Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: IRS recognizes Redeeming Lawful Money - Yes!!!

  1. #21
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    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.
    Last edited by ManOntheLand; 05-23-13 at 09:52 AM.

  2. #22
    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 about various patriot mythology. [I should sanitize an example some day.] 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 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.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-23-13 at 04:07 PM.

  3. #23
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    [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.

  4. #24
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    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 about various patriot mythology. [I should sanitize an example some day.] 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 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.

  5. #25
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    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
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 05-23-13 at 07:40 PM.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    MOTL: Did I understand what you said correctly? You filed a tax court case and then motioned to dismiss it?

  7. #27
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    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.
    Last edited by ManOntheLand; 05-23-13 at 10:33 PM.

  8. #28
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    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".

  9. #29
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by ManOntheLand View Post
    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".
    Last edited by Brian; 05-24-13 at 01:07 AM.

Posting Permissions

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