PDA

View Full Version : IRS recognizes Redeeming Lawful Money - Yes!!!



David Merrill
12-14-12, 07:31 PM
I have been busy but when the second testimony came in this morning I just had to take time to share:



Crosstalk:


I am pleased to point out that two suitors (at least) among us have had full refunds paid to back taxes. This tells us two important things.


1) the IRS attorneys have pondered the validity of our fraud by omission accusation and assessed the risk
2) they are definitely recognizing the validity of redeeming lawful money!


From this posting:


Good Morning

An update to LM return. I received a letter from our friends. They used return money (from 2011 return sent in oct) to pay off money owed from 2007. Now after doing that they sent a release of Lien for 2007 to me and the county. Now here is the kicker. I have paid off 2005 back taxes over a year ago (before LM) and have yet to receive a release of lien of that year (they filed liens on every year). It maybe that they are under watch by TIGTA and I believe they are getting rid of the evidence (lien) as quickly as possible once paid with LM. My point is I have not seen them perform this quickly when using fed credit. They know if you don't account for it right you will be looking for another job.

Bless You and Thank You LORD for hearing my prayers and giving me Your divine guidance. I am in awe of Your Might. What I struggled and flailed with for so long is nothing more then a flick of Your Pinky. This is my testament to Your Greatness. All is done in Your Name. Amen.


Think about it now.

The IRS is using the refunds to pay off back taxes and release federal tax liens.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Treefarmer
12-16-12, 03:47 AM
While that is undoubtedly a joyous event for the poor taxpayer, it does not guarantee that the IRS will not be sending notices and bills for frivolous filing penalties some time down the road. It is simply too early to draw any conclusions yet.

I hope this will never happen, but I just cannot shake the nasty feeling that "redeeming lawful money" means nothing to the IRS.

Reading old statutes, court cases and laws does no good in figuring out anything about government anymore, because government is not based in public or constitutional law anymore, but in private Roman law (http://www.unidroit.org/english/members/main.htm), implemented by secret treaties and executive orders, and administered by unelected bureaucratic agencies (IRS, FDA, EPA, FBI, DEA, FTC, to name only a few) who rule by tyrannical decree.

Since we don't know when some private Roman law becomes ratified by each STATE of the US, and the old statutes and laws don't seem to get repealed, only superseded, we cannot know what the rules are which are being applied by "government" at any given time.
This makes it so we have to always hire CPAs, tax preparers and attorners just to get by in life, which is more than likely by design.

stoneFree
12-16-12, 04:43 AM
The IRS, the attorners, and many professionals would like you to believe redeeming lawful money means nothing. They are mostly silent on it. The attorney's response to my LoR made no mention of "private credit of the Fed" nor "lawful money." Fortunately, the actions of the IRS towards everyone who redeems lawful money shows it means a great deal. From my own experience and from watching numerous others, I've witnessed complete success when the IRS is presented evidence of REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY for the time period involved. And that goes for corporations (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?681-Company-beats-IRS-penalties-with-Lawful-Money) too. 100 percent success. I challenge you to find anything defined "frivolous" in IRS documentation about how we are redeeming lawful money.

This indicates we really do have 2 forms of money (FR money & public money), and unless shown evidence you're using the non-excise kind, the IRS assumes you're using their money, cartel money, and continues running the scam.

Sounds like their slur campaign has been somewhat successful with you, Treefarmer. Do not let the seeds of doubt take root. You have expressed some knowledge of the power of propaganda in history. Conditioning is strong but it can be overcome.

shikamaru
12-16-12, 12:51 PM
Something else to consider:

Government takes the money it receives and invests a portion.
Over time, government has significant assets over and above their operational budget.
Right now, your city, county, State, and federal governments have a cumulative trillions of dollars in assets.

You can get more information via Walter Burrien and each administrative unit's CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report).

David Merrill
12-16-12, 02:08 PM
While that is undoubtedly a joyous event for the poor taxpayer, it does not guarantee that the IRS will not be sending notices and bills for frivolous filing penalties some time down the road. It is simply too early to draw any conclusions yet.

I hope this will never happen, but I just cannot shake the nasty feeling that "redeeming lawful money" means nothing to the IRS.

Reading old statutes, court cases and laws does no good in figuring out anything about government anymore, because government is not based in public or constitutional law anymore, but in private Roman law (http://www.unidroit.org/english/members/main.htm), implemented by secret treaties and executive orders, and administered by unelected bureaucratic agencies (IRS, FDA, EPA, FBI, DEA, FTC, to name only a few) who rule by tyrannical decree.

Since we don't know when some private Roman law becomes ratified by each STATE of the US, and the old statutes and laws don't seem to get repealed, only superseded, we cannot know what the rules are which are being applied by "government" at any given time.
This makes it so we have to always hire CPAs, tax preparers and attorners just to get by in life, which is more than likely by design.

That the remedy is available and has been since 1913, being amended instead of abolished or repealed in 1933-34 is contrary to that sentiment. That the IRS processes a refund and applies it to past tax assessment is not a proof. The IRS can simply subtract that off the account later and rebill. But it shows an additional level of contemplation. Not only that but on the second suitor example the IRS released a lien.

David Merrill
12-16-12, 02:12 PM
Something else to consider:

Government takes the money it receives and invests a portion.
Over time, government has significant assets over and above their operational budget.
Right now, your city, county, State, and federal governments have a cumulative trillions of dollars in assets.

You can get more information via Walter Burrien and each administrative unit's CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report).

I have looked about and found the CAFR's online. No CAFR that I have looked at shows any sign that BURIEN's theories have any merit. What I am looking for is a link showing on a CAFR, that is not presented by BURIEN, that backs up this theory of immense wealth that is not liquidated?

Could you please show us that?

shikamaru
12-16-12, 05:55 PM
I have looked about and found the CAFR's online. No CAFR that I have looked at shows any sign that BURIEN's theories have any merit. What I am looking for is a link showing on a CAFR, that is not presented by BURIEN, that backs up this theory of immense wealth that is not liquidated?

Could you please show us that?

Burien looks at the forest or rather all the CAFRs of all the governments and agencies out here.

If we take the aggregate of the over 50,000 governments; bureaus; agencies; and others in composite, it is quite substantial.

Granted reviewing a CAFR will take some knowledge of accounting and maybe even forensic accounting.

David Merrill
12-16-12, 11:29 PM
I am just asking somebody to please find it and show us.

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/dfp/sco/cafr/cafr.htm

Treefarmer
12-17-12, 12:22 AM
The IRS, the attorners, and many professionals would like you to believe redeeming lawful money means nothing. They are mostly silent on it. The attorney's response to my LoR made no mention of "private credit of the Fed" nor "lawful money." Fortunately, the actions of the IRS towards everyone who redeems lawful money shows it means a great deal. From my own experience and from watching numerous others, I've witnessed complete success when the IRS is presented evidence of REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY for the time period involved. And that goes for corporations (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?681-Company-beats-IRS-penalties-with-Lawful-Money) too. 100 percent success. I challenge you to find anything defined "frivolous" in IRS documentation about how we are redeeming lawful money.

This indicates we really do have 2 forms of money (FR money & public money), and unless shown evidence you're using the non-excise kind, the IRS assumes you're using their money, cartel money, and continues running the scam.

Sounds like their slur campaign has been somewhat successful with you, Treefarmer. Do not let the seeds of doubt take root. You have expressed some knowledge of the power of propaganda in history. Conditioning is strong but it can be overcome.

Time will tell for sure.
Meanwhile, my gut feeling tells me that the IRS does not see LM in the same way that some folks here do.
My gut feeling has a great track record, so I'm going with :)

Treefarmer
12-17-12, 12:32 AM
While I have serious doubts about the "IRS recogniz[ing] Redeeming Lawful Money", I know what the IRS does NOT recognize:
The IRS does not recognize as "taxpayers" some people I've known who have never filed any paperwork with the IRS in their entire lives, who work only for lawful money, and who have bank accounts, credit cards, DLs, BCs, insurance policies, and SSNs, and one even has a mortgage.

David Merrill
12-17-12, 08:45 AM
I spoke with a suitor who said effectively, I think the IRS is looking for a template like the LoR that they can attack and make it look as though Redeeming Lawful Money is bogus.

Most certainly that was Wserra's - Wesley SERRA - objective on Quatloos recently. I think that is quite possibly an objective but Congress says differently. If you contract with the Congress-created jurisdiction of the Fed, it would seem things get arbitrary fast. However if you stay out in the original cognizance of the Judiciary Act (1789 'saving to suitors') we find that the Memorandums are resorting to a term in context of the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION to attempt slurring LM redemption.

So maybe your gut is sensing the IRS desire more than the IRS ability to slur remedy?

shikamaru
12-17-12, 10:36 PM
I am just asking somebody to please find it and show us.

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/dfp/sco/cafr/cafr.htm

Take a look at FY2011, page 6:

1000

That's 13,393.1 million or 13.3 BILLION dollars. That's just the remainder after the State of Colorado subtracts its assets from liabilities.

There are 50 States. How much in total assets do you think the 50 States have? We would be approaching a trillion dollars.

This doesn't even cover the counties, municipalities, districts, agencies, bureaus, federal, etc.
This doesn't cover the various funds that each of these governments have setup for pensions, insurance, institutional funds, etc.

Take the composite, the aggregate, the sum, of all of those and where do you think we'd wind up?

Perhaps this clears things up a bit?

shikamaru
12-18-12, 10:29 AM
Bump. Read my previous post again .....

That's 13 BILLION from taxpayer money ....

So, when government starts whining about their budget, you may want to go to the books to see exactly what's what.

David Merrill
12-18-12, 01:19 PM
While I have serious doubts about the "IRS recogniz Redeeming Lawful Money", I know what the IRS does NOT recognize:

The IRS does not recognize as "taxpayers" some people I've known who have never filed any paperwork with the IRS in their entire lives, who work only for lawful money, and who have bank accounts, credit cards, DLs, BCs, insurance policies, and SSNs, and one even has a mortgage.

I have amended some of this Crosstalk so as to keep this suitor's identity concealed. FIRST MIDDLE LAST is most commonly the trust company in most people's minds when they become aware that their parents named them First Middle. - Like with this Massachusetts Trust (http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7013/generalpublictrust.pdf).


I can only testify regarding my own affairs. My latest experience:


Ten checking accounts were closed on Monday this past week by way of Notice to Quit. Meaning the banking agreement says they can Quit for any cause.

So we paid the bank a visit to see if we could determine the reasoning for the Notice. It turns out that the bank had been doing some recent accounting of the books and it turns out that they were not very pleased to find out that their front line manager had not picked up on the fact that we had been making a DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411 regarding all instruments touching said accounts.

From what we gleaned from said Manager he and his staff were reamed and people lost their jobs. I BELIEVE that said bank was upon the practice of Fractional Reserve Lending touching instruments that were Redeemed. As such, said bank was in desperate need of balancing the counterfeit book entries.

So today we decided to walk in and with draw 9.5k because you know - WHY NOT, right? So as usual we made a demand for lawful money on the withdrawal ticket - to wit:



1. The teller upon RECOGNIZING said disclaimer launched herself from her seat and quickly moved to the banking managers office; and,

2. The banking manager, upon being awakened, [I jest] asked us to enter his office; and,

3. We had a discussion whereupon we informed him that we had informed his predecessor that we intend to remain without the Federal Reserve Districts and Cities and we do not use Federal Reserve Credit; and,

4. he informed us that we could not use that disclaimer; and,

5. not to be egotistical but I informed him that he was NOT going to give us legal advice as we did not ask for it and that he was going to accept our disclaimer as this was the business he chose and he was going to take the good with the bad and we were not going to be told by some banking manager how to sign a record; and,

6. he said that his bosses told him he was not to accept any withdrawal or check with that disclaimer to which I said, [I]Call Legal now.; and,

7. He called and put us on speaker phone; and,

8. Unbelievably we entered into a three-way conversation - usually legal will only speak to their client; and,

9. I asked if they were trying to FORCE account holders to execute a Record without legal capacity; and,

10. I asked if they were aware of Art I - Sec 10 and were they trying to make a policy that would impair the obligation of an existing contract?; and,

11. In deadpan voice, counsel said, Do it!; and,

12. We got a huge grin on our faces and said manager went and counted out the hundreds; and,

13 Afterwards, he invited us back into his office and said he was directed to ensure that the accounts closed; and,

14. It was obvious to everyone in the room that said manager had recently gotten his rear end chewed on extensively; and,



DON'T TELL ME that something IS a certain way. Maybe for you, but not for me. I have spoken to banking managers in the past five years and without exception they ALL know what I am up to. In fact, I have had some very interesting responses.

Regarding the IRS we have now had CONSISTENT returns of 100 percent even with with-holdings returned - even though we did not ask for them. We tried to GIFT the withholdings - but they were returned to us 100%. So today we went to another bank and opened up all new accounts - and the manager just smiled as we executed the Agreement in FULL DISCLAIMER.

I can remember the first time I walked up to a teller to cash a check drawn on that bank with the following disclaimers:

NAME OF TRUST COMPANY, by its Agent, Me, absent individual capacity, absent individual liability assumed, absent surety, absent accommodation, absent recourse, without prejudice, and principally and perpetually made subject to the terms of conditions of NAME OF TRUST COMPANY and demand is made for lawful money per 12U.S.C.411: signature

6 font text - you can get this on the back of a check within the allowed space - without problem.

I thought the red/blue lights would start flashing as my heart raced - no one was there to help me or to give me words in case things did not go my way - and to my great surprise the teller said - "What the heck is all of this?" To wit, I responded, perhaps you should speak to your manager. Upon her return she said "I learn something new everyday".

Egypt is a reed shaken in the wind - but the children of the King are free.

Hopefully, my report will encourage some of you. Trust in God. But Faith absent Deeds is dead. I in every event always prayed over the event prior to attempt - the victory was mine before I left my car. I walked it out as a WITNESS to the Glory of God.


This testimony is very revealing. Early on, so early that we were using the non-negotiable verbiage a suitor deposited a rubber paycheck. The bank called him when the funds would not go through the boss's bank. He went to the bank and they gave him back the instrument but the non-endorsement had been torn off the end of it. He described it over the phone so you see this example is a simulation for demonstration, not the actual torn check:


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/469/nonendorsementstamptorn.jpg

Together this suitor testimony reveals the nature of fractional lending and how it creates currency in circulation (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_Money.zip). This extra currency must be bonded, it has to be worth something for people to place any value in the (extra) currency, and since the extra currency looks just like the US (Treasurer and Secretary signatures) bonded currency that means we have inflation anyway...

In the Crosstalk testimony above, the bank was treating the non-endorsed demanded lawful money like it was endorsed and had to clean house rather than be sanctioned by the Reserve Board or OCC, maybe even prosecuted for counterfeiting. The funds that are non-endorsed need to be treated as special deposits or the accounts, after fractional lending will simply not balance out.

This is why many suitors have noticed after non-endorsing funds on a long-held account it will be revised to non-interest bearing without mention or notice. If the bank can have no benefit of fractional lending on the funds then there is no cause for the bank to be paying for that benefit as a State bank.

At the first glance it is a bad thing for people to have their bank accounts closed out. True. But you should sit back a bit and look what is really happening. The bank, ignoring putting the funds into special deposits had cost jobs and risked criminal prosecution. Therefore closing the bank accounts fit under their Quit for No Reason clause on the signature cards.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Treefarmer;


I am sure that the vast majority of readers here wish they had never filed a W-4 or 1040 Form. However how many people regret being employed?

stoneFree
12-18-12, 08:45 PM
* DING *
No more calls; we have a winner!

Brian
12-18-12, 08:57 PM
* DING *
No more calls; we have a winner!

No more calls from the Dragon?

Michael Joseph
12-19-12, 02:52 AM
I am sure that the vast majority of readers here wish they had never filed a W-4 or 1040 Form. However how many people regret being employed?


Exactly! I like to think of my Service in Employment or otherwise as sharing of my gift for the Public benefit. Therefore wages issue also to sustain me so that I can continue to be a blessing to the Public. this is Corporation Sole in a sense. I am working in my Ministry on behalf of the Public at Large. I must work as I am required in Duty to God and I work to sustain this temple and to promote the Word of God in effort to glory God in this Earth both within - my body, and without the Planet. Is not the Heavens my Thoughts and the Earth my flesh? For Yehovah Elohim FORMED man from the dust [Adamah] of the Earth.

The Mayor for the City of Name is also a Corporation Sole with specific Ministry to the Public. The Bishop of the Church of Rome is a Corporation Sole with its Ministry the Public. Therefore the Preamble to the Constitution creating a more perfect Union - is a Ministerial Trust - provide for the general Welfare.

Therefore, putting my ego on the shelf and removing the saying my wages, my income - is not the circulation of notes issued to a Public Name. Of course it is. And if the Usufructuary is holding both the Legal and the Equitable titles in Name then my interest is IN the USUFRUCT claiming for the benefit of the Public and not for my private gain.

However, i am of the mindset that even money may not be necessary if one is upon his Priestly office of Corporation Sole a member of the Church of Christ providing services in Ministry to promote the Public Good.

Great no more Enemy of the State. I come in peace - therefore I will not play the game. For if I do the ONLY office available is Trustee. Trustee to Trustee provides for an even playing field in Commercial Affairs. Therefore if Trustee/Trustee then UCC law can control in Commerce.

Shalom,
MJ

David Merrill
12-19-12, 07:36 AM
Priesthood without priestcraft. Melchizedek prior to the Golden Calf that created the Levite.

samgans
12-23-12, 10:43 PM
I have amended some of this Crosstalk so as to keep this suitor's identity concealed. FIRST MIDDLE LAST is most commonly the trust company in most people's minds when they become aware that their parents named them First Middle. - Like with this Massachusetts Trust (http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7013/generalpublictrust.pdf).




This testimony is very revealing. Early on, so early that we were using the non-negotiable verbiage a suitor deposited a rubber paycheck. The bank called him when the funds would not go through the boss's bank. He went to the bank and they gave him back the instrument but the non-endorsement had been torn off the end of it. He described it over the phone so you see this example is a simulation for demonstration, not the actual torn check:


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/469/nonendorsementstamptorn.jpg

Together this suitor testimony reveals the nature of fractional lending and how it creates currency in circulation (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_Money.zip). This extra currency must be bonded, it has to be worth something for people to place any value in the (extra) currency, and since the extra currency looks just like the US (Treasurer and Secretary signatures) bonded currency that means we have inflation anyway...

In the Crosstalk testimony above, the bank was treating the non-endorsed demanded lawful money like it was endorsed and had to clean house rather than be sanctioned by the Reserve Board or OCC, maybe even prosecuted for counterfeiting. The funds that are non-endorsed need to be treated as special deposits or the accounts, after fractional lending will simply not balance out.

This is why many suitors have noticed after non-endorsing funds on a long-held account it will be revised to non-interest bearing without mention or notice. If the bank can have no benefit of fractional lending on the funds then there is no cause for the bank to be paying for that benefit as a State bank.

At the first glance it is a bad thing for people to have their bank accounts closed out. True. But you should sit back a bit and look what is really happening. The bank, ignoring putting the funds into special deposits had cost jobs and risked criminal prosecution. Therefore closing the bank accounts fit under their Quit for No Reason clause on the signature cards.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Treefarmer;


I am sure that the vast majority of readers here wish they had never filed a W-4 or 1040 Form. However how many people regret being employed?


I have been writing on all deposit slips and checks redemption for lawful money for almost half a year now, I recently started working for a company and didn't want to raise red flags so i signed w4 form. so I'm not sure how to fill out a 1040 (i sent out a letter to bank stating all deposits for credit or exchanged for lawful money etc, notarized and return reciept, and i have a copy of the letter) i wanted to file for full refund for all tax taken out of paycheck

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 09:39 AM
I spoke with a suitor who said effectively, I think the IRS is looking for a template like the LoR that they can attack and make it look as though Redeeming Lawful Money is bogus.

Most certainly that was Wserra's - Wesley SERRA - objective on Quatloos recently. I think that is quite possibly an objective but Congress says differently. If you contract with the Congress-created jurisdiction of the Fed, it would seem things get arbitrary fast. However if you stay out in the original cognizance of the Judiciary Act (1789 'saving to suitors') we find that the Memorandums are resorting to a term in context of the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION to attempt slurring LM redemption.

So maybe your gut is sensing the IRS desire more than the IRS ability to slur remedy?

David, please pardon this very long post. But the following has got to be said and heard before anybody else files a return claiming a deduction for lawful money or encourages others to do so. This is a WARNING.

I speak from experience. I have successfully avoided all income tax for 12 years. At first I did not file at all for 4 years in a row (this is when I had my own business and no W-2 reporting). Ultimately I filed zero returns for those years, and those filings were never challenged. For a few years after that I received W-2's and then filed a return Cracking the Code (CTC) style to claim a 100% refund, and actually got the refunds for a couple of years. Very exciting!!

But I saw the writing on the wall with CTC 3 years ago and started claiming exempt on W-4 so I would not NEED to claim a refund (except for FICA). After 3 years of being hammered with frivolous penalties and harassment due to the CTC returns I filed, I have come full circle and I am back to not filing a return at all (this is not to say I ignore the evidence being sent to IRS by third parties, as this is unwise.)

But if I must have a debate with IRS, I would rather it be about that information return and whether I am required to file (a discussion I can have from outside their jurisdiction) than to be in a position of begging them to give me my money back and filing a "taxpayer" return that argues that I am not actually a "taxpayer", regardless of how great the argument seems to be.

Or worse--having to argue with them about "frivolous return" penalties. You cannot win a debate with them if they decide your return is frivolous. It is a total nightmare. And no one will help you. Not the taxpayer advocate, not the due process appeals officer, not the Tax Court, probably not even a District Court or Appeals Court. They are all in on it. People I tell about this act like they don't believe me, like I am exaggerating. It is no joke. A "Frivolous return" penalty is a "scarlet letter". They will never tell you what it was that was "frivolous" about your return. If they could just kill you for filing such a return, they would. To them a frivolous return filer is a contagion that could infect the minds of the other cattle.

Don't be fooled that you have found a "magic bullet" with the lawful money redemption. You cannot possibly win any argument as a "taxpayer" unless they allow you to win. By filing a return you agree to play by their "rules" (there actually are none, if they find the rules are too inconvenient--its completely arbitrary). What hope does making an argument for your "remedy" ultimately have in such an environment? Filing a return with any argument on it is like asking for their approval. When they decide they no longer approve, watch out! This is what happened with Cracking the Code returns. It will happen with "lawful money" returns as well.

People have got to be careful about relying on remedy exclusively to extract themselves from the income tax system. I learned this lesson with CTC the hard way. IRS does not like to lose customers. Don't think IRS will not fight as hard as it can for survival. It has survived this long by bamboozling the public and terrorizing individuals. IRS will use bamboozling the public and terrorizing individuals to defeat remedy if it can, no matter how bulletproof you think remedy is.

Public perception is everything. The remedy has been there since 1913, yet people did not know it, so it has done them no good. IRS has had no reason to attack remedy, because so few people knew about it, its better (even at this point) to keep it quiet. If enough people do start to learn about this and use it, it will soon no longer be possible for IRS to sit quietly. If IRS survival is threatened, you can bet the IRS will attack remedy.

Do you really think they care that remedy is legitimate? So is your right to due process, and they trample on that every day. They know (and you should know) that even if people know about remedy, but they don't believe it or they are conditioned that it could land them in prison, or get them harassed by IRS, remedy will be useless.

I am gravely concerned about people getting too excited about filing "lawful money" returns. All it will take to slur remedy publicly is for one person to go to prison for filing "false documents" with the IRS (as Pete Hendrickson was convicted of), and for that person's filing to make anything close to an argument about "redeeming lawful money" along with a good media campaign by IRS to spread the word about the "remedy freaks".

I am not fear-mongering. But don't underestimate the adversary. Don't underestimate the lengths they will go to, no matter how long it takes them! It took them 8 years to bring Hendrickson down, but they had no choice once they were seeing tens of thousands of people (and growing every year) exiting their system for good with CTC!

As Hendrickson found out, a "false documents" charge does not require that any money be owed (they never claimed he owed any, in fact he got 100% refunds for the documents he went to prison for!! Almost 6 years afterward, they charged him with felonies) They also never contested any of his legal arguments on his returns, because they didn't have to! Pete failed to realize that the judge instructs the jury on the law, and that Pete would not be allowed to discuss the law to the jury. A defendant's only realistic defense in a tax case is to convince the jury he had a "sincere belief" he was not breaking the law, but a couple of frivolous return letters is all it will take to show that somebody was put on notice they were "breaking the law" so they "should have known".

Of course, if somebody can't successfully articulate remedy to the average folks on the jury, (or if the jury is rigged, or just impatient, or angry that he isn't paying his "fair share") the defendant is going to be up a creek! And even people who have been acquitted for tax crimes (based on whatever sincerely held belief they have) have been forced to abandon their "wrong" belief afterward (since the Court finds they have broken the law, and the acquittal was based only on the lack of "willfulness", the acquitted defendant can no longer claim he does not "know" he is violating the law if he persists in not filing the way the IRS prefers).

Let's say they don't want lawful money actually discussed in a trial. No problem! Faced with criminal charges, most people will abandon their position and agree to pay whatever IRS demands in back taxes, penalties and interest. When the public sees a "remedy" tax filer having to pay big bucks (by their own agreement, to avoid a trial) after making the remedy argument, IRS can and will discredit remedy without having to even risk a public trial.

But what has really caused the downfall of CTC (and will no doubt be used to destroy remedy) is the relentless $5,000 penalties issued out to thousands of CTC filers. IRS has gotten totally lawless with the 6702 penalties--I have friends who got $5,000 more added to their penalties every time they simply wrote a letter back in response to IRS bills. My friends know that is messed up, but they are no less terrified and they are not exactly referring CTC to anybody like they used to. And that's the whole point. IRS has to stop the spread of the idea. Terror works. Have you seen the lost horizons website lately? Every week Pete is bitching that nobody sends him scans of refund checks anymore.

This is my concern for remedy. Not that it is wrong, but that IRS will try to discredit it sooner or later. If remedy catches on, they will find the lamest person they can to pick on, someone using some convoluted version of remedy, so they are sure to get a conviction (or even an acquittal may serve IRS purposes, since they can still discredit remedy as an argument). But mostly, they will use the frivolous penalty to hammer people who file returns that way into submission (or at least shutting up about it, or advertising it as a recipe for trouble).

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 09:39 AM
The Achilles heel of any alternate method of filing a return is that you are filing a return. Once the system is targeting your style of return, they can claim the return you filed is frivolous and false etc. and the party is over.

The solution is simple: stop playing by their rules (i.e. don't file a return until it is explained to your satisfaction why it is required), don't rely on a single argument for not filing, go on the attack so that its not just about defending yourself from not filing, and MOST IMPORTANT have at least one argument that a third grader can understand and will grasp on a common sense level.

"Everybody has to pay their fair share" appeals to a very superficial level of common sense, which is why it won't go away. This is what you are up against. A good counter-argument on about the same grade level is: "Who says I have to?" and "Show me what I am required to do and/or why I am required to do it, and I will do it!!" Pretty powerful. That alone has won some tax acquittals, and it may ensure you are never in court to begin with. Think they can or will ever prove you are required to file, or why? They would rather put up with you not filing and leave everybody wondering.

To make remedy useful for tax purposes, and protect against the inevitable IRS assault on remedy, people will be much safer questioning whether they are required to file at all than to send in documents claiming a deduction for lawful money that a dumbed down jury won't understand ("My turbo tax didn't have that deduction!") and which can easily be used against the filer for frivolous penalties or criminal charges. Again, they do not care one bit if your argument is actually on their list of "frivolous positions". Your return will be frivolous because they said so! Don't think for a second that any of your great arguments about why your position is not frivolous will make a bit of difference. I know remedy seems to be "working" right now just fine, and some people are getting refunds. So did CTC filers for 8 or 9 years. Things will change fast if remedy catches on. Let's get real. Pete Hendrickson still insists that the refunds people have gotten from CTC filings "prove" he is 100% correct. His federal felony conviction indicates that at least his method left something to be desired.

You need more than one argument: You can't count on one "silver bullet" with a beast like IRS, especially one they can paint as a "crazy conspiracy theory" (no offense). You need all the silver bullets you can get your hands on! CTC has a lot of truth to it--its just the method of implementing it that ultimately failed. The same arguments behind a CTC filing could be used as an argument for why you do not have to file at all, in addition to the fact that you are redeeming FRN's for lawful money. What's wrong with having a spare argument (as long as its solid)?

I got sick of being hammered with frivolous return penalties two years ago, so instead of a CTC style return, now I send in a statement to rebut any information returns, based on the duress used against me to force me to furnish a SSN, and to sign a W-4. I did not elect to contribute to FICA and I did not elect to have my payments treated as "wages". I worked in the private sector.

Even a third grader can understand its not ok to force people to sign an agreement. The real beauty of the above statements is that they are FACTUAL. I either consented to give a SSN and sign a W-4 or I did not. What I am claiming the employer did to me is so obviously wrong legally as to be almost self-evident. Other than "did this really happen?" there is no debate!! Unless you want to argue that it is somehow okay that my employer coerced me! This puts you in the position of arguing that my signature actually was not even required on the W-4. Then why was I forced to sign it? And if my SSN was required to work there, why did they not demand that number BEFORE they hired me?


I make it clear that I am not a U.S. citizen or resident, and that I did not have any income effectively connected to a trade or business AND (thanks to you David!) that I am redeeming lawful money. These are technically legal arguments, but depend so much on facts within my personal knowledge that they are virtually impossible to contest. You want to tell me I actually am a U.S. Citizen? You want to say I did work in a trade or business within the U.S.? Or that I did not redeem for lawful money? Without being able to contest these, no tax nexus can be established.

Go on the attack: I like the idea of filing something in the USDC from the get go instead of dealing with IRS clowns. I hope a good reliable method in that vein can be worked out. But as long as you are going on the offense, demand that IRS update their records to remove the false information they have received (e.g. the W-2) , unless they can rebut your dispute statement within a reasonable time. If they don't do that, and especially if they start claiming I need to file, I have laid the grounds for a lawsuit that anybody can understand--my right to demand that incorrect information about me be corrected (unless they can prove its true, which they cannot). And all my other claims are built into it already--clues to how their scam works---things they do not want talked about in any court EVER. Think they will give me my refund and leave me alone then?

The IRS still controls the Courts and they still control the media (don't be fooled by the recent "scandal"-- nothing will change over there). You don't want a close game against the IRS in the court of public opinion, you have to beat them by 8 touchdowns. You have to show them that you could make your case that you are so OBVIOUSLY right that even third graders know you are right. And people have to see that there is a SAFE way to implement what you are talking about here on this forum. Otherwise its just sophistry.

They have built their scam with layers of fraud. So the solution should also be multi-layered. Let's not hang our hats totally on lawful money. You already know you are right. They know you are right. But the remedy will be safer in the long run if its integrated with other topics they wish to avoid and can't label a "frivolous argument", such as factual claims about coercion and duress.

David Merrill
05-23-13, 04:04 PM
Five or six suitors are CtC victims (Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code). A couple now have their current full refunds absorbed by past tax liabilities. This is a good verification that redeeming lawful money functions as it is described by law.

I have never promoted Redeeming Lawful Money as a silver bullet.

The problem with your approach (and I only glance at the approach, because if the foundation is faulty that renders the remainder of the post immaterial) is that most people have to have a job, to be employed. Therefore the employer will send W-4 Withholdings or 1099 Reports to the IRS. The IRS makes sure this is done.

Therefore the employee is out about the same amount that would be due if he were to file, and may incur a criminal complaint for failure to file if he or she does not file a Return. In the instances of a self-employed individual he will file, even without any Withholdings due back to avoid presumption of a liability based on the 1099 Reports from clients (employers). Of course if you can get by prosperously without this paper train that is wonderful.

Three suitors have been attacked by $5K Frivolous Filing Penalties (FrivPens) after redeeming lawful money. The first is an international banker in a global (huge) bank working in "International Settlements" and keeps an unused "Tax Preparer License" to improve his resume. He got mixed up with Ed RIVERA's school and began trying to educate the clerk of court in the Clerk Instruction (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6976/clerkinstructionformal.pdf) about various patriot mythology. I felt this was "entrapment" of sorts; to come off to the IRS as a dimwit and making himself a target.

In his banking/social circles he overheard an associate's sister, an IRS attorney saying, "There is a group of people in Colorado who do not have to pay Income Tax. They are doing it right." He drifted over and inquired but she became nervous and clammed up. So he immediately figured out this was reference to suitors and contacted me.

The other two are highly paid financial advisors. So there must be (I work on intuition and deduction as intelligence nexus in the brain trust) a career nexus implied or express about that field. In gaining the benefit of the financial advisory industry I can understand how it is presumed one honors the private credit game inside the scope of the Federal Reserve and other central banks.

You go ahead and refine your WARNING but please examine your premise and put it at the beginning of your posts. I am not defending Redeeming Lawful Money so much as reporting findings of fact. I sanitize the examples for privacy of the suitors and for the quality of this website. Connecting real people over the Internet to their actual names and addresses, phone numbers etc. feels like crap. It violates a trust in cyberspace and emotionally people jockey their mouses elsewhere.

There are many, many reports of this working and working permanently than I bother to report by Crosstalk here. - From the other day:



Speaking of refund - file up yet another year of a full refund [withholdings from both State and Fed]. We received the State refund Friday. I, use the royal We, meaning my Wife and I. We form One in Union - where there was once fear it has been replaced with knowledge. We are about the business of teaching our children.

Elevation for those who can receive it: Yehoshuah [Jesus] did not ride one animal into Jerusalem - he rode TWO. Furthermore, the Magi did not come to the manger, they came to the House - he was almost two years old. Gifts fit for a King.

Excellency, I come in the Name of the King. There, now you have standing!



I find the highlighted sentence very enlightening. Before the supreme Lawgiver this couple is productive and industrious. They create issue. That issue (children) again creates issue (generations). They are [I]productive and honor true balances. The IRS is subject to law and honors their place without the scope of the Income Tax.


This is quite fascinating to me,


David Merrill.

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 06:00 PM
[QUOTE=David Merrill;10745]Five or six suitors are CtC victims (Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code). A couple now have their current full refunds absorbed by past tax liabilities. This is a good verification that redeeming lawful money functions as it is described by law.

I have no doubt that redeeming lawful money should function as described by law. My doubt lies in the presumption that IRS has any respect for any law but the law of necessity for its own survival. On that basis, I predict diminishing returns (no pun intended) as more people employ this method of obtaining refunds, as happened with CTC.

Much ado is being made about the speed of delivery of these refunds but this is probably a function of an IRS clerk not knowing what else to do with the claim and just sending it on. Such a return does have the advantage over CTC filings of not claiming the income was zero (zero income on a return gets IRS very upset). But do you seriously think an IRS clerk has any idea what a lawful money filer is talking about? Such rapidly honored claims do not appear to be scrutinized at all by IRS. Yet.

Furthermore, the IRS computers will not recognize this deduction people are taking, and eventually these returns will automatically get flagged for an audit. And when the audit comes, these filers will learn the hard way about the other nexuses of taxation they ignored while they were hanging their hat entirely on lawful money redemption. It is flawed application of the knowledge that will lead to the opportunity for IRS to discredit the lawful money redemption remedy, as happened with CTC.

I have never promoted Redeeming Lawful Money as a silver bullet.

People who look to you for guidance are filing for 100% refunds based only on LM deduction and being told of others doing the same. What do you expect they are going to do with that information? They are using it as a silver bullet. This is the danger. These people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in abandoning all things CTC and the very important aspect of the non-resident alien status (for tax purposes) of Americans. And totally ignoring the fact that there are multiple nexuses of taxation in effect. See Lawful Tax Avoidance by Richard DiMare.

The problem with your approach (and I only glance at the approach, because if the foundation is faulty that renders the remainder of the post immaterial) is that most people have to have a job, to be employed. Therefore the employer will send W-4 Withholdings or 1099 Reports to the IRS. The IRS makes sure this is done.

Yes they do have to have a job. And based on undue influence and economic duress, they sign agreements they would never sign of their own free will. Should we ignore this gigantic legal flaw in the tax system? Yes the IRS does intimidate employers into coercing their employees into the system. This is the easiest WRONG thing about the system to identify. Why ignore that?

My approach is very centered around those info returns and the need to dispute them with SSA and IRS due to duress and fraud, because of the independent nexuses of taxation those info returns represent. I have successfully gotten IRS and state tax agencies (after a couple of go-arounds) to beg off by simply disputing info returns. They don't give up easy, but if they can't get anywhere with you after a couple of letters asking why you didn't file, and pretending you did not dispute the info returns, all they are left with is to pretend you did not respond to them. Pretty flimsy and easy to counter--especially if one uses an evidence repository at the USDC (or merely warns IRS they are in the process of doing so).

Understandably people do not want to rock the boat at their job, but you are not required to agree with false third party reporting either. This area seems to me to be a serious gap in the understanding of the brain trust on this forum. People love the fantasy of the quick easy solution where you don't have to confront anybody and you get to be "nice" the whole way through. But I think it is very naive to believe you can just file your return a certain way and escape the tax system. Do you really think it is this easy? Who do you think you are dealing with? This was Hendrickson's problem--he recognized corruption only to a point. He actually expected to get a fair shake in the Courts. They are not going to just stand around and let you ruin their scam. Not without a fight. Sorry to burst anybody's bubble. Right now LM is not a serious threat. It has not warranted a memo to all personnel quite yet. But don't think it won't.

Therefore the employee is out about the same amount that would be due if he were to file, and may incur a criminal complaint for failure to file if he or she does not file a Return. In the instances of a self-employed individual he will file, even without any Withholdings due back to avoid presumption of a liability based on the 1099 Reports from clients (employers). Of course if you can get by prosperously without this paper train that is wonderful.

The employee should be claiming exempt on the W-4 to minimize withholding. After all, if you expect to get a 100% refund anyway, why are you NOT claiming exempt? You might want to note the duress with a TDC by your signature, because the employer has no lawful right to force you into a voluntary withholding agreement (per IRC 3402). The proper form is actually a W-8BEN. Maybe they won't accept it, but you should at least try.

As described in my approach, a properly made dispute of info returns (not with Forms 4852 attached to a return as CTC filers do) will eliminate the presumption one is required to file. If you are concerned about criminal complaints, you should pay close attention to how Hendrickson got snowed on felony charges for filing false documents. This is far worse than a misdemeanor for failing to file. And since most people will not ever be prosecuted, a more realistic concern is the audit and frivolous return penalty. All avoidable by establishing that you are not required to file in the first place. No one filing a LM return seems to understand non-resident alien status either. A 1040 with your signature establishes that you are a "U.S. Individual". i.e. a federal peon. Another unfortunate gap in the understanding of this brain trust.

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 06:02 PM
Three suitors have been attacked by $5K Frivolous Filing Penalties (FrivPens) after redeeming lawful money. The first is an international banker in a global (huge) bank working in "International Settlements" and keeps an unused "Tax Preparer License" to improve his resume. He got mixed up with Ed RIVERA's school and began trying to educate the clerk of court in the Clerk Instruction (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6976/clerkinstructionformal.pdf) about various patriot mythology. I felt this was "entrapment" of sorts; to come off to the IRS as a dimwit and making himself a target.

In his banking/social circles he overheard an associate's sister, an IRS attorney saying, "There is a group of people in Colorado who do not have to pay Income Tax. They are doing it right." He drifted over and inquired but she became nervous and clammed up. So he immediately figured out this was reference to suitors and contacted me.

Perhaps by "doing it right" it is meant merely that they have chosen not to harass such filers (for now) out of practical concerns (not wanting to expose the FRN nexus) until they are ready with their plan to discredit the argument in the mind of the public (should it spread to a point where that becomes necessary). Let's not assume there are no errors in ignoring other nexuses of taxation. How exactly do you suppose redeeming lawful money legally trumps other nexuses of taxation, like (presumed) federally privileged employment or participating in FICA?

The other two are highly paid financial advisors. So there must be (I work on intuition and deduction as intelligence nexus in the brain trust) a career nexus implied or express about that field. In gaining the benefit of the financial advisory industry I can understand how it is presumed one honors the private credit game inside the scope of the Federal Reserve and other central banks.

You go ahead and refine your WARNING but please examine your premise and put it at the beginning of your posts. I am not defending Redeeming Lawful Money so much as reporting findings of fact. I sanitize the examples for privacy of the suitors and for the quality of this website. Connecting real people over the Internet to their actual names and addresses, phone numbers etc. feels like crap. It violates a trust in cyberspace and emotionally people jockey their mouses elsewhere.

There are many, many reports of this working and working permanently than I bother to report by Crosstalk here. - From the other day:





I find the highlighted sentence very enlightening. Before the supreme Lawgiver this couple is productive and industrious. They create issue. That issue (children) again creates issue (generations). They are [I]productive and honor true balances. The IRS is subject to law and honors their place without the scope of the Income Tax.


This is quite fascinating to me,


David Merrill.[/QUOTE]

I love your idealism. I am studying ACIM myself. But IRS stands for Individuals Representing Satan. Th evil goes all the way up the chain. They know the Courts will back them up. I had a Tax Court case recently. You should have seen how cocksure of herself the IRS attorney (my opponent) was. She knew she could not lose no matter what. I am dealing with the Tax Court judge right now who on the record ordered the clerk to reject and not file my Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and then proceeded to conduct a trial in my absence. I re-submitted the Motion to Dismiss, which the judge treated as a Motion to Vacate. The judge then vacated all his orders and decision at trial, only to re-issue the same exact orders and decision four days later, adding a $1000 fine because of unspecified "frivolous arguments". I am moving to vacate those orders, expecting a denial. Then I will find out if the Appellate Court is as corrupt as this judge is. BTW he is a brand new appointment to the bench.

JohnnyCash
05-23-13, 07:36 PM
Just a note to quickly say ... I read Cracking the Code back in 2008, filed a near-zero-income return for that year and received a full refund and then stopped filing. Fortunately I then discovered David Merrill and moved outside the scope of the Federal Reserve. 2013 marks my sixth year as a NONTAXPAYER with no issues. Yes, the IRS recognizes lawful money! God bless you David!

Interesting to note the many posts from the disinfo agents here. I sense desperation yet wonderful to see. This tells me we are having an effect. I note that Jay's blog no longer boasts "Creator of the anti-scam website Quatloos.com"...

Current: http://blogs.forbes.com/jayadkisson
2012: http://jesse2012.com//Forbes2012.JPG

Brian
05-23-13, 07:42 PM
MOTL: Did I understand what you said correctly? You filed a tax court case and then motioned to dismiss it?

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 10:09 PM
I ended up Moving to Dismiss just before trial when I realized I had unknowingly entered a jurisdiction where incorrect presumptions were being made by virtue of my mere presence in the forum. Since I was the Petitioner, it seems I would have every right to voice this mistake of law and withdraw my Petition. I was all ready to litigate the case but in pre-trial conference, the IRS attorney made it clear she would not be required to meet the burden of proof that I was a "person" as defined in IRC 6671(b) which is the operative definition for a 6702 penalty and a factual predicate to the offense (that I was under a duty to file the returns in question). I was under the impression when I petitioned the Court (based upon federal case law) that IRC 6703 required the Secretary to meet the burden of proof for all factual predicates as to whether I was liable for a frivolous penalty. This was clearly not going to be the case--and the IRS attorney in her arrogance could not help but tip her hand to me that the fix was in, in every way. For some reason the judge thought it was very important to keep my Motion out of the record so he could pretend to have jurisdiction without meeting any of my challenges to that jurisdiction. He then denied my Motion previously filed for judgment on the pleadings, as IRS never alleged sufficient facts to support a finding that I was liable for a 6702 penalty. It was the form of a legal process with none of the substance. Total kangaroo court.

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 10:30 PM
Just a note to quickly say ... I read Cracking the Code back in 2008, filed a near-zero-income return for that year and received a full refund and then stopped filing. Fortunately I then discovered David Merrill and moved outside the scope of the Federal Reserve. 2013 marks my sixth year as a NONTAXPAYER with no issues. Yes, the IRS recognizes lawful money! God bless you David!

Interesting to note the many posts from the disinfo agents here. I sense desperation yet wonderful to see. This tells me we are having an effect. I note that Jay's blog no longer boasts "Creator of the anti-scam website Quatloos.com"...

Current: http://blogs.forbes.com/jayadkisson
2012: http://jesse2012.com//Forbes2012.JPG

Not sure if you are referring to me as a disinfo agent, J.C. but I am all in favor of claiming redemption in lawful money. I agree with your approach of not filing. That is my main point for those who are filing a return and taking a "lawful money deduction": lawful money redemption could be used just as much to justify not filing at all (provided you adequately rebut information returns) and you would be safer than signing a return and putting yourself at Auntie's mercy any time they feel like coming after you. Congrats on your 6 years of success with this. Remember that CTC had a good run of 8 or 9 years, before too many people were doing it and IRS went on the attack. I have successfully avoided income tax for 12 years, three of those with a CTC type approach. I too have stopped filing. I have had very little trouble since then and some good success for a couple of years just deflecting any of their efforts to get me to file. Probably in the long run it would be best to be proactive and ask them to correct info returns filed against me in their records. I am guessing this is more important if a larger amount of "income" is being reported on those forms.

Millions of people don't file and do not have any particular method or justification. They can't go after everybody obviously. Not being harassed is great, but does not prove anything in itself. IRS is like a glacier: very slow moving, but once it is upon you, can cause a lot of damage. Expect the best but plan for the worst, that's all I am saying. What would you do if you were suddenly arrested tomorrow and charged with tax evasion? How would you defend yourself? This is probably really unlikely to happen, but to me its about being prepared. "The art of war teaches us not to rely upon the enemy not coming, but instead to rely on our readiness to receive him".

ManOntheLand
05-23-13, 10:51 PM
According to Mr. Merrill, three suitors have been attacked for frivolous penalties (that we know of). This just illlustrates that, right or wrong, you are actually at Auntie's mercy the whole time not to attack you this way when you choose to file a return (again, my point is only that LMR and not filing is safer than using LMR as a "position" on your tax return.)

I understand why, as a practical matter, IRS may choose not to mess with LMR filers (for now) But I still do not understand legally how LRM can trump the other presumed nexuses of taxation created by 1099 forms and W-2 as these have nothing to do with what you did with your payment once you got it. The activity you were being paid for is presumed taxable when those forms are used. This leaves a gaping vulnerability for people who file this way, and expect LMR to act as a silver bullet.

Brian
05-24-13, 01:03 AM
I ended up Moving to Dismiss just before trial when I realized I had unknowingly entered a jurisdiction where incorrect presumptions were being made by virtue of my mere presence in the forum. Since I was the Petitioner, it seems I would have every right to voice this mistake of law and withdraw my Petition. I was all ready to litigate the case but in pre-trial conference, the IRS attorney made it clear she would not be required to meet the burden of proof that I was a "person" as defined in IRC 6671(b) which is the operative definition for a 6702 penalty and a factual predicate to the offense (that I was under a duty to file the returns in question). I was under the impression when I petitioned the Court (based upon federal case law) that IRC 6703 required the Secretary to meet the burden of proof for all factual predicates as to whether I was liable for a frivolous penalty. This was clearly not going to be the case--and the IRS attorney in her arrogance could not help but tip her hand to me that the fix was in, in every way. For some reason the judge thought it was very important to keep my Motion out of the record so he could pretend to have jurisdiction without meeting any of my challenges to that jurisdiction. He then denied my Motion previously filed for judgment on the pleadings, as IRS never alleged sufficient facts to support a finding that I was liable for a 6702 penalty. It was the form of a legal process with none of the substance. Total kangaroo court.

Ok, I get that. The problem with lawful money of the U.S. is it is fire! They may find ways to intimidate and coerce as always but this remedy is correct in my view. I don't think they will want to discuss this topic in court. Oh and as far as attacking folks attempting remedy, it is bound to happen as most agents only know what the IRM says. Your material probably has to be pitched to someone (a lawyer) who has a clue. Most people are just flat ignorant of this distinction between different types of "money".

JohnnyCash
05-24-13, 01:04 AM
I redeem lawful money. The IRS has never attacked me. You are fearful MOTL, you project fear. Perhaps that is why Wes nicknamed you Pamsfear.

ManOntheLand
05-24-13, 08:58 AM
Ok, I get that. The problem with lawful money of the U.S. is it is fire! They may find ways to intimidate and coerce as always but this remedy is correct in my view. I don't think they will want to discuss this topic in court. Oh and as far as attacking folks attempting remedy, it is bound to happen as most agents only know what the IRM says. Your material probably has to be pitched to someone (a lawyer) who has a clue. Most people are just flat ignorant of this distinction between different types of "money".

I think the LMR remedy is correct as well, Brian. Some people on this forum seem to have gotten me all wrong on that point. The extent of how rigged and corrupt the system is should not be underestimated, however. I have seen it up close. I think I see a way to handle IRS that might make everybody happy.

Granted if IRS seems to be okay with what you are doing, you would seem to be in good shape. But we know the possibility for unlawful harassment will always be there. So get them to tell you if they are going to have a problem with your LMR remedy BEFORE you file anything.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that LMR is ALL you need to do to exempt yourself from income tax and that disputing information returns sent to IRS a la CTC is therefore unnecessary. I would love it if this turns out to be the case, BTW! I am just not convinced yet.

There is a good way to find out if IRS will honor your LMR remedy WITHOUT filing a return and risking frivolous return penalties or "false document" felony charges:

Let IRS know in a statement (not a tax return) that you redeemed all deposits for LM, include your copies etc. and that it is your understanding that this exempts you from income tax. Invite them to rebut this position if they disagree. Then ASK for a determination of whether you are required to file!! Tell them if they do not respond within 30 days or whatever, you will assume they agree you are exempt from all tax and are NOT required to file. Perhaps they will even send you a letter stating you are not required to file!!! A refund of withholding should then be issued automatically!! If not, you can make a claim for refund and attach their letter stating you are not required to file. You may separately request a refund of FICA withholding on Form 843 if you believe you are entitled to that.

If they do not reply within 30 days to your inquiry about exemption/filing requirement, you can default them and make an informal claim for a refund of all withholding, attaching a copy of your previous correspondence to show you are relying on their tacit agreement with your position.

Even better, you can now safely claim exempt on W-4, and you won't have to wait for a refund next year (except FICA).

Why is this way better than just filing a 1040 and taking a LMR deduction? Because you are not submitting anything that "purports to be a return" under IRC 6702 frivolous penalty provisions. If they still end up trying to hang a frivolous penalty on you later (or if you insist on filing a return to claim your refund and they claim it is frivolous) you will have a reasonable cause for abatement of the penalty on Form 843, since all you did was rely on their agreement/tacit agreement that this was okay for you to do!!

David Merrill
05-24-13, 10:41 AM
Hi Johnny! It is always good to have you around!

I made a point about revealing private details and since you brought up Quatloos - that is really where I learned all about that. For months I would look at their Tax Protester forum and find O Members and 1 Guest - Me! Wesley SERRA (http://www.iromlaw.com/Bio/WesleySerra.asp) - WSERRA - shot that place down with his attack on Redeeming Lawful Money.

ManOnTheLand;


I hear where you are coming from and note that you are spending quite a bit of verbiage trying to convince me that the IRS is corrupt. If you are right then this is all of no use because the System has grown arbitrary, capricious and lawless. Why bother learning about law when you are better off to learn how to obey or how to destroy and rebel? I like to think that is what I would be teaching - that I am smart enough to teach that instead of how to waste energy by creating heat!

This is why I am not reading your posts very carefully. And why I have asked you to state your premise at the very beginning so that I can gist at a quick glance. I will try to spend more time reading though.

I did try to get the essence across to you in terms of the torroid/heart math. I emphasized the suitor's comment in red above. The IRS as well as every conscious being is law-abiding. This particular suitor by learning the Word (trust law) has perfected Jesus' (Yehoshuah) redemption model and undergirded that by amplifying the Word through his children. The fruit is a 35% pay raise as only the beginning...

Goldi
05-25-13, 09:56 PM
This YouTube came out in 2009. Oregon Representative Hanna from the Oregon House Floor noting to all that the OR State CAFR showed "Billions" (4.9 total) available over what all were being told of 500 million. Watch the reaction from the other Representatives, an: Oh, crap moment, "He broke the silence is golden rule". Mr. Hanna holds in his hand a copy of the cover page of the OR State CAFR and not the whole report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VakELD_6Qk&list=PL120C35610F719BCD&index=4

Goldi
05-25-13, 10:12 PM
"I either consented to give a SSN and sign a W-4 or I did not. What I am claiming the employer did to me is so obviously wrong legally as to be almost self-evident. Other than "did this really happen?" there is no debate!! Unless you want to argue that it is somehow okay that my employer coerced me!"

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

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

ManOntheLand
05-25-13, 10:44 PM
Agreed Goldi! If it will not jeopardize one's job, it is a good idea to recognize the right to terminate withholding under 26 CFR 3402 (who is this provision intended for if we are supposed to believe everybody is subject to this tax?) and submit a written notice to the employer that you relieve them of the requirement to withhold, and indemnify them against liability.

Even if the employer refuses to stop withholding, and you do not want to push it, you have made your record and can use this as evidence if ever needed that all of this is against your will. It is a good extra layer of long term insurance against IRS harassment.

Even if you were liable for a tax, IRS has zero right to receive your money in advance of a liability being determined. Tax withholding is effectively an interest free loan you are making to them until April 15 the next year! The purpose of withholding is not only to encourage taxpayer compliance (people getting a fat refund can't file a return fast enough) but to control inflation as well. Congress conducted hearings in the early 40's to investigate income tax withholding at the source as "an inflation control measure". It is also useful mind control for the money to already be gone when you get paid--so you never think of that portion of your check as being"your" money in the first place. As Chris Rock once said, "You get your paycheck, the money's already gone. That's not a tax, that's a JACK!"

David Merrill
05-26-13, 10:26 PM
If it will not jeopardize one's job...


Speaking from experience, one can start with the employer 100% behind standing up to the IRS and then completely turn.

Goldi
08-08-13, 07:12 PM
Speaking from experience, one can start with the employer 100% behind standing up to the IRS and then completely turn.

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

David Merrill
08-08-13, 11:44 PM
Great. Thank you.

John Howard
08-29-13, 02:21 AM
How's this for a W-4?

1274

David Merrill
08-29-13, 10:04 AM
Yes! Making this fun (or Chinese?) is the spice of life.

EZrhythm
08-30-13, 03:15 AM
How's this for a W-4?

1274

Thumbs up! Like it!

JohnnyCash
01-05-14, 11:15 PM
I'm sure we've brought this up before; but another way the IRS recognizes redeeming lawful money is ... its glaring omission from the Frivolous Position list:
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-17_IRB/ar13.html

I just saw more (http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#FAQ) confirmation of this in the form of an IRS letter. Here the IRS responds to a request for abatement of a frivolous penalty: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/sFrivLimitNotice.JPG
http://losthorizons.com/Documents/sFrivLimitNotice.JPG

The civil penalty is only for frivolous positions and demanding lawful money isn't one of them. It is proper to not consider lawful money "income" under the Revenue Acts, and to take a Form 1040 line 21 Lawful Money deduction.

BTW, I've just entered my 7th year as a successful NON-taxpayer.

Anthony Joseph
01-05-14, 11:35 PM
greetings Susie,

is claiming "exempt", by way of demanding and redeeming lawful money [see Title 12 U.S.C. ยง411 as your law in this regard], a frivolous position?

by: Signature

David Merrill
01-06-14, 03:14 AM
Was that the 843 Form (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f843.pdf)?

JohnnyCash
01-06-14, 05:12 AM
I don't know.

Darkmagus
10-26-15, 08:34 PM
While I have serious doubts about the "IRS recogniz[ing] Redeeming Lawful Money", I know what the IRS does NOT recognize:
The IRS does not recognize as "taxpayers" some people I've known who have never filed any paperwork with the IRS in their entire lives, who work only for lawful money, and who have bank accounts, credit cards, DLs, BCs, insurance policies, and SSNs, and one even has a mortgage.

I'm surprised that no one has asked..."and how is that possible?"

walter
10-26-15, 10:14 PM
I'm surprised that no one has asked..."and how is that possible?"


I am one of those people.

Didn't file ever and never get contacted even when I created a subdivision that I had to rezone by going to government meeting etc.
My two friends that were involved with we did what an accountant told them to do and they both are getting screwed. One still owes 20K and the other the CRA has been holding 50K of his for years and has to go to court to get it.
The CRA has tried to milk info about me from them because the CRA thinks I am imaginary.
Even when they have my full legal NAME they still don't contact me.
And I never redeemed lawful money because I never filled.
Its simple...NO CONTRACT

David Merrill
10-27-15, 07:35 AM
I have heard if you finally get to look at your IRS file, all that is in it is what you put there.

So it may be realistic, the perception that you actually testify against yourself as your own collection agent.

walter
10-28-15, 02:45 AM
I have heard if you finally get to look at your IRS file, all that is in it is what you put there.

So it may be realistic, the perception that you actually testify against yourself as your own collection agent.

What else can there be?

EZrhythm
10-29-15, 01:11 AM
The power of rescission has no bounds!

allodial
10-29-15, 02:24 AM
I have heard if you finally get to look at your IRS file, all that is in it is what you put there.

So it may be realistic, the perception that you actually testify against yourself as your own collection agent.

Per the principles of "evidence law", attorneys are not allowed to generate, create or fabricate evidence, they are 'evidence police' (perhaps that is why the use of crack addict informants (https://archive.org/details/YourGuideToProtectingYourselfAgainstSnitchesInform ersInformants)came to be more prominent--attorneys can't generate evidence but they can pay someone to lie). BTW, it is possible to put in a document: "Authority to use any information contained in this document against me is not granted." Even being read 'Miranda rights' constitutes attempt at formation of contract to allow them to use evidence against you. I'm all for lawfulness and civility but the truth is, the legal professions and law enforcement professions have gotten dirty in the past decade.

Since attorneys are not allowed to fabricate evidence, they must use investigators to do that. Peace officers can double up as investigators. Remember: peaces officer and notaries can administer oaths.

Re: the IRS
The folks at the IRS tend to be rather reasonable. They do their jobs and work with what you give them. I wouldn't count them as enemies. But I wouldn't suggest handing anyone rope to hang you with.


So it may be realistic, the perception that you actually testify against yourself as your own collection agent.

For the perplexed, there is a song...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc5iTNVEOAg

...it doesn't have to be that way, does it? Its ok to make honest returns. But "my own enemy" mindset is when you hate the IRS and not realize you might be the IRS.

walter
10-29-15, 03:53 PM
not realize you might be the IRS.

the first acronym after all is "INTERNAL" , lol
right in your face.

Freeman
12-29-15, 05:47 AM
I have amended some of this Crosstalk so as to keep this suitor's identity concealed. FIRST MIDDLE LAST is most commonly the trust company in most people's minds when they become aware that their parents named them First Middle. - Like with this Massachusetts Trust (http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7013/generalpublictrust.pdf).




This testimony is very revealing. Early on, so early that we were using the non-negotiable verbiage a suitor deposited a rubber paycheck. The bank called him when the funds would not go through the boss's bank. He went to the bank and they gave him back the instrument but the non-endorsement had been torn off the end of it. He described it over the phone so you see this example is a simulation for demonstration, not the actual torn check:


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/469/nonendorsementstamptorn.jpg

Together this suitor testimony reveals the nature of fractional lending and how it creates currency in circulation (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_Money.zip). This extra currency must be bonded, it has to be worth something for people to place any value in the (extra) currency, and since the extra currency looks just like the US (Treasurer and Secretary signatures) bonded currency that means we have inflation anyway...

In the Crosstalk testimony above, the bank was treating the non-endorsed demanded lawful money like it was endorsed and had to clean house rather than be sanctioned by the Reserve Board or OCC, maybe even prosecuted for counterfeiting. The funds that are non-endorsed need to be treated as special deposits or the accounts, after fractional lending will simply not balance out.

This is why many suitors have noticed after non-endorsing funds on a long-held account it will be revised to non-interest bearing without mention or notice. If the bank can have no benefit of fractional lending on the funds then there is no cause for the bank to be paying for that benefit as a State bank.

At the first glance it is a bad thing for people to have their bank accounts closed out. True. But you should sit back a bit and look what is really happening. The bank, ignoring putting the funds into special deposits had cost jobs and risked criminal prosecution. Therefore closing the bank accounts fit under their Quit for No Reason clause on the signature cards.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Treefarmer;


I am sure that the vast majority of readers here wish they had never filed a W-4 or 1040 Form. However how many people regret being employed?


Hey all, I have messaged some of you in private, but wanted to say, I've been on this chat forum for LITERALLY days, and it's like opening pandora a box. I love every second of it, thanks for the knowledge hope to speak to some of you soon.