Need some advice on procedure

[AllanNR]

I'll try to make this short.
I have been signing all my "tax" documents "without prejudice" for several years now.
I did that on some W9 forms which I believe are the ones companies give you when you are freelancing your services to them. Roughly 2 months ago an agent of you know who hand delivered a letter to my address basically stating that I had roughly 3 weeks to answer them for "deliquent taxes" for a year that doesn't correlate with any of the time that I worked freelance. I promptly wrote back with a certified and notarized letter stating my points about having made a reservation of my rights against compelled performance and asking them to produce documentation that gave them cause to proceed against me. I also gave them 30 days to respond to my dishonor of their presentment. 30 days go by and nothing, then I get this huge packet in the mail from a regional office identified as "office audit" and roughly the next day I get an envelope from the local office without any sort of letterhead or name of who sent it, just a photocopied section 601 of their code. Any thoughts?

[David Merrill]

Welcome!

If you have been signing endorsement on the backs of your paychecks (maybe by Signature Card too) then you are in contract. I doubt "Without Prejudice" has any application.

If you can explain how and why it would, then maybe it does. If it is just something you heard works though, I doubt it.

[AllanNR]

well now It seems to me that is signing with "restriction" as I have read in your posts here. As far as I understand we have an unlimited right to contract under the constitution. How do you define endorsement with restriction?

also let me elaborate that from what I have read "without prejudice" has been deemed sufficient by the courts to "deny compelled performance under any contract which you have entered into unknowingly, unwittingly and without full disclosure."

[David Merrill]

well now It seems to me that is signing with "restriction" as I have read in your posts here. As far as I understand we have an unlimited right to contract under the constitution. How do you define endorsement with restriction?

also let me elaborate that from what I have read "without prejudice" has been deemed sufficient by the courts to "deny compelled performance under any contract which you have entered into unknowingly, unwittingly and without full disclosure."

Banks and the Fed consider a blatant demand for lawful money restricted endorsement. Those words are in your post...


Maybe you can try explaining exactly what you have been writing on your checks and forms?

[AllanNR]

I thought I did that in my elaboration.....
so let me ask this, how can i make a "blatant demand for lawful money" and have it be retroactive to what they deem is taxable income?

[David Merrill]

In theory - fraud by omission.

If I had known in good faith that I could have been redeeming lawful money, I would have done so since my first paycheck ever.

Fraud vitiates all contracts.

[AllanNR]

thanks David, I guess it ties back to the "without full disclosure" clause in all commercial contracts.

[David Merrill]

Become a court of competent jurisdiction yourself, by learning effective Record-Forming. Build a record of the facts and hopefully you can put the accusation together in an environment of parameters for the metaphysics of law to take you through to remedy.

Some of the suitors are getting this accusation together in an effective way.

One suitor came out of the 1099-OID Form mess. He was hit with $20K but the Taxpayer Advocate was saying it was doubled. In setting him up, he became aware Congress allowed for the $5K/frivolous count, but there was no provision for arbitrarily doubling the fines. He became aware also that things people say over the phone are different than things on paper. The $20K dissappeared because it never was.

Things like that.

[allodial]

Even if you have been signing W-9s or 1099s this way or that, if you have have been signing checks 'in blank' then that is likely why they are coming after you. More than likely you did do anything to safeguard yourself against liabilities particular to the driver license that you provided when you cashed the check. Likely a social security number is associated with the driver license. Likely a birth certificate is associated with the driver license. No doubt, the IRS is fully aware of the link between the DL and the SS#.

Point being, you're better off figuring out who or what you are and finding a way to resolve the tax liability to the IRS.

thanks David, I guess it ties back to the "without full disclosure" clause in all commercial contracts.

Consider this maxim which I have muchly adhered to:

When in doubt, do not act.

It is likely that they provide lots and lots of disclosure (see photo). Whether you have been too busy to pour over the terms and conditions is something that they might not care much about. Likely, they presume that you know every single letter and word and phrase.




Plenty of disclosure. Just not much on Redbox, Netflix or the TV.

When you doubt, do not act.
It is a fault to meddle with what does not belong to or does not concern you.
Many men know many things, no one knows everything.
One is not present unless he understands.
It avails little to know what ought to be done, if you do not know how it is to be done.
He who questions well, learns well.
What ever is done in excess is prohibited by law.
No one is bound to give information about things he is ignorant of, but every one is bound to know that which he gives information about.
No man is bound to have foreknowledge of a Divine or a future event.
No one is bound to arm his adversary.

[David Merrill]

The Tao of Law?