (which is not "yours" but is property of SSA) you are presumably doing so to receive a federal benefit of some kind, making all payments connected to that number federally taxable, whether you redeem lawful money or not.


2) Your signature on W-4 and/or W-9 along with providing a SSN, creates the presumption that you are engaged in federally privileged "employment" or "effectively connected with a trade or business within the U.S." OR that you have elected to have your payments treated that way (SAME difference as far as auntie is concerned). For most of us, of course, we are not actually federally employed or engaged in a trade or business within the U.S., but are "voluntarily" electing (under duress usually) to have our payments treated as federally connected "wages".) See the voluntary withholding agreement provision under IRC 3402. Who is this provision supposed to be for, if all employers everywhere are already required to withhold tax?

The withholding of income tax from "wages" and reporting of payments as "effectively connected to a trade or business" is based not ONLY on the tax nexus of the transfer of FRN's to you (which can be dealt with by demanding payment in lawful money and/or redeeming in lawful money) but is independently based on the power Congress has always had to lay an excise upon federally-connected privilege (or on anyone who chooses to have their payments treated as such, since Congress cannot impair a "contract" by which you "agree" to allow withholding from your paychecks and "agree" to have it treated as federally connected.

You are presumed to know what it is you are agreeing to when you put your signature to W-4 or W-9 or 1040 for that matter. Why should auntie have to explain it to you? if you don't understand what you are agreeing to then why are you signing it? Oh yeah, because you "have to" to work and have a career. Just like you "have" to file a 1040. Also known as threat duress coercion and FRAUD.

Regardless of what form in which your payment comes to you, the activity that generated the payment is presumed taxable, as measured by the amount of income it produced, solely due to your providing a SSN and agreeing to treat your payments as federally connected. It is "income" on that basis, regardless of what you do with the income after that. They don't care whether you bond your paycheck into the Fed Reserve or not if these other contractual nexuses are in place. The W-2 or 1099 is all the proof they need to presume you received FRN's AND that you received "wages" or other "effectively connected" income.

Jethro
05-22-13, 03:13 PM
BTW I began filing 1040NR (non-resident alien return) a couple years ago, and the IRS completely accepted it no problem. I have a good friend who submitted a 1040NR to the Bankruptcy Court to comply with the requirement of being current on tax filings. The Trustee obviously thought the 1040NR was odd, and asked a question about it at the hearing. But the bankruptcy went through a few days later, no problem.

After obtaining my IRS Individual Master File through FOIA request, I saw that my mailing/filing requirement code reflects that they expect a 1040NR return from me not a 1040. To auntie it really doesn't seem to matter what I call myself; if they receive a 1099 or W-2 they will still presume I have a tax obligation. Nonetheless, I think it is important to get your foreign status established so that any debate can be properly focused on whether or not your payment received was income that was "effectively connected to a trade or business in the U.S." or from a "U.S. source". Since auntie would prefer that Americans think the tax falls on all of us "just because",I believe the declared non-resident alien status of an American living in America is valuable in that auntie does not want a discussion of this topic in court. I think it is good insurance from auntie's harassment in terms of staying out of court.

I agree that establishing foreign status is vital, especially if "you" are already identified in their system as a "U.S. citizen" or "resident alien" which one presumably is if you ever applied for a SS Card (see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g): "A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual.) I did not, however, go to the IRS with this matter (because, who are they?) Instead I went to the Dept. of State (who handles all matters of citizenship) via a U.S. embassy (who may take citizenship declarations). I told them to inform all their alphabet agencies of my correct status, as it has always been.

What citizenship status does "your" IMF show?

David Merrill
05-22-13, 04:15 PM
Jethro;


I read the premise of your lengthy post and have decided to address it only.

Looking at this Notice and Demand, on should take note that the suitor's original complaint in the Miscellaneous Case File (evidence repository) contains the 1040 Form and the Treasury has already sent his full refund in record time. This is why there is no need to involve the employer. The employer has been sending withholdings as per agreement and "law" but aside from not having use of his full paycheck, there has been no injury. [Of course there is pegging the US note in value to the FRN but the suitor is very happy with his Refund and does not want to pursue the injury on the record.]

In your subsequent post, I like the way you think. According to the law (Title 12 USC §411) you only need to notify the Federal Reserve Bank - through agent or principal. What the brain trust has discovered recently is that the Notice and Demand in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US Government served directly on the Federal Reserve Bank and enclosed in the Counterclaim, with the 1040 Form inside it is effective and efficient.

Experience tells me elaborating the Notice and Demand and bossing around the other officials may just make you difficult to employ.



Regards,

David Merrill.

doug555
05-22-13, 10:13 PM
Jethro;


I read the premise of your lengthy post and have decided to address it only.

Looking at this Notice and Demand, on should take note that the suitor's original complaint in the Miscellaneous Case File (evidence repository) contains the 1040 Form and the Treasury has already sent his full refund in record time. This is why there is no need to involve the employer. The employer has been sending withholdings as per agreement and "law" but aside from not having use of his full paycheck, there has been no injury. [Of course there is pegging the US note in value to the FRN but the suitor is very happy with his Refund and does not want to pursue the injury on the record.]

In your subsequent post, I like the way you think. According to the law (Title 12 USC §411) you only need to notify the Federal Reserve Bank - through agent or principal. What the brain trust has discovered recently is that the Notice and Demand in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US Government served directly on the Federal Reserve Bank and enclosed in the Counterclaim, with the 1040 Form inside it is effective and efficient.

Experience tells me elaborating the Notice and Demand and bossing around the other officials may just make you difficult to employ.



Regards,

David Merrill.

I like and agree with David's post.

I did NOT tell my employer anything, or notify the bank.

Just writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411)" on all checks and deposits slips was enough "substantive evidence" for me for the past 2 years to get refunds, via principal/agent doctrine and Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (6) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803).

YOU are the one that determines whose "image" you are using on the "money" (FRN vs USN), NOT the employer, in accord with Mt 22:19-21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=mt+22%3A19-21&t=nas). I believe this taxation account defines the "red line" that the Creator will not let Satan violate, much like the line drawn for Satan in his dealings with Job. This "red line" is 12 USC 411.

Satan learned this "red line" lesson well from violating the Creator's "title" to His People in Egypt (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Ex+3%3A7-22&t=nas), resulting in the Exodus and the setting up of the "Holy Nation"... a matter promised to be repeated today in the supernatural fulfillment Holydays #2 and #3 (http://pentecostnation.org).

I am now adding "full discharge is demanded 12 USC 95a(2) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a)" as well (the insurance policy for the transaction) on bills that are turned into money orders, in preparation for a Tort claim if the obligation is not discharged, in accord with Ex 3:7-22 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Ex+3%3A7-22&t=nas).

Douglas Raymond

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 12:39 AM
I agree that establishing foreign status is vital, especially if "you" are already identified in their system as a "U.S. citizen" or "resident alien" which one presumably is if you ever applied for a SS Card (see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g): "A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual.)

In 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(2) it is acknowledged that a SSN can "belong to" a non-resident alien.

According to this provision of 26 CFR, once you have been identified as a U.S. person or foreign person in the records and database of IRS, they will presume that status permanently "until the circumstances change". It also says if your status changes, you must notify the IRS of the change "under such procedures" as the IRS "shall prescribe".

I am not sure what procedure has been "prescribed" exactly. I can tell you that when I stopped filing 1040 with my usual IRS service center and instead filed a 1040NR with the Austin, Texas IRS center, they apparently accepted my foreign status and updated their records (at least for that year).

To be on the safe side, I assume I will need to rebut "U.S. person" status in terms of the IRS database every time a third party sends out a W-2 with my SSN because such form indicates at least an election to be treated as a "U.S. person". I have to make it clear to them that I did NOT voluntarily furnish a SSN or elect to be treated as U.S. citizen or resident (but was coerced into doing so by the employer). Otherwise the IRS may presume my circumstances have changed, and place my SSN back into "U.S. person" status in their database.

With a 1099, I would think that the SSN status is not affected, since it does not necessarily presuppose I am a "U.S. person". But I still have to contest that I had "effectively connected" income if I believe it was NOT effectively connected and do not want it to be treated as taxable on that basis.

I did not, however, go to the IRS with this matter (because, who are they?) Instead I went to the Dept. of State (who handles all matters of citizenship) via a U.S. embassy (who may take citizenship declarations). I told them to inform all their alphabet agencies of my correct status, as it has always been.


The fact that you went to that effort definitely speaks to the sincerity of your belief in your position. But I don't think that will help you for tax purposes, as they treat a U.S. citizen and "U.S. resident alien" basically the same. Given the rules prescribed in 26 CFR, it is probably necessary for you to also communicate your status directly to IRS, unless you want them to presume "U.S. person" status for your SSN. Their false presumptions are where all the hassles begin.

For anyone wondering why this matters: a U.S. Citizen or resident is taxed on his worldwide income--it does not matter where your income came from. A non-resident alien is taxed only on income "effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S." Of course you have to know what the terms "U.S. citizen" "resident" and "trade or business" really mean for any of that to do you any good. Most Americans assume they are "U.S. citizens", and even some who have figured out they are not will still call themselves "U.S. residents". The widespread ignorance of the meanings of these terms helps keep the myth alive that all Americans are taxed simply for making money.

What citizenship status does "your" IMF show?

Its not a citizenship status per se, since they treat a U.S. citizen and U.S. resident (alien) the same for tax purposes. It is a mail/filing requirement code, which tells them what form they are required to mail to you and what form you are required to file. This code could indicate that a 1040 is required, a 1040NR or even no requirement to file anything.

According to the IRS 6209 manual, the MFR code they have in "my" IMF Specific for 2007 corresponds to a 1040NR non-resident alien return.

Incidentally, there is also a VAL code in the IMF, with a digit of 1 indicating the SSN is "not valid for the person using it", per the 6209 manual. My IMF for 2007 has a VAL-1 code. Apparently most of us have VAL-1 codes in our IMF. Perhaps an indicator that the system treats us as illegal imposters?

In my experience and research, non-resident alien status for Americans seems to be something Auntie will quietly acknowledge but does not want to talk about: I think that is because it makes more clear the jurisdictional aspect of federal income tax. Auntie prefers we all believe the myth of a direct tax on all Americans without apportionment.

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 12:44 AM
Jethro, somehow I got some of my replies mixed up with your quote and sadly I am not savvy enough to know how to fix it. Sorry, I am not trying to put words in your mouth! But check out the middle of the quoted section for my replies. :)

here they are again, extracted from my quote of what you said in your post:

In 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(2) it is acknowledged that a SSN can "belong to" a non-resident alien.

According to this provision of 26 CFR, once you have been identified as a U.S. person or foreign person in the records and database of IRS, they will presume that status permanently "until the circumstances change". It also says if your status changes, you must notify the IRS of the change "under such procedures" as the IRS "shall prescribe".

I am not sure what procedure has been "prescribed" exactly. I can tell you that when I stopped filing 1040 with my usual IRS service center and instead filed a 1040NR with the Austin, Texas IRS center, they apparently accepted my foreign status and updated their records (at least for that year).

To be on the safe side, I assume I will need to rebut "U.S. person" status in terms of the IRS database every time a third party sends out a W-2 with my SSN because such form indicates at least an election to be treated as a "U.S. person". I have to make it clear to them that I did NOT voluntarily furnish a SSN or elect to be treated as U.S. citizen or resident (but was coerced into doing so by the employer). Otherwise the IRS may presume my circumstances have changed, and place my SSN back into "U.S. person" status in their database.

With a 1099, I would think that the SSN status is not affected, since it does not necessarily presuppose I am a "U.S. person". But I still have to contest that I had "effectively connected" income if I believe it was NOT effectively connected and do not want it to be treated as taxable on that basis.

The fact that you went to that effort (going to State Dept.) definitely speaks to the sincerity of your belief in your position. But I don't think that will help you for tax purposes, as they treat a U.S. citizen and "U.S. resident alien" basically the same. Given the rules prescribed in 26 CFR, it is probably necessary for you to also communicate your status directly to IRS, unless you want them to presume "U.S. person" status for your SSN. Their false presumptions are where all the hassles begin.

For anyone wondering why this matters: a U.S. Citizen or resident is taxed on his worldwide income--it does not matter where your income came from. A non-resident alien is taxed only on income "effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S." Of course you have to know what the terms "U.S. citizen" "resident" and "trade or business" really mean for any of that to do you any good. Most Americans assume they are "U.S. citizens", and even some who have figured out they are not will still call themselves "U.S. residents". The widespread ignorance of the meanings of these terms helps keep the myth alive that all Americans are taxed simply for making money.

Anthony Joseph
05-23-13, 02:23 AM
I like and agree with David's post.

I did NOT tell my employer anything, or notify the bank.

Just writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411)" on all checks and deposits slips was enough "substantive evidence" for me for the past 2 years to get refunds, via principal/agent doctrine and Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (6) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803).

YOU are the one that determines whose "image" you are using on the "money" (FRN vs USN), NOT the employer, in accord with Mt 22:19-21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=mt+22%3A19-21&t=nas). I believe this taxation account defines the "red line" that the Creator will not let Satan violate, much like the line drawn for Satan in his dealings with Job. This "red line" is 12 USC 411.

Satan learned this "red line" lesson well from violating the Creator's "title" to His People in Egypt (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Ex+3%3A7-22&t=nas), resulting in the Exodus and the setting up of the "Holy Nation"... a matter promised to be repeated today in the supernatural fulfillment Holydays #2 and #3 (http://pentecostnation.org).

I am now adding "full discharge is demanded 12 USC 95a(2) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a)" as well (the insurance policy for the transaction) on bills that are turned into money orders, in preparation for a Tort claim if the obligation is not discharged, in accord with Ex 3:7-22 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Ex+3%3A7-22&t=nas).

Douglas Raymond

A great approach Douglas Raymond.

I believe that exercising the available remedy from all obligation and liability for the NAME requires both 12USC411 and 12USC95a(2). The reason for this belief is that demanding lawful money alone doesn't include assignment of all interest; it removes the first lien from the foreign Federal Reserve Bank but it does not address whether or not we are still making adverse claims of ownership in the NAME.

This is where 12USC95a comes in. I believe that a Notice of Assignment - a formal acknowledgment of what is already true - should be executed for the record. It should be presented to the Secretary of the Treasury along with verbiage which demonstrates one's pledge to each other of: one's life, one's fortune and one's sacred honor as did the original signors of the Declaration. This is the consideration offered for use of the NAME in the public realm with full indemnity. Any and all use, whether it be debits or credits, benefits the United States public trust - we neither gain nor reserve any interest of anything in the NAME. All use benefits the public trust. We only exercise our interest in the beneficial use as protected purchaser by agreement - our pledge in exchange for use.

Since all title and property has been seized and all money has been appropriated by the United States via the occupying military force, the peaceful inhabitants must be provided for since the ability to own or pay has been removed - a breach of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee under Article 1 Section 10 impairing the obligation of contracts. 12USC95a(2) is the remedy and "new contract" in order for the United States to remain absent culpability of said Constitutional breach creating involuntary servitude.

Once enough time has passed, the Notice of Assignment stands as accepted and acknowledged - unless they choose to proactively deny remedy and subvert the code which is binding upon public officials. One then notifies the Comptroller of the Currency of the acceptance and acknowledgment of assignment and requests the available alternative to FRNs so as to satisfy all bills, charges and requests for payments in the NAME. Since we are no longer participating as belligerents in the ongoing commercial warfare being waged, an alternative manner and method to operate in the public realm must be provided to those who choose to minister to the public trust peacefully and assist the wounded and injured on the "battlefield" of commerce.

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 06:25 PM
A return is required if I have income above the statutory exemption amount, yes. But I believe these restrictively endorsed checks are not income under the Revenue Acts of Congress. Therefore if I have no statutory income and nothing is withheld from my pay there is no need to file.

You appear to assume the income is what is being taxed. Not so. Income tax is a tax on an activity, measured by the amount of income involved. Restrictively endorsing your paycheck avoids the nexus of bonding FRN's into fractional reserve lending. But when the employer paid you, the transfer of the amount you were paid is a taxable activity to the employer as an excise based on (presumed) federally connected corporate privilege and therefore "income." Your contribution to FICA from your paycheck is another taxable activity, as it is a privilege/benefit to participate in this program, therefore the amount you were paid is "income". Further, the transfer to you of the payment from the employer is a taxable activity of receiving a gain from (presumed) federally privileged "employment". All of these nexuses of taxation make the amounts involved "gross income" before you take your check to the bank.

The FICA is just a ruse of course--its just another income tax, but it is masquerading as an insurance account "for you", so the real tax rate you are paying is obscured. But it all goes to the same place.

If you get 1099 and not a W-2, there is no employment nexus or FICA nexus. But there is another nexus--engaging in a "trade or business within the United States". You are taxed only on "profit" though not gross receipts. Profit or gain is how the Supreme Court defined "income". What they did not spell out clearly is the jurisdictional nexus which must be present (or presumed) for federal taxation. This is because it is presumed you know whether or not you belong in a given jurisdiction--especially federal, as its jurisdiction in the 50 states is exclusively subject matter jurisdiction, based on either the enumerated powers or a contract.

You may have a presumed requirement to file based on any third party reporting that you received above the minimum gross income. This reporting will be presumed correct if you do not make a rebuttal.

doug555
05-23-13, 10:43 PM
A great approach Douglas Raymond.

I believe that exercising the available remedy from all obligation and liability for the NAME requires both 12USC411 and 12USC95a(2). The reason for this belief is that demanding lawful money alone doesn't include assignment of all interest; it removes the first lien from the foreign Federal Reserve Bank but it does not address whether or not we are still making adverse claims of ownership in the NAME.

This is where 12USC95a comes in. I believe that a Notice of Assignment - a formal acknowledgment of what is already true - should be executed for the record. It should be presented to the Secretary of the Treasury along with verbiage which demonstrates one's pledge to each other of: one's life, one's fortune and one's sacred honor as did the original signors of the Declaration. This is the consideration offered for use of the NAME in the public realm with full indemnity. Any and all use, whether it be debits or credits, benefits the United States public trust - we neither gain nor reserve any interest of anything in the NAME. All use benefits the public trust. We only exercise our interest in the beneficial use as protected purchaser by agreement - our pledge in exchange for use.

Since all title and property has been seized and all money has been appropriated by the United States via the occupying military force, the peaceful inhabitants must be provided for since the ability to own or pay has been removed - a breach of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee under Article 1 Section 10 impairing the obligation of contracts. 12USC95a(2) is the remedy and "new contract" in order for the United States to remain absent culpability of said Constitutional breach creating involuntary servitude.

Once enough time has passed, the Notice of Assignment stands as accepted and acknowledged - unless they choose to proactively deny remedy and subvert the code which is binding upon public officials. One then notifies the Comptroller of the Currency of the acceptance and acknowledgment of assignment and requests the available alternative to FRNs so as to satisfy all bills, charges and requests for payments in the NAME. Since we are no longer participating as belligerents in the ongoing commercial warfare being waged, an alternative manner and method to operate in the public realm must be provided to those who choose to minister to the public trust peacefully and assist the wounded and injured on the "battlefield" of commerce.

Thanks Anthony Joseph... I really appreciate that! Below is more info for discussion...

For me, this interest is the equitable title to the reversionary interest of the labor value attached to INFANT since the birth event, as evidenced by the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) of the INFANT.

The holder of this COLB must create a Proof of Life record to regain control of this equitable title from probate so that this reversionary interest can re-vest to the INFANT who has been proven “alive”.

This re-vesting must occur on the record BEFORE said interest can be legitimately re-assigned or transferred to anyone else.

Then a decision must be made whether said interest should be assigned:
1) PARTIALLY - on a recurring transaction basis using signed bill-money-order instruments as tender of payments, or
2) COMPLETELY - on a final closure basis by a formal Notice of Assignment of the entire interest remaining in all of the INFANT’s commercial accounts.


At the moment, I prefer partial assignments, consisting of turning all BILLS into MONEY ORDER INSTRUMENTS as tender of payments, signing them to effect the equitable title transfer, and then sending them to the IRS as the agent for the US Treasury, with copies of same to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) as supporting evidence to create/amend a formal TIGTA Complaint requesting an investigation and monitoring of the handling of these instruments, and to file, if necessary, a later Tort Claim.

All bills truly are CREDIT VOUCHERS awaiting assignment by the INFANT’s signature, which thereby converts them into MONEY ORDER INSTRUMENTS that merge both the equitable and legal titles on that one piece of paper, enabling the holder thereof capable of performing the “full discharge” provision of 12 USC 95a(2) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a).

Any refusal of these instruments invokes State enactments of UCC 3-603(b) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-603.html), which effectively makes the refusing holders thereof liable for said obligations, and at the same time fully discharges the INFANTS for same! A Tort Claim would demand a receipt as formal substantive evidence of this full discharge for the INFANT, under the laws that govern simple contracts (UCC 3-603(a) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-603.html)) for these tender of payments.

And indeed, these truly are PAYMENTS - not promises to pay – because they are based on lawful money demands, which is effectively-connected to and transfers the equitable title to our asset labor value which is the real consideration and substance behind the credit of the nation, and held in trust at the US Treasury since 1933.

Douglas Raymond

Jethro
05-24-13, 01:05 AM
Jethro, somehow I got some of my replies mixed up with your quote and sadly I am not savvy enough to know how to fix it. Sorry, I am not trying to put words in your mouth! But check out the middle of the quoted section for my replies. :)

here they are again, extracted from my quote of what you said in your post:

In 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(2) it is acknowledged that a SSN can "belong to" a non-resident alien.

True, however 'that' "nonresident alien" is still considered to be a "taxpayer" - "any person subject to any internal revenue tax" - even though that person may have no "effectively connected income". I'm not of the exact implications of that status, but anything that would categorize me as a "person subject to any internal revenue tax" is something I would want to avoid.


According to this provision of 26 CFR, once you have been identified as a U.S. person or foreign person in the records and database of IRS, they will presume that status permanently "until the circumstances change". It also says if your status changes, you must notify the IRS of the change "under such procedures" as the IRS "shall prescribe".

I am not sure what procedure has been "prescribed" exactly.

Me neither, and they won't tell or give up a form. That reg says the form is one they "may specify". "May" = not mandatory, so it looks like they have opted not to create such a form. How convenient for them?


I can tell you that when I stopped filing 1040 with my usual IRS service center and instead filed a 1040NR with the Austin, Texas IRS center, they apparently accepted my foreign status and updated their records (at least for that year).

To be on the safe side, I assume I will need to rebut "U.S. person" status in terms of the IRS database every time a third party sends out a W-2 with my SSN because such form indicates at least an election to be treated as a "U.S. person". I have to make it clear to them that I did NOT voluntarily furnish a SSN or elect to be treated as U.S. citizen or resident (but was coerced into doing so by the employer).

That's one way of doing it - let me offer another...

When you initiate a "rebuttal" you will have to make statements, and in making those statements the burden of proof is entirely on you to substantiate them. Your rebuttal also presumes their authority in relation to you. However, they are the ones who are alleging you have some legal duty and obligation to perform some act ("file a return", "pay $500 zillion", etc.), so the burden ought to be 100% of them to substantiate their allegation. The best tool I have discovered to that end is utilizing the right of inquiry -- ask questions, don't make statements, in response to legal notices.


The fact that you went to that effort (going to State Dept.) definitely speaks to the sincerity of your belief in your position. But I don't think that will help you for tax purposes, as they treat a U.S. citizen and "U.S. resident alien" basically the same.

But it already has helped -- at least from what I have observed -- because now I have standing for my claim of status, and they can't rely on the excuse that they "didn't know" in the event they damage me. I also have admissible evidence of my status.


Given the rules prescribed in 26 CFR, it is probably necessary for you to also communicate your status directly to IRS, unless you want them to presume "U.S. person" status for your SSN. Their false presumptions are where all the hassles begin.

Agreed. However, I only ask questions in relationship to any presumptions they may have about me... "Who do you think I am?" "What's the evidence for your presumption?" "In what capacity do you believe I am acting?" "Where do you believe I am acting?", etc. This places the burden of proof 100% on them, as it should be.


For anyone wondering why this matters: a U.S. Citizen or resident is taxed on his worldwide income--it does not matter where your income came from. A non-resident alien is taxed only on income "effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S." Of course you have to know what the terms "U.S. citizen" "resident" and "trade or business" really mean for any of that to do you any good. Most Americans assume they are "U.S. citizens", and even some who have figured out they are not will still call themselves "U.S. residents". The widespread ignorance of the meanings of these terms helps keep the myth alive that all Americans are taxed simply for making money.

Yes! Exactly.

ManOntheLand
05-24-13, 09:34 AM
Jethro: I agree with you about the "right of inquiry" in response to any notices sent by IRS and totally agree with the strategy of only asking questions in response to their notices. You have probably noticed they tend not to answer your questions! :)

However, when a W-2 gets sent out and I receive a copy, I tend to think the best defense is a good offense--i.e. if I go to IRS first to ask them to correct their records I sort of have the upper-hand because I can default them after a reasonable time (30 days) and obtain tacit agreement if they do not respond. I look better in the record, and perhaps pre-empt any letters coming from them asking why I did not file (I no longer file returns). I feel better dictating what happens rather than just reacting to them. And I don't feel that asking them to correct their records creates any presumption of authority over me. They are obligated to keep correct records and make corrections when errors are brought to their attention. If they fail to correct their records I have a cause of action against them on that basis under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Avoiding the burden of proof whenever possible is a good approach, but I don't mind having the burden of proof to substantiate certain things, if I can easily meet that burden with a sworn statement, and I know they have little or no chance of coming up with any contrary evidence. I have no problem, for example, with substantiating that I did not voluntarily submit a SSN or elect to have my pay treated as "wages". My sworn statement to that effect serves as prima facie evidence that the W-2 is void, which is a "reasonable dispute" with the information return that requires them under IRC to obtain "reasonable and probative evidence" in addition to the info return itself if they want to treat it as true and correct. Think they will bother with all that? Not likely. In my experience their one and only tactic is to ignore what you send them and try to proceed as though they never got it.

David Merrill
05-24-13, 10:49 AM
You have probably noticed they tend not to answer your questions!

I think the problem is your perspective ManOnTheLand. It is about where you are coming from. Your story is very familiar to me and the disease is reflected through your story. Your story is the filter through which you both project and perceive. Same with me though; that is why I feel I relate so well. I see my story all over you.

I sense a desperation for you to convince everybody that the IRS is corrupt and it is backfiring here. People can sense the truth about the redemption model and see it in the Federal Reserve Act. In a way I hope you type fast so that you are not wasting a lot of your time too.

Chex
05-24-13, 11:35 AM
if I go to IRS first to ask them to correct their records I sort of have the upper-hand because I can default them after a reasonable time (30 days) and obtain tacit agreement if they do not respond. I look better in the record, and perhaps pre-empt any letters coming from them asking why I did not file (I no longer file returns). I feel better dictating what happens rather than just reacting to them. And I don't feel that asking them to correct their records creates any presumption of authority over me. They are obligated to keep correct records and make corrections when errors are brought to their attention. If they fail to correct their records I have a cause of action against them on that basis under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Avoiding the burden of proof whenever possible is a good approach, but I don't mind having the burden of proof to substantiate certain things, if I can easily meet that burden with a sworn statement, and I know they have little or no chance of coming up with any contrary evidence. I have no problem, for example, with substantiating that I did not voluntarily submit a SSN or elect to have my pay treated as "wages". My sworn statement to that effect serves as prima facie evidence that the W-2 is void, which is a "reasonable dispute" with the information return that requires them under IRC to obtain "reasonable and probative evidence" in addition to the info return itself if they want to treat it as true and correct. Think they will bother with all that? Not likely. In my experience their one and only tactic is to ignore what you send them and try to proceed as though they never got it.

ManOnthe Land I like the way you put it and I will rephrase some of your statement.

I don't feel that asking them to correct their records still creates any presumption of "authority" over me.

They are obligated to keep correct records and make corrections when errors are brought to their attention.

If they fail to correct your record that’s their problem, I have a cause of action; what proof do you have that your making me into someone I am not?

I don't mind responding to your allegations; but it’s going to cost you.

Using your law is proof enough for me to substantiate anything you say that I am or how I conduct my business.

Even if a sworn statement is not good enough for you and you use your statements against me; show me lawful evidence of a contact I signed with you.

I am not going to butt heads with your statements; my statement is who I am and how I conduct my business and to that effect is prima facie evidence that your statement is void.

You want to make a "reasonable dispute"; to treat it as true and correct then show me what you have.

Think they will bother with all that? I want to see it, today.

If your tactic is a challenge and if they decide to ignore your word as though they never got it, then their SOL and they need to be prepared to be sued.

I am the record.

Our approach As an independent trust group (http://privatebankingandtrust.rothschild.com/page.aspx?id=91), we are free to work with our clients’ advisers and managers, which make our services flexible and convenient. Our clients’ individual circumstances, needs and goals form the basis for all the financial planning strategies we tailor. We specialise in cross border and multi jurisdictional trust and estate planning.

Free shipping on this item. Orders outside the US are more and shipped at the bidders risk! http://www.blujay.com/item/Standard-Oil-Trust-J-D-Rockefeller-Archbold-auto-7010400-2845109

Hilltop paradise was home to four generations: https://www.hudsonvalley.org/historic-sites/kykuit

ManOntheLand
05-24-13, 05:09 PM
David, I am not trying to make anybody doubt LMR. I am only trying to help improve the tactics used to make LMR work efficiently in dealing with IRS and to help people avoid missteps. Filing a 1040 and taking a deduction for LMR is unnecessarily exposing one to the risk of frivolous return hassles.

A better tactic might be to inquire in writing with IRS Chief Counsel BEFORE filing. They cannot penalize you for a letter making an inquiry! It is their stated mission to assist you in understanding your tax obligation. In such a letter you can state your position, that you believe LMR exempts you from tax and that you believe you have no filing requirement. Attach all your check copies etc. Let them tell you if they have any problem with your position ahead of time! If they say nothing, you could safely rely on their silence to justify not filing, or to file a statement or 1040 to claim a refund if you choose. They may even send you a determination letter that you are not required to file.

Having approached IRS before you file a LMR return, you could then rely on their response to defend against a frivolous return penalty if necessary. You would have a good case for an 843 abatement because you made a good faith effort not to file a frivolous return and relied on their agreement or tacit agreement with your position.

David Merrill
05-24-13, 05:21 PM
Having approached IRS before you file a LMR return...


Here is one way to explain it -

Appearance cures all defects in jurisdiction.

It is very blatant once you receive refunds with the IRS blessing, after wrapping your mind around the remedy. Your boss will appreciate you keeping this between you and the IRS.

I believe you are transposing CtC (Cracking the Code) and other doctrine on remedy. In other words why go to the IRS and ask approval for something Congress has already approved?

ManOntheLand
05-24-13, 08:52 PM
David, you seem to think that what I suggest is unnecessary. But what exactly would be the harm? Perhaps the suitors who have already been hit with frivolous penalties for taking a LMR deduction on a 1040 would have been better off to ask IRS (or Treasury or somebody in "authority" over tax matters) about it before they filed? If IRS had failed to express any problem with the LMR position in an inquiry letter, those filers could now use the IRS's own words or silence against the IRS to defend against the penalty and/or abate it. Perhaps even, God forbid, IRS might have had something instructive to say so that we might correct any errors (gasp!) that we may otherwise be making.

Speaking of those suitors who got hit with frivolous penalties (which you have mentioned in another post), let's not rationalize away their plight by referencing what they do for a living or how much they make or anything else. They used the remedy you describe, did they not? And IRS hit them with a penalty for filing a return taking a deduction for LMR, did they not? So IRS could do the same to anybody, obviously. And BTW they can do so even AFTER they have "given their blessing" by issuing the refund no matter how "blatant" an indicator of their purported "blessing" you feel the refund is. Ask any CTC graduate about post-refund audits and frivolous penalties. What makes you think IRS won't adopt a policy of penalizing every LMR tax return eventually? Isn't it wise to anticipate this and take that weapon away from them?

The only difference I can see with what I am suggesting vs. claiming an LMR deduction on a 1040 is that they cannot call an inquiry letter a "purported return" and threaten or impose frivolous penalties against it. And aren't you making an "appearance" and asking for IRS "approval" anyway when you file a 1040 and take a deduction for LMR?

Re: appearance and jurisdiction-- For those who have been filing a 1040 every year, you are already presumed to be in their "jurisdiction" or at least an implied contract through "course of dealing".

I agree, you don't need IRS "approval". I don't think they will even respond to the inquiry I am suggesting! But you can rely on their silence as tacit agreement, and use that against them if they decide to harass you at any point down the road.

What is the harm in creating a "record" of my good faith belief in my position and that I gave them an opportunity to "correct me if I am wrong"? It demonstrates humility and a teachable state of mind. "I think this is right, and here is why, but you are the experts, you tell me if I missed something." If they don't respond, they will know as well as I do that if they one day decide to try to accuse me of wrongdoing they will have a very uphill battle. Worst case scenario I could show a jury that I sought out a determination/any corrections from IRS, so they cannot claim I was "willfully ignorant" and that I chose my position solely for its convenient result that I don't have to pay "my fair share." You have to look at all this the way a jury of average Americans would. So that you will be too dangerous to put in front of a jury.

You have helped make me and many others aware of remedy and I give you all the credit in the world for that, but as Harvey Keitel says in Pulp Fiction, "let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet". There still may be some kinks to work out here.

All due respect, but I detect some Pete Hendrickson-esque arrogance in your attitude about remedy and a sense that one must not question your "gospel" on this forum lest one be suspected of being a "dis-info agent". I also think you place way too much stock in the issuance of refunds as proof of IRS "acceptance" of your "gospel", another Hendrickson trait.

This is not at all to say to say that I disagree with LMR. But remedy is not a religion. It is a process. Perfecting that process requires a culture of critique and error correction, and checking egos at the door. Do we want to just be right, or do we want to win too?

David Merrill
05-24-13, 09:03 PM
David, you seem to think that what I suggest is unnecessary. But what exactly would be the harm? Perhaps the suitors who have already been hit with frivolous penalties for taking a LMR deduction on a 1040 would have been better off to ask IRS (or Treasury or somebody in "authority" over tax matters) about it before they filed?


You go right ahead and do it - please post a scan of the request and response here if you would.

I do not suggest it for anybody looking to me for any suggestions exactly for the reason I said. I would not lead anybody into the illusion that the IRS has any authority outside the scope of contract with the Federal Reserve. The demand for lawful money ends the contract, overriding all the assumptions around having to work and earn a living.

I explained how the three suitors, of hundreds were obligated into the private credit endorsement system as all three of them were in the financial industry, and all earning six-figure salaries at that. It makes sense to me and so I have learned something new.

ManOntheLand
05-25-13, 04:15 AM
I am confused as to why you think there is any need to file if the contract is terminated by redeeming lawful money.

David Merrill
05-25-13, 09:35 AM
I am confused as to why you think there is any need to file if the contract is terminated by redeeming lawful money.

The suitor files for a refund of withholdings. When self-employed, to avoid the presumption of a liability based on 1099 reporting by clients.

ManOntheLand
05-25-13, 10:29 PM
OK David, thanks for clarifying. You seem concerned about not unnecessarily putting oneself into IRS jurisdiction (rightly so I think). So in the case of no third party reporting to IRS, would you in that case suggest not filing anything, based on there being no presumption of liability?

I think that would be fine as long as one has evidence of LMR ready to show if necessary. For a four year stretch I earned a living with no third party reporting to IRS, I had never heard of redeeming lawful money, did not file, and never heard a peep from IRS.

I agree with you that a W-2 or 1099 has already established a presumption of liability. Therefore I see no harm at all (and in fact a great advantage) in writing a letter to IRS to rebut that presumption showing my evidence of LMR and asserting no filing requirement, which they cannot penalize with a frivolous return penalty. One caveat: I will not claim a refund in such letter, as this may cause them to treat my submission as "a purported return" and subject me to the risk that they will then determine it is a "frivolous return". Case law has established that a document is in substance a return or purported return if it contains all the essential information a return would contain. I can think of no better way to avoid having my letter considered a purported return than to assert in said letter that I am not required to file a return.

Such a letter would not be asking for IRS approval of LMR, but to assert my position that I am not required to file a return at all, based on LMR and my right to exchange labor for compensation without being taxed, and invite IRS to disagree and prove their case. I will ask that if they do not disagree, that they update their records so I will not be presumed to have any liability or filing requirement. I will then be all set to defend myself if I ever receive a notice claiming I need to file a return for that year. And again, I avoid any risk of having to deal with bills claiming I owe a $5,000 frivolous return penalty.

I have already done something similar: because of multiple frivolous penalties imposed on me for CTC returns (even after getting full refunds) I wrote to the IRS Commissioner and Secretary of Treasury about a year ago to complain about IRS abuse, IRS failure to ever explain what was wrong with my returns so I could correct them, and to assert that I believe I am not required to file as long as my earnings were from exercising my right to exchange my labor for money in the private sector within one of the 50 states. I cited standing Supreme Court decisions to support my position, asked a few yes/no questions, and invited a rebuttal within 30 days if they disagreed. I gave notice that I would rely on a lack of response as their agreement that I am not required to file and have no tax liability based on my earnings from private sector labor in one of the states. This was before I knew anything about LMR. I got no reply from either of them. Relying on their "blessing", I did not file for 2011 despite having some W-2's issued. As of now, I have not heard from IRS about 2011. I had claimed exempt throughout 2011 so there was no refund of income tax to get. So I am happy, and I guess they are too.

I believe you have suggested that once the first LMR return is filed and refund of all witholdings obtained, one might show proof of your full refund and exemption to the employer if the employer has any problem with an "exempt" W-4, is that correct?

I think it is wise to try to avoid trouble with the employer. That is all I am saying about IRS: it is wise to try to avoid trouble with them as well. I have yet to file a LMR return, as I just learned about LMR in 2012. But I have a 12 year run of paying no income tax, and in some of those years obtaining refunds through the CTC method. What I have tried to offer in my posts is some insight based on my experience as to how IRS reacts in real life to unorthodox returns. I have found it is wise to avoid dealing with IRS as much as possible, and not be overly confident that they always will do what they "should" do, no matter how right your position may be. In other words, I do not assume a cooperative attitude from IRS. I assume in all cases that they will do whatever they can get away with. Anticipating that, I try to leave as little wiggle room for IRS as possible in dealing with me.

David Merrill
05-26-13, 10:41 PM
OK David, thanks for clarifying. You seem concerned about not unnecessarily putting oneself into IRS jurisdiction (rightly so I think). So in the case of no third party reporting to IRS, would you in that case suggest not filing anything, based on there being no presumption of liability?

The presumption is that the reader here needs to work for a livelihood.


I agree with you that a W-2 or 1099 has already established a presumption of liability. Therefore I see no harm at all (and in fact a great advantage) in writing a letter to IRS to rebut that presumption showing my evidence of LMR and asserting no filing requirement, which they cannot penalize with a frivolous return penalty.

Writing freeform letters to the IRS or any attorney for that matter is a waste of time in my opinion. Like I said though, if you do that please share. What is happening here is that a brain trust is utilizing accrued experience and sharing it. There is a thread around here - Exactly What Does the IRS Agent Think? But nobody has bothered writing to the IRS and just informing them in a letter. Instead we have the Notice and Demand to the Fed Bank and in my estimation that is much more efficient.

I wish that there was more time to go through your posts. There does not seem to be any foothold in fact and scientific process.

ManOntheLand
05-27-13, 01:53 AM
[/QUOTE]I wish that there was more time to go through your posts. There does not seem to be any foothold in fact and scientific process. [QUOTE]

Go ahead and disregard my posts as a waste of your time and "unscientific" if you wish. Go ahead and just file returns with an LMR deduction and assume the IRS loves what you are doing, and hope that some low level clerk does not mishandle your return. Perhaps you have time to deal with persistent $5,000 bills for frivolous return penalties spit out by their computers when someone chooses to "misunderstand" what you are doing. Perhaps you have time to deal with intents to levy and wage garnishments. Shall I post all the notices charging me penalties I have gotten from CTC filings and non-CTC related points I have raised in appeals requests?

If you want to learn what I have learned the hard way, and help IRS to discredit remedy as you do it, I can't stop you. I fully get that you think this can't happen to you or to anybody employing remedy. Why don't you look up 'hubris' in your dictionary?

And since you cherish a scientific process so much, please answer me this: isn't the remedy available to everyone exchanging labor for money? If so, what is your explanation for the remedy not being available to the three suitors working in finance who were hit with frivolous penalties? Is remedy not available to them? Or is the IRS just penalizing them because it can?

My posts are based on years of study of this topic and more importantly a lot of real life actual experience dealing with IRS that may help the reader here to avoid making mistakes I have made. Perhaps someone who has filed a Notice and Demand (which I think is a great idea) will think it also worth their time to make a record of agreement (or tacit agreement) from the agency whose purported mission is to help us to understand our tax obligations, so that one can avoid filing a tax return altogether, and thus avoid the risks that come with filing a return. Failure to file (even for a frivolous reason) carries no $5,000 civil penalty and is at worst a misdemeanor if the failure is "willful". Tax returns they don't like can be penalized $5,000 and can lead to charges of tax evasion and filing false documents, both felonies. Do the math. Perhaps some of the readers using remedy will choose not to file a tax return at all and will sleep better knowing they have made a record of a good faith inquiry to IRS to make doubly sure they were in compliance with all laws in not filing. Something the IRS knows could ruin their chances of getting even the dumbest jury to railroad you in court.

Since you are rightly concerned about contesting presumption of liability from 1099 and W-2 yet not putting oneself in IRS jurisdiction, I wonder why you are so unconcerned about signing a 1040 U.S. Individual Income tax Return, signed under "penalties of perjury" in accordance with a sworn statement made from within the "United States" as described by 28 U.S.C. 1746. If you go to that section, you will see there is an appropriate jurat statement for one who is "without the United States" to sign "under the laws of the United States of America". This is not the jurat on a 1040. As you said, appearance perfects jurisdiction. Are you not appearing in the "United States" when you sign a 1040? Are you not calling yourself a "U.S. individual" by submitting such a form? If you are not in the jurisdiction, and don't wish to be, then don't sign that perjury statement and don't submit a form that may not be appropriate for you to use.

BTW, when I have in the past altered the jurat on a 1040 by inserting the phrase "from without the United States per 28 USC 1746 and under the laws of the United States" the IRS attorney screeched to the Tax Court later that this in itself made my return frivolous. The jurat is clearly an indicator of the jurisdiction one is presumed to be in. File a 1040 if you dare. Just don't be surprised if they one day stop being as nice as they have been so far about you taking your LMR deduction on their forms.

David Merrill
05-27-13, 03:15 AM
I thought that is where you have been coming from all along.

It is fairly clear that an IRS agent is working in a world of form. So an explanation is superfluous. It does nothing to help the IRS agent understand anything.

I regret that this might have been handled better. I believe that the readers and members here too can sense your need to validate the corrupt nature of the Powers that Be. I honestly did not see how to get it out there except to wait for you to write it in your own words.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. If you would like, please show us the letter you would write to an IRS agent?

David Merrill
05-27-13, 03:22 AM
ManOntheLand;


I am trying to work with you here.

You seem to be intent on pursuading me to form a letter or otherwise start advising new suitors to write a letter of explanation to the IRS?

My response is, No. But you might give it a try, and I hope you will let us know how it goes.

ManOntheLand
05-28-13, 05:11 AM
David I think our point of disagreement is not really whether or not to send a letter to IRS but whether it is proper to file a 1040 claiming a LMR deduction. As much as I agree with the process of remedy presented in this forum, I think filing a 1040 while taking an LMR deduction is a big mistake.

If I am intent on persuading you to do anything, it would simply be to recognize that signing and submitting a 1040 (especially one with a W-2 form attached) is not a good idea if one is trying to assert that one is not subject to IRS jurisdiction, whether you rely on LMR or anything else. They have the right to presume you are a "taxpayer" if you file a "taxpayer" form. They will presume your agreement with any W-2 attached. The "wages" reported on W-2 are "income" under IRC.

As for the LMR deduction: The Internal Revenue Code recognizes deductions related to the conduct of a "trade or business within the U.S". and certain personal deductions like home mortgage interest. By redeeming lawful money, you are opting NOT to conduct a trade or business within the U.S. Lawful money redemption is therefore not a recognized statutory deduction in the Internal Revenue Code, and taking such a deduction on a 1040 is asking for trouble--even assuming that LMR is lawful and legitimate.

A similar example (albeit one with no lawful basis) is the slavery reparations deduction. Some people got the idea at one point to take deductions for slavery reparations and actually got refunds at first--but it became common enough for IRS to tell their clerks to watch for this bogus deduction and eventually added that to their list of frivolous positions. In fact, any position arguing against tax liability can be called "frivolous" when being used by a "taxpayer" because a "taxpayer" is by definition a person subject to an internal revenue tax.

Why take any chance that they will think you are a "taxpayer" by filing a return when it is not necessary to do so?

If LMR leaves one with less than the exemption amount of "gross income", then one would certainly not be required to file a return. See IRC 6012.

If one needs to claim a refund of withholding, one could do so informally without the use of a 1040 form (there is an IRC provision for this). If you claim to be outside their jurisdiction, such a refund claim could be made informally under principles of equity, and not under the authority or requirements of any statute. Such a claim could be made in any way you see fit. Just don't use a 1040, to avoid confusing the issue.

If LMR results in no tax liability, then one could properly claim exempt on W-4, and going forward it would not be necessary to claim a refund at all. (Unless one wants to make a claim for refund of FICA--but let's stay on point.)

A suitor claiming not to be subject to income should not file a 1040 or any other tax return. One can claim (if it becomes necessary) that LMR relieves one of the requirement to file (I think it is a matter of personal preference whether one does this in reaction to a demand to file or proactively to pre-empt such demands).

Assuming one has a W-2 or 1099 issued to IRS reporting income, one might prefer a proactive approach, as I believe you would actually be helping IRS to not waste their time with you demanding that you file a return, so they can concentrate on those who are properly in their jurisdiction.

As you said in a prior post, you do not need IRS approval for what Congress has already approved. I agree. Exactly why I believe filing a 1040 (a statutory requirement of IRC) is unnecessary and likely to be counter-productive.

If you are redeeming lawful money and are concerned that a W-2 might create a presumption of liability/filing requirement, you can sit back and wait for IRS to claim you need to file a return, and explain at that time that you have no filing requirement because you redeemed lawful money, or you can communicate with IRS as soon as the W-2 is issued to dispel the presumption of liability/filing requirement.


Re "let us know how it goes":

I already have employed the "IRS letter" technique (as have several friends of mine) to support my general position that I am never required to file an income tax return if my earnings were solely from my labor working in the private sector within the 50 states. I wrote a letter to the Commissioner of IRS and Secretary of Treasury, sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to explain that, contrary to popular opinion, I consider myself not subject to taxation on money made in exchange for my labor within the 50 states. For any year where my earnings come solely from working at a job in the private sector inside the 50 states, I therefore do not have "gross income" at or above the exemption amount, and I am thus not required to file an income tax return pursuant to IRC Section 6012. I use Supreme Court cases and their own Code and regulations to support my position, but that's the gist. A suitor could explain his understanding of LMR. We do not need to convince anyone of anything. We are only making a record that we tried in good faith.

Neither the Commissioner or the Secretary have ever responded to any of these letters and they have therefore defaulted on that issue. I have not filed a tax return since then. If I were to be asked at some point to explain why I am not required to file, I could prepare an affidavit of default explaining my reliance on the letter I sent and their failure to respond. This provides me a reliance defense and sincere belief defense, a la the Cheek v. United States Supreme Court case.

I did not mention LMR in the letter I describe, because I was not aware of LMR at the time. But it makes little difference what I said in the letter, as I invited a rebuttal, made clear I would rely on their silence as agreement, and got no response. The letter is meant to take advantage of my observation from much experience that IRS refuses to respond in good faith to such inquiries. I hardly expected them to say "Yes you are right! Don't tell anybody!" but they cannot remain silent and then later complain when I rely on their silence. In U.S. v. Tweel a Federal Court stated that "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."

As a practical matter, this tactic is meant as a long term insurance policy against IRS harassment. The letter is ostensibly written to the IRS but is also written to a theoretical jury that may someday be charged with deciding if I have acted willfully in "violating the law". Understand that a jury does not get to evaluate whether or not you were in violation of the law; they will be instructed by the judge that you were "wrong", that you were required to file, that you are liable for tax on your income. The jury will hear that as "everybody is required to file, and everybody owes tax on all that comes in". Examine any federal tax case and you will see this is how it is done. The jury only gets to decide the facts of the case: that is, if the defendant willfully violated a known legal duty. But it will be considered a given that you had a duty. By IRS knowing this letter exists, I feel I am less likely to ever be the target of wrongful prosecution to "make an example" of me. Something one should think about if he plans on exercising remedy for the rest of his life.

The letter is also useful for deflecting administrative harassment and avoiding unnecessary hassles with IRS: If an IRS agent later wants to take the position that I am indeed required to file, wants to prove that, and tries to reject the position I expressed in my letter to the Commissioner, then the IRS agent surely would have had a problem with those same views if expressed on a 1040 return, and very well might have chosen to penalize me with a frivolous return penalty rather than have any discussion, or worse, consider the filing an act of tax evasion or filing false documents which are both felonies. Likely? perhaps not. Possible? You better believe it. I decline to rely on the good graces of IRS. Perhaps you and I differ on that. To each his own.

To me the IRS is like a grizzly bear. You may very well have the bear safely caged with LMR. But its still a bear. I see no reason to stick my arm in its cage and try to thump it on the nose. That is what filing a 1040 and taking LMR deduction represents to me.

ManOntheLand
05-28-13, 05:36 AM
[QUOTE]It is fairly clear that an IRS agent is working in a world of form. So an explanation is superfluous. It does nothing to help the IRS agent understand anything.[QUOTE]

I agree that an IRS agent is working in a world of form and is not at all likely to understand what you are doing. Exactly why you don't want to take an LMR deduction on a 1040, where the agent's misunderstanding may get your return sent to the frivolous return department.

These returns so far have the advantage of looking like a "regular" return other than the LMR deduction. But once trained to watch for the "lawful money" verbiage, all the agent is going to see is somebody trying to not pay his "fair share" and wasting their time with a "tax protestor" return.

A few hundred filings with LMR deduction is one thing. A few thousand will be quite another. As with slavery reparations deductions, the success at getting quick refunds will cause a steadily accelerating increase in the number of people filing that way until it warrants agency wide attention, and eventually a backlash in the form of demands for filers to "correct" their "frivolous return" and/or audits will inevitably happen.

Non-filers (based on varying positions or even no position at all) are abundant. This the IRS can live with, because the "success" of not filing is ambiguous at best--even if you tell the average American you are not filing, they are far less likely to emulate what you are doing, and will figure the IRS is "coming to get you" any day now. But a simple filing for refund method whose success is easy to prove and imitate? That the IRS cannot tolerate. That is a threat to the whole game. Wait and see.

ManOntheLand
05-28-13, 08:09 AM
Another way to look at the value of my inquiry letter to the IRS: the stated mission of IRS is to assist "taxpayers" in understanding their tax obligations. But IRS has no obligation to assist non-taxpayers to understand anything. I am asserting in my letter essentially that I am not a taxpayer. By failing to respond to me, and refusing to offer any assistance, IRS is helping to establish a prima facie case that it agrees I am not a "taxpayer".

On the other hand, if I file a 1040, I am asserting essentially that I am a "taxpayer" by use of the form, even if I claim on the return not to be liable for any tax, due to LMR or whatever argument. By signing the 1040 I am giving IRS the right to treat me as a taxpayer, and threaten the frivolous penalty in a 3176C letter in order to "assist" me in understanding my obligations as a taxpayer.

The failure of IRS in a 3176C form letter to explain what exactly is frivolous about my return, yet demanding in the 3176C letter that I "correct" my return suggests a contract exists, by which I am presumed to already know what it is I am supposed to do, and therefore what I have done wrong, and what needs to be done to "correct" the return. This indicates that filing a 1040 itself causes them to presume I am a "taxpayer".

Filing a 1040 to claim you are not obligated to IRC is a bit like volunteering to join the army, then refusing to do what you are told because it was voluntary to join. This would be a frivolous argument because the joining itself is the only voluntary part. Once you agree to contract, you are obligated, as with any contract. One cannot argue from inside that contract that one is not obligated simply because one could have chosen not to enter that contract. Of course you could have chosen not to enter that contract. But the point is, you did!! You have to be careful about what you put your signature on. As they say on one of the new Arrested Development episodes, "Don't sign, and you'll be fine." :) If you want to tell IRS you are not under contract with them, don't sign one of their taxpayer forms in order to do it. That's my point.

John Howard
05-28-13, 05:08 PM
As much as I agree with the process of remedy presented in this forum, I think filing a 1040 while taking an LMR deduction is a big mistake.


To me the IRS is like a grizzly bear. You may very well have the bear safely caged with LMR. But its still a bear. I see no reason to stick my arm in its cage and try to thump it on the nose. That is what filing a 1040 and taking LMR deduction represents to me.

The IRS claims that I have been "defying" the tax laws for thirty years, using 12 U.S.C. §411 for the last two, (while claiming "Lawful Money Redeemer" as my Occupation), and I get silence from them, my token refund for 2012 was applied to a previous year. Others on here have been redeeming lawful money for many years running. The bear is a mechanical one, and we have seen the man behind the curtain who controls him.

Michael Joseph
05-28-13, 06:33 PM
I thought that is where you have been coming from all along.

It is fairly clear that an IRS agent is working in a world of form. So an explanation is superfluous. It does nothing to help the IRS agent understand anything.

I regret that this might have been handled better. I believe that the readers and members here too can sense your need to validate the corrupt nature of the Powers that Be. I honestly did not see how to get it out there except to wait for you to write it in your own words.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. If you would like, please show us the letter you would write to an IRS agent?

Expatriation and THEN issuing a 1040 - Huh? One pays tribute to the State it gets its shadow from. Boy if I was the IRS agent I would either think this guy is trying to pull one over on me or he is double minded. Since we are talking about Trust it really does not matter where you are coming from in regard to the IRS - if you file you are PRESUMED to be WITHIN the United States; else what would compel you to file? I don't remember the last time a China man filed a tax return with the IRS.

Or let me say it like this. When was the last time you filed with the internal revenue collection service for the State of China/Iraq/Brazil? Why shame on you, you mean you don't file in Brazil? Well, pray tell, why not?

Until the day one executed a VARIATION OF AGREEMENT from without the United States, then one is presumed to be under that shadow.

The NAME is within the United States - notice the SEAL atop the BC. Also, notice the Number assigned and one who signed for it in consent of the receipt of a benefit - its Use. So then, one filing has clearly benefited in the Use - else there is no need to file - zero income. And yes, dear reader FRN's and USN's are both income - but with different obligations. I model the NAME as an account in which I have interest. As I grant into it for my benefit. However, I am not holding the Titles.

Of course, the system, whatever that is, is corrupt - men run it.

Treefarmer
05-29-13, 02:35 AM
MOtL said:

" As much as I agree with the process of remedy presented in this forum, I think filing a 1040 while taking an LMR deduction is a big mistake."

I completely agree.
This strategy is sure to bring on frivolous return warnings soon, whenever the Iris 10 40 return evaluator agents get the memo from upstairs.
It seems like they always wait a while in order to draw as many fish into their net as possible and when they see that the catch is big enough to be worth their while, they draw up the net.

David Merrill
05-29-13, 11:00 AM
The IRS claims that I have been "defying" the tax laws for thirty years, using 12 U.S.C. §411 for the last two, (while claiming "Lawful Money Redeemer" as my Occupation), and I get silence from them, my token refund for 2012 was applied to a previous year. Others on here have been redeeming lawful money for many years running. The bear is a mechanical one, and we have seen the man behind the curtain who controls him.


If you think about it, that is an outstanding verification about Redeeming Lawful Money. Rather than reassess the IRS agent/attorney thoughtfully (contemplation) applies the Refund to a past liability.

MOtL;

This also demonstrates what I am loosely calling science. For the three suitors who have acquired FrivPens upon RLM there are many more who have been getting refunds, with IRS blessings for many years running.

We have a thread about Exactly What Does the IRS Agent Think. I have not been updating it lately but the links are there. If you find any new notices or memorandums to IRS agents please update the thread.

While I do not discount your attempts to pursuade me to write the IRS agents for permission or opinions, I am simply not going to do that. - Meaning I will not suggest it to anybody. Congress has already established the law and the courts support that law. Looking to IRS agent/attorneys for legal advice seems pretty dumb to me. If you wish to do it by all means, please share the experience here.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. The Diminished Money Counterclaim thread is very revealing too. Carefully examine how the judge acknowledges the petitioner seeks US Notes in the form of FRNs without making any slur. Also, even getting this close, the judge will not sign an order. It is electronic only (all of a sudden). There is no Order at all - only hearsay from the clerk that the judge has made the Order.

ManOntheLand
05-29-13, 07:36 PM
If you think about it, that is an outstanding verification about Redeeming Lawful Money. Rather than reassess the IRS agent/attorney thoughtfully (contemplation) applies the Refund to a past liability.

MOtL;

This also demonstrates what I am loosely calling science. For the three suitors who have acquired FrivPens upon RLM there are many more who have been getting refunds, with IRS blessings for many years running.

We have a thread about Exactly What Does the IRS Agent Think. I have not been updating it lately but the links are there. If you find any new notices or memorandums to IRS agents please update the thread.

While I do not discount your attempts to pursuade me to write the IRS agents for permission or opinions, I am simply not going to do that. - Meaning I will not suggest it to anybody. Congress has already established the law and the courts support that law. Looking to IRS agent/attorneys for legal advice seems pretty dumb to me. If you wish to do it by all means, please share the experience here.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. The Diminished Money Counterclaim thread is very revealing too. Carefully examine how the judge acknowledges the petitioner seeks US Notes in the form of FRNs without making any slur. Also, even getting this close, the judge will not sign an order. It is electronic only (all of a sudden). There is no Order at all - only hearsay from the clerk that the judge has made the Order.

David I don't care about whether or not you suggest anybody write a letter to IRS. I am done talking about it. I personally found such a tactic necessary as a precaution once auntie started hammering me with frivolous penalties for 4 different tax years, and launched a campaign of paper terrorism (intents to levy, recording a notice of lien) in case they were setting the stage for a criminal prosecution to make an example of me. My letter is in my administrative record with IRS and is therefore automatically admissible evidence. So I picked apart the IRC 6012 filing requirement and the myth of a direct tax on all that come in in that letter because I know they don't ever want any jury to hear about that.

Again, the real issue I hoped to bring to everyone's attention is whether it is wise in the long run to file a 1040 to take a "deduction" for LMR even if it is "working". Let us take note that Pete Hendrickson was indicted for filing false documents six years after getting a full refund for 2002, even though they apparently never tried to get the refund back. So let's not pretend it is not possible for this to happen to a suitor. All you are left with, then, is arguing that although this could happen, somehow it won't.

For any of you attack dogs on this forum, that is not to say such a prosecution would be warranted. It is to say such a prosecution is possible, warranted or not, and eventually quite likely if IRS comes to see the spread of LMR as a threat to their survival. Are you suitors who are 1040 filers going to keep filing a 1040 after that? Maybe all of you are wise enough to know how to handle frivolous penalties and even a prosecution and keep yourselves out of hot water. But if you are that smart, I would hope you would see the wisdom of not filing at all rather than blindly trusting that the IRS will never hassle you or anyone else for your method of filing. I would also hope you have some concern about those less knowledgable who will inevitably try to take LMR deductions on a 1040, who will be more vulnerable to IRS harrassment, and could be used by IRS to discredit the idea of remedy to prevent its spread.

I don't disagree with your metaphysics David, as it pertains to remedy. I don't let fear dictate my choices. But I don't throw all caution to the wind either. I am sure if you were to go skydiving, you would wear a parachute.

The reaction of the "system" to LMR is impressive, David. No doubt about that. I have been redeeming lawful money since last year when I first learned about it (I saw no possible harm in making the demand) and I am in the process of incorporating LMR into my non-filing approach. It appears you and I are both non-filers. My objective is to first do no harm to myself. I am not about to sign a 1040, attach W-2's and take an LMR deduction. Not after what I went through with CTC.

Instead, I claim exempt on W-4, thus I have no refund to claim (except FICA). I have not filed anything for 2011 or 2012. I am content for now to sit back and see if they ever send me a notice indicating they believe I need to file. At that point, I can refuse the presentment for cause, or simply fill out the response form they send with such inquiries, explaining that I am not aware of any filing requirement, and not aware of any requirement to disclose any information to them. Let them make their case to me that I am required to file.

As nice as it is to see suitors getting refunds, to believe that a counter-strategy by "the system" will not eventually be developed, to take advantage of any weakness in the implementation of LMR (by ANYONE) is hopelessly naive. To me the biggest weakness in the approach by far is signing the 1040 to claim the refund.

A suitor's position should be that the amounts owed to him were erroneously collected as "tax", and that the suitor is entitled to recover those amounts under principles of equity. An administrative claim for the return of the suitor's property could be made with a simple written statement, and if the refund claim is not honored, there is a cause of action in Federal Court to recover the suitor's property.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. There is a better way to implement remedy with IRS than filing the 1040. Wake up.

David Merrill
05-29-13, 08:43 PM
Then again you have yet to apply remedy according to law.

ManOntheLand
05-29-13, 09:35 PM
Then again you have yet to apply remedy according to law.

That does not affect the validity of my point one iota. I find it curious, self-contradictory and even suspicious that for all your talk about remedy, you still encourage suitors to sign their name to a 1040 that clearly constitutes appearance in the IRS jurisdiction. Sorry, but it causes me to be distrustful of your judgment, if not your intentions.

Michael Joseph
05-29-13, 09:39 PM
That does not affect the validity of my point one iota. I find it curious, self-contradictory and even suspicious that for all your talk about remedy, you still encourage suitors to sign their name to a 1040 that clearly constitutes appearance in the IRS jurisdiction. Sorry, but it causes me to be distrustful of your judgment, if not your intentions.


I cannot speak for David Merrill, he is capable of that himself; however, I must say that I would never sign my own name on an IRS form - I would use the name that is on the Birth Certificate and the number assigned to that name.

Equity acts in personam.

ManOntheLand
05-30-13, 12:36 AM
Treefarmer said:



It seems like they always wait a while in order to draw as many fish into their net as possible and when they see that the catch is big enough to be worth their while, they draw up the net.

I agree. This is the pattern. The more valid your position on the return, the greater the potential threat it is to them. Once it gets their attention, (I am sure it has already) they will wait for enough people to file this way, so that when they bring the hammer down, they will instantly have thousands of people who can spread the word that remedy "doesn't work" and that remedy has been "shot down". This will also condition potential jury members to lump "the remedy thing" in with all the other "scams" so they can get a token conviction out of it. More discrediting.

That's how I would do it if I were them and I were trying to discredit remedy. Because if I were them--I would fight like hell for survival. The current system needs people paying into it, regardless of whether they do so out of ignorance or just fear. This props up the "money" system we have, which is backed only by people's confidence that it isn't going anywhere--even if they lack confidence that it serves them.

You know what else I would do if I were trying to discredit remedy? Whatever it takes!! I would even plant an agent provocateur (or encourage a true believer to become one) to advocate remedy, sell it to the tax honesty folks as a silver bullet, win their complete trust, and then encourage them to implement remedy in the most idiotic and indefensible way possible i.e. filing a 1040 claiming a "deduction."

If I were trying to discredit remedy, I would also encourage people to rely solely on this remedy and encourage the belief that it somehow nullifies any other nexus of taxation, and eliminates any need to pay attention to anything learned about taxation in the last four decades. Finally I would encourage arrogance and presumptuousness in those who have received refunds from filing a 1040 with LMR deduction, and encourage a naive belief that the system is not set up to defend itself from the overwhelming brilliance of a suitor and his knowledge of the remedy.

Get a grip and be careful whom you trust. Remedy appears to be legit, but so what? IRS could not care less what you think you know. They deal in presumption, deception and intimidation. If they can't dupe you or intimidate you, they will dupe or intimidate the payroll department at your work to hand over your money. The Powers That Be will enjoy most of all the eventual crushing of your enthusiasm and the demoralization. This leads to either passivity or more belligerence, which they will use as an excuse to crack down with the militarized police state they already have in place.

Any suitor filing a 1040 is playing right into their hands. And guess what? If you are a "taxpayer" (as evidenced by your signature on the 1040, then your LMR deduction IS a frivolous position (but only because you have declared yourself a "taxpayer" by filing the 1040.). Look for its debut as a carefully phrased "frivolous position" coming soon! It's all part of the op.

Just say NO to Ten-four-o!!!

David Merrill
05-30-13, 01:57 AM
Treefarmer is a Pete HENDRICKSON, Cracking the Code victim.

Michael Joseph
05-30-13, 03:17 AM
I think the IRS is just chomping at the bit to get some numbskull into court that has zero clue what they are doing - just following some guru they read about on the internet. They will twist said numbskull like a pretzel and make it LOOK like 12USC411 is no longer valid. I actually heard recently that an attorney actually tried to tell my young friend that US. v RICKMAN was solid proof that making a demand for lawful money was bogus. Now who is the bigger fool, the attorney or my young friend for listening? Actually my friend just laughed, he could not be blown from his foundation - he realized that just because someone has fancy initials behind a name does not mean there is a lick of sense in their head!

So let me get this straight - all I have to do is write what again on my check? This is the fool the IRS is waiting for and they shall have it soon enough. I pity the soul that blindly follows absent knowledge and understanding, wisdom and prudence.

For the Scripture does clearly propound STUDY to show thyself approved. But fools despise wisdom...or the simple pass on and are spoiled.

In the end it appears that men and women have made the IRS to be as the Anakim. They see the IRS as a Giant - and what they perceive is what they will get. If one dwells on fear then fear will manifest in their life. So if one thinks the IRS is a giant and cannot be overcome it would be wise for them to pay up and keep their mouth shut.

Jos_12:4 And the border of Og king of Bashan, (which was of the remnant of the giants) that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, giants.

But to the OVERCOMERS who, like Caleb and Joshua say Elohim has promised - let us go forth and begin to possess - to them be the victory. Each man according to his order and rank.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and sat down with My Father in His throne.

How can i return to Kindergarten when I am in College? Kindergarten has nothing for me.

So Study to show thyself approved - if you [collective] feel that you cannot do a thing or the probability is that you will fail - then you have the full liability not to do the thing. So why complain - just get on with life. I grow tired of those bad mouthing Pete HENDRICKSON. Those that trusted in him should just get on with it. What? are they all Pete's children? Is that it? Or are we to move about in full liability? So then, to each his own, in his full liability status. Else, do as your told CHILD because one in limited liability is just that a CHILD in daddy's house.

"Your money"? Pray tell where is "Your" name on the money? And, oh by the way, Federal Reserve Notes and Checks ARE NOT MONEY - they are a legal tender! "Your Money" - now that is just too precious. There goes another MIN-O-SAUR. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Mine-O-Saur-Sudipta-Bardhan-Quallen/dp/B003JTHU1G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369883745&sr=8-1&keywords=MINOSAUR)

To those that are tested because they made a use of 12USC411, shall we all line up and stone David Merrill? I think that is the height of stupidity. No wonder the court sees these a little children WARD comes to mind. Whaaa, I want my money. I am still looking for my name on the Notes. I can't seem to find it on any coin either?

Until the day I become ceasar - which ain't gonna happen - talk about a dog returning to his own vomit. I have interest in the Account held in the NAME but the Titles are not mine. Anyone who comprehends trust law knows the Trustee holds the Property Titles for the benefit of others. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY is an eye opener.

I am sure i make many friends. The time for soft words is over.

Shalom,
MJ

EZrhythm
05-30-13, 06:59 AM
I must say that I would never sign my own name on an IRS form - I would use the name that is on the Birth Certificate and the number assigned to that name.

Equity acts in personam.

Wise decision! ...Because that's how we roll. :cool:


Treefarmer said:

Any suitor filing a 1040 is playing right into their hands. And guess what? If you are a "taxpayer" (as evidenced by your signature on the 1040, then your LMR deduction IS a frivolous position (but only because you have declared yourself a "taxpayer" by filing the 1040.). Look for its debut as a carefully phrased "frivolous position" coming soon! It's all part of the op.


All the more reason to understand about disqualifying one's signature or obligation with "By:", "All Rights Reserved", "Without Prejudice", "Authorized Representative", etc. keeping the FIRST MIDDLE LAST or the obligation and one's self separate.


I actually heard recently that an attorney actually tried to tell my young friend that US. v RICKMAN was solid proof that making a demand for lawful money was bogus.

Even the FRS uses case cite to validate "lawful money"; http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm

ManOntheLand
05-30-13, 07:12 AM
Treefarmer is a Pete HENDRICKSON, Cracking the Code victim.

Your terse ad hominem attacks in your last couple of posts are doing nothing for my confidence in your judgment or your intentions. I just hope suitors will follow your example in not filing, rather than follow your indefensible suggestion that they take an LMR deduction on a 1040.

JUST SAY NO TO 10-4-0!!!

There are no victims. Only volunteers. The Achilles heel of the CTC "method" is that it involves filing a 1040. You can argue duress to void a W-4 or W-9 form since you have to work, but nobody makes you file a 1040. Unless you are going to do it their way, there is no excuse for filing a 1040. Those who do so with LMR are volunteering and may someday be referred to as a "David Merrill Remedy victim". How do you like the sound of that? Maybe the proponent of the next cute method of tax return filing will dismiss what your "victims" have to say on their forum.

When I stopped filing 1040's and just disputed information returns with a simple written statement (noting the duress and that I actually work in the private sector) and demanded they update their records, I had no problem. Even before I ever heard of LMR. I see LMR as a remedy for one of several nexuses of taxation. The others are created when I am trying to just make a living and can be nullified by making a record of the duress and fraud.

Since I sent an inquiry letter to Commissioner of IRS and Secretary of Treasury about filing requirement and received no response, I have not even bothered to dispute information returns much less file a 1040 and they are leaving me alone.

Best defense is a good offense though. Dispute info returns and demand they update their records so their computer doesn't start spitting out demands for you to file.

The only way any tax avoidance method is really going to "work" for anyone is to the degree you are too much trouble for too little payoff (whether in money or publicity a la Wesley Snipes). No matter what argument you rely on, they can get the argument "rejected" by a Federal Court. So they have to know you are ready to ruin their cover story that "everybody has to pay his fair share" and that all Americans are taxed directly on all that comes in. This is what a jury of average Americans will believe. They won't risk having that bubble burst. Part of the reason I sent my letter to the Commish is to get such bubble bursting into my administrative record, so it is automatically admissible evidence.

Since no one can be 100% guaranteed against being harassed by auntie no matter what they do, make the worst case scenario being charged with a misdemeanor (willful failure to file) rather than a felony (tax evasion or filing false documents). JUST SAY NO to 10-4-0.

ManOntheLand
05-30-13, 07:29 AM
I think the IRS is just chomping at the bit to get some numbskull into court that has zero clue what they are doing - just following some guru they read about on the internet.

Or a "numbskull" filing a 1040 with an LMR deduction. One can challenge jurisdiction but if they have your signature on a 1040--not so much.

David Merrill
05-30-13, 07:49 AM
Or a "numbskull" filing a 1040 with an LMR deduction. One can challenge jurisdiction but if they have your signature on a 1040--not so much.

ManOntheLand has become unrealistic. In reality people may be charged with a criminal penalty for Failure to File. If one redeems lawful money then it is only honest to claim so on the 1040 Form, under legal signature.



Treefarmer is a Pete HENDRICKSON, Cracking the Code victim.
Your terse ad hominem attacks in your last couple of posts are doing nothing for my confidence in your judgment or your intentions. I just hope suitors will follow your example in not filing, rather than follow your indefensible suggestion that they take an LMR deduction on a 1040.

I feel compelled to react because I am not attacking Treefarmer, I am simply stating something revealed in the forums here. This kind of projection and illusion that remedy is ineffective is disturbing and disruptive.

The bottom line is that people are getting full refunds with the IRS blessing and the only FrivPens incurred are to suitors who have signed into the financial industry sponsored by the Federal Reserve's elastic currency. This makes perfect sense to me in hindsight.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I recently encountered a suitor preparing his 1040 Form for 2012 and planning for a full refund. His descriptions caused me to inquire when he began redeeming lawful money - May 1, 2013 - just recently. I informed him that he could not realistically try for a refund until filing for 2013 (in 2014) and even then only from May 1 onward.

I think that readers here might be able to ponder that and see why I am reacting to MOtL's attacks on my character.

Brian
05-30-13, 07:01 PM
David: Take a look at ORS 652.110 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/652.html

I'm curious your thoughts on that.....

David Merrill
05-30-13, 07:41 PM
David: Take a look at ORS 652.110 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/652.html

I'm curious your thoughts on that.....



PAYMENT AND COLLECTION OF WAGES GENERALLY



652.110 Method of paying employees; agreement on method of payment; revocation of agreement. (1) A person engaged in any business or enterprise of any kind in this state may not issue, in payment of or as evidence of indebtedness for wages due an employee, any order, check, memorandum or other instrument of indebtedness unless the instrument is negotiable and payable without discount in cash on demand at some bank or other established place of business in the county where the employee lives or works and where a sufficient amount of funds have been provided and are or will be available for the payment of the instrument when due. The person shall, upon presentation and demand, pay the instrument in lawful money of the United States.

(2) This section does not in any way limit or interfere with the right of any employee to accept from any person, as an evidence or acknowledgment of indebtedness for wages due the employee, a negotiable instrument, payable at some future date with interest.

(3) An employer and an employee may agree to authorize the employer to deposit without discount wages due the employee in the employee’s account in a financial institution, as defined in ORS 706.008, in this state.

(4) An employer and an employee may agree that the employer may pay wages through a direct deposit system, automated teller machine card, payroll card or other means of electronic transfer if the employee may:

(a) Make an initial withdrawal of the entire amount of net pay without cost to the employee; or

(b) Choose to use another means of payment of wages that involves no cost to the employee.

(5) An agreement described in subsection (4) of this section must be made in the language that the employer principally uses to communicate with the employee.

(6)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, to revoke an agreement described in subsection (4) of this section, an employee shall give the employer a written notice of revocation of the agreement. Unless the employer and employee agree otherwise, the agreement is revoked 30 days after the date the notice is received by the employer.

(b) To revoke an agreement described in subsection (4) of this section, an employee who works for an employer as a seasonal farmworker as defined in ORS 652.145 or an employee who is employed in packing, canning, freezing or drying any variety of agricultural crops shall give the employer notice of revocation of the agreement either orally or in writing. Unless the employer and the employee agree otherwise, the agreement is revoked 10 days after the date the notice is received by the employer. [Amended by 1975 c.191 §1; 1999 c.59 §191; 2007 c.546 §1]



I presume that your direct my interest to the term negotiable.

Our original non-endorsement demanded payment in non-negotiable Federal Reserve notes. Negotiable instruments must be redeemable in equal or better value. This by deduction leaves US notes the non-negotiable instrument in America. Therefore the suitor would demand US notes in the form of FRNs.

The law above stipulates that the instruments employers use to pay employees be of a set value and that the employee not be required to discount his pay when redeeming the instrument. From the employer's perspective I do not see this having any impact on the employee's demand for lawful money.

Brian
05-30-13, 08:23 PM
I presume that your direct my interest to the term negotiable.

Our original non-endorsement demanded payment in non-negotiable Federal Reserve notes. Negotiable instruments must be redeemable in equal or better value. This by deduction leaves US notes the non-negotiable instrument in America. Therefore the suitor would demand US notes in the form of FRNs.

The law above stipulates that the instruments employers use to pay employees be of a set value and that the employee not be required to discount his pay when redeeming the instrument. From the employer's perspective I do not see this having any impact on the employee's demand for lawful money.

I also found this part interesting "pay the instrument in lawful money of the United States." + the demand part. It seems as though the local law spells it out pretty clearly. Thanks!

David Merrill
05-30-13, 08:26 PM
The person (employer) shall, upon presentation and demand, pay the instrument in lawful money of the United States.


Stipulated the employee demands such.

Michael Joseph
05-30-13, 09:09 PM
ManOntheLand has become unrealistic. In reality people may be charged with a criminal penalty for Failure to File. If one redeems lawful money then it is only honest to claim so on the 1040 Form, under legal signature.



I feel compelled to react because I am not attacking Treefarmer, I am simply stating something revealed in the forums here. This kind of projection and illusion that remedy is ineffective is disturbing and disruptive.

The bottom line is that people are getting full refunds with the IRS blessing and the only FrivPens incurred are to suitors who have signed into the financial industry sponsored by the Federal Reserve's elastic currency. This makes perfect sense to me in hindsight.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I recently encountered a suitor preparing his 1040 Form for 2012 and planning for a full refund. His descriptions caused me to inquire when he began redeeming lawful money - May 1, 2013 - just recently. I informed him that he could not realistically try for a refund until filing for 2013 (in 2014) and even then only from May 1 onward.

I think that readers here might be able to ponder that and see why I am reacting to MOtL's attacks on my character.


I comprehend your position David Merrill. I am only saying the blessing is in the hand of the doer. The researcher and the hearer cannot receive the blessing. But one acting in any fashion must take full liability for himself. As such you will NEVER get a call from me saying this 12USC411 stuff did not work for me.

Rather, my response, if any, is going to be in analysis of what I may have done incorrectly - so I propound that one is bound by the laws of nature to look inward into his own heart.

Shalom brother,
MJ

Michael Joseph
05-30-13, 09:12 PM
Or a "numbskull" filing a 1040 with an LMR deduction. One can challenge jurisdiction but if they have your signature on a 1040--not so much.

I have given this a bit of thought. I only have this to offer. As a man I can agree to do certain things for another group of men. Now if I am in agreement to make a use of another's property - then clearly the other has jurisdiction regarding the matter. I made a use of their property. Society [the other] generally likes other folks to handle the nasty affairs [call them representatives]. Until the day I find my name on the money....it ain't mine.

David Merrill
05-30-13, 10:11 PM
Stipulated the employee demands such.


Thank you MJ!

I will add that endorsment is making a demand for private credit from the Fed.

Michael Joseph
05-31-13, 07:14 PM
Thank you MJ!

I will add that endorsment is making a demand for private credit from the Fed.

I like that. In a way endorsing something is an UNDERTAKING. So then since I agreed to Undertake as Trustee - I promised to do a thing. So then the one I promised has an equitable interest in said promise. Isn't the one I promised ENTITLED to receive the benefit of my Promise? So that means I now have a Legal Duty to perform. So then that would make the IRS beneficiary due to my UNDERTAKING and that would make me a Trustee. And the IRS is making a demand upon the trustee to show the books. That is called a Return.

And the trustee has promised to do a thing so then someone wrote something about Jurisdiction - well then the MOMENT one UNDERTAKES for another then Jurisdiction is formed in Trust. God cannot lie - therefore it is a crime against nature for man to lie. Man therefore is forced to keep his promises. And since the Promise is valuable it is a Court of Equity that shall hear the matter.

What came first, the Promise to Abraham or the Law to Moses? The Promise came long before the Law. The Promise is therefore GREATER than the Law. We see this in type - Throw out the bondwoman for Sarah represents the Heavenly Woman - New Jerusalem - she is free - in the Promise and not held under the law.

Therefore it is left to man to keep his promises or don't make them at all Therefore why would I UNDERSTAND and UNDERTAKE for a system that I do not COMPREHEND? Clearly MoTL has no idea about Jurisdiction - he gave it up when he endorsed the Trust called Federal Reserve System. The 1040 is nothing but a means for the beneficiary to understand the books.

I am beneficiary of a trust - from time to time I make the Trustee show me the books so that i can comprehend the nature of the manner in which the Trust Corpus is being settled. This is a special kind of Trust called a Beneficiary Directed Trust. Whereupon there may or may not exist the Office of the Director; in the absence of such an office, the power of direction devolves upon the Beneficiary[ies].


Perhaps some of you laughed when I wrote that the Federal Reserve has its own districts and cities (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ai6S37OmzaRXQ8lZFzrMHgGbvZx4?p=map+of+ the+federal+reserve+districts+and+cities&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-900)bounded in survey. Survey is KEY to claim - for there is no Property absent Survey.


So then since you promised in endorsement - the shirt, shoes, food, etc. are all surety for your promise. Hell, one's very existence can be said to be a result of the benefit and obligation received and owed to the FRS. But there is remedy....and it is clear - do not endorse the FRS. But, dear reader, only you can make that decision for you - so look in the mirror and decide - what will you do? Because dear reader I assure you, you created your own prison.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSzgOl73Mrs)


As you THINK so you are. My Mind is what chains us. If my mind serves my flesh then it is my flesh that is my master. This is the helpless fool.

choose to let this go.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQQlyJjBvcE)

Endless Possibilities.... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS7CZIJVxFY)

Shalom,
MJ

David Merrill
06-01-13, 01:36 PM
Therefore it is left to man to keep his promises or don't make them at all Therefore why would I UNDERSTAND and UNDERTAKE for a system that I do not COMPREHEND? Clearly MoTL has no idea about Jurisdiction - he gave it up when he endorsed the Trust called Federal Reserve System. The 1040 is nothing but a means for the beneficiary to understand the books.


MOtL described your point eloquently. That is why I was not spending any time reading his posts. Then he resorted to calling people numbskulls for being honest...

It might be interesting to examine what went down for yourselves. Look at his last posts and my responses. It was in my opinion, and according to my intuition a little more than no sense of jurisdiction, he had an agenda of protectionism for the IRS.

We project and perceive through our story as a lens or filter. I definitely project through the echo chambers and prominently my story is on this website. Mostly I sensed he was not listening to my reasoning because he arrived with other intentions.