Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 174

Thread: Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?

  1. #11
    That might be better brought to light by people who have read the CtC book.

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

  2. #12
    stoneFree
    Guest
    Well it's a genuine question I have for you and/or the suitors. It's something that Pete's book does not address so I'll take it to a new thread:
    http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...deral-Register

  3. #13
    In my opinion, for those that accept that the various income taxes are actually excises levied on the activity of banking within the Federal Reserve System:

    Pete's book doesn't provide much, if anything at all, that is useful because:
    If you bank within the FRS, then Title 26 applies to you. Pete's book is not going to help you.

    If you do not bank within the FRS, then Title 26 does not apply to you. Again, Pete's book is not going to help you.
    I have read Pete's book from cover to cover. I was almost convinced, but there were just a few things that didn't sit well with me - prosecution and conviction of Pete.

    His methods just do not work. And now I know why.
    Last edited by Rock Anthony; 07-05-11 at 09:45 PM.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Taxd2death View Post
    Agreed.. I am one of them.. 5k penalty for the whole deal..Even though I don't really disagree with the premise of my money belonging to me. I do realize that it is because of me that they are taking it, keeping it, and holding it for some sort of ransom until I completely cave. They have the upper hand. It is going to be a daunting task for most of us to recover from the CTC way of doing things..Sorry about that. I am eternally grateful to Mr. Hendrickson for at least opening my eyes to there being something wrong. But, it didn't work. And so now I and many others like me are led here. The only positive to that is at least there is a glimmer of hope that we can start from here and right the ship before we completely sink it.. Thanks everyone. And though some may not agree. I have learned a great deal from Mr. Merrill and Jesse James. I hate that there is such conflict with everyone. We are all trying to get to the same end. I hope..
    Fraud vitiates all contracts and you are being held to an obligation made under fraud. It really does take redeeming lawful money to understand redeeming lawful money.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Fraud vitiates all contracts and you are being held to an obligation made under fraud. It really does take redeeming lawful money to understand redeeming lawful money.
    Of course, the question is how to A) get them to see/admit that it's fraud, and B) provide appropriate remedy for such fraud?
    Simply redeeming lawful money going forward is only part of it. How does one then say "Hey IRS, I found Lawful Money - thanks for the fraud by omission, [give back previous returns / cancel your unlawful levy / whatever your desired result is]" ?

  6. #16

    Lightbulb

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

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

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

  7. #17
    Well,
    I, too, was convinced that Mr. Hendrickson had stumbled onto something. Not being one that is good at bouncing from regulation to regulation, positive law to non positive law, and statute to statute, I did my best and thought I understood. At one time I also thought that Mr. Schiff had something too. But, two people who opened my eyes to there being a problem are in jail. That's really all that matters. All the other stuff is just commentary. Really doesn't matter now how right they might have been. Just matters that apparently they weren't right enough. I am sad for them and hope that all ends well. But, I am now going to try to escape the same fate.

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

  8. #18
    http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2...partycontr.jpgThe law reads, They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

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

    Simply redeeming lawful money going forward is only part of it. How does one then say "Hey IRS, I found Lawful Money - thanks for the fraud by omission, [give back previous returns / cancel your unlawful levy / whatever your desired result is]" ?
    I would not try getting back refunds of past withholdings. However publishing a Notice and Demand, through a Libel of Review or otherwise gets the fraud by omission on the record. We master a process in Record-Forming called Refusal for Cause and as these bills come in a copy of the R4C process goes into the federal courthouse in the 'exclusive original cognizance' of the US Government and becomes available on the record from the US clerk of court. You become the court of record. The IRS starts being tried by the facts.

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

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



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-03-12 at 11:07 AM.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    If you think that the objective is to get them to admit to fraud though, you really need to redeem lawful money. You are not getting it at all. Just do the redemption of lawful money and let that work on your thinking. Redeeming lawful money does not mean that you have to file for a complete refund of withholdings, it simply means that you can.
    Thanks, David. Yes, I definitely realize I am having trouble with all of this. That Libel of Review was especially headache-inducing since it was just a collection of scans, and no real direction. Of course, I'm not expecting anyone to completely hold hands, but at least knowing what we're looking at would be helpful.

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

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
    In my opinion, for those that accept that the various income taxes are actually excises levied on the activity of banking within the Federal Reserve System:

    Pete's book doesn't provide much, if anything at all, that is useful because:
    If you bank within the FRS, then Title 26 applies to you. Pete's book is not going to help you.

    If you do not bank within the FRS, then Title 26 does not apply to you. Again, Pete's book is not going to help you.
    I have read Pete's book from cover to cover. I was almost convinced, but there were just a few things that didn't sit well with me - prosecution and conviction of Pete.

    His methods just do not work. And now I know why.
    I would definitely appreciate some feedback regarding my past (and current) experience with CtC - particularly since finding this amazing site! For the past 3 years I have filed a 'CtC-educated' return - owning a business (medical practice), I have rebutted any 1099-misc that was reported. I have not had any problems with the "Service" - they have even sent a refund of monies that were withheld because I refused to submit a W-9 to one particular company. I didn't even ask for any type of refund. For the past three years, the total of 1099's submitted has usually been below $6K. With the present law now requiring 1099-K's (from credit merchant companies), the Service is now going to receive "false-evidence" of a much larger amount of "income" (since many patients pay with credit card). Of course, if I follow my past filing strategy, I would simply rebut these 1099-K's. However, the 'Service' is now going to see a much larger amount of "income" relative to my past three years of filing, and I have some concern about this. I wonder if they have left me alone because the past 1099-misc amount has been so low, or have they actually followed the law in my case (which is quite possible due to the high profile nature of CtC returns)? Since recently learning the information from David and this great site, I am now demanding lawful money and I will file a notice with the USDC (as was suggested in another thread)! Does anyone have any OPINIONS (not legal advice!) as to how how they might proceed if confronted with similar circumstances as April 17 approaches? Is there a way to "protect" myself if I file as I have been (given this new found lawful money knowledge)? My other thought is to file a "standard" return, pay the extortion (ugh!), and move forward from this point armed with my demand for lawful money. I really can't stand the thought of feeding the corrupt, immoral gravy train a single penny though! Any insight would definitely be welcomed and appreciated. Thanks, Hugh.
    Last edited by Gregory Harold; 04-03-12 at 04:22 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •