Recovery from Pete's Cracking the Code

[David Merrill]

This document package tells quite a story if you are willing to take some time examining it. I suggest you open it in a separate window and I will guide you through by Page #.

This particular Libel of Review (LoR) has two different expressions of default judgment. They are identical in wording. The suitor couple first published default judgment at the county clerk and recorder, or in this Eastern example, the Register of Deeds (RoD). They published it timely (after the 21 days on the summons) but I did not make it clear that they had to file the Return of Service (proof of service) into the USDC so that was delayed a few weeks. Fortunately it came up in conversation before the six month deadline. So they filed it, but it was a bit later than typical, but in time for the rule of the court. However, just after the six month deadline the federal judge issued an order (Page 14) to show cause why the cause should not be dismissed because the plaintiffs had not filed a Return of Service with the court. This was Refused for Cause (R4C) with some corrective explanation on the R4C itself (Page 15).

When the Wife published the initial default judgment at the RoD as is typical, the Judgment did not have any USDC markings on it yet. There was an attorney who overheard the conversation and offered his wrinkley nose advice to index the judgment as a Notice, not a judgment; Pages 4-7. This never sat right with the suitor couple. So at the time of the above R4C on the judge's order to show cause Wife prepared the second default judgment, Page 1 and after a few weeks contemplation it arrived in the mail, a properly FILED foreign judgment in the USDC. Now you see, it is ready to be published at the RoD and this time properly indexed as a Judgment.

Pages 8-9 reflect something not very detailed in the document package. Detailing all the wonderful things and getting that size of a package sanitized is just too much to try conveying. So I grabbed one of the nasty Frivolous Filing warning letters, not even the correct years to convey the flavor. The suitor couple were hit for two years each, for a total of $20K in frivolous filing fines for the two years they were subscribing to Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code zero income technique. This suitor couple were what we call "researchers" for a while while learning within the suitors' brain trust but it was not until they were facing the $20K bill that they decided it was time to get to work and file the Libel of Review.

The last ten pages are R4C to two different IRS campuses. They happened at the same time though and were filed into the evidence repository together. First we find how the suitor couple does not in fact owe any money at all to the IRS, much less the $20K frivolous filing fee.

Second we find that the IRS is re-processing the initial Libel of Review. ?€“ Which of course articulated the accusation of fraud by omission; If we had known we could be redeeming lawful money instead of endorsing private credit from the Fed we would have done so since our first paychecks ever!