Originally Posted by
David Merrill
This is why I do not espouse these methods as a silver bullet. They are quite dependable but it would seem that the suitor has to have a certain degree of metaphysical prowess. We like to sling: Remedy is between your ears.
For whatever reason you insist on slicing a snapshot or some kind of single-dimensional perception of what is going on here. I do not control the behavior of others. I simply guide them in the basics of being in authority (court of record) over the record. This is why I keep getting this feeling that you are a shill slurring remedy rather than genuinely here to learn and improve your conditions. If you trust me any more than I trust you maybe you could sanitize up a bill and PM an image?
Another possibility is that you believe there are merits to Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code. So I will explain once again how as intelligence nexus for a group of very intelligent people one suitor involved with the Lost Horizons doctrine had Pete over for a visit. During this time I visited the suitor in his office and he disclosed something about Pete that I do not believe he discloses to any of the CtC adherents.
Pete HENDRICKSON depends solely on The Right to be Heard. The Signature Line on the 1040 is signed under penalty of perjury. So it is very convenient for all these 1040 Forms in America to presume the Taxpayer is indeed telling the truth. Therefore the Refund Checks are issued out of electronic machinery and people post their Refund on Lost Horizons and then the 1099 or W-4 comes in from the Client/employer and the IRS runs an assessment on that sworn testimony and then recants on the Refund. When the Taxpayer tries to withdraw the image of the Refund from Lost Horizons they are summarily banished and have no voice to warn others.
Yes I am aware Pete has done this. He also bans people from his forum who have the nerve to think critically about his approach and methods. He has left lots of people in the lurch. Nobody understands the flaws of CTC better than I. If you find me to be a pain in the ass on this forum it is not because I espouse CTC or any other doctrine or that I am trying to slur yours--I just want to know how much I can rely on this stuff to work in the real world. Pete thinks everybody should just keep beating their head against the wall with his method even though it obviously doesn't work. I am encouraged by the comparatively scientific approach here.
I appreciate that you have not espoused these methods as a silver bullet. I have high hopes for what remedy can accomplish. I ask pointed questions only so that I can understand the likely limitations.
So,if they do not "unfile" or remove the Federal tax lien, what is the suitor supposed to do then?
The suitor will continue to have the NOFTL. Refusal for Cause properly done through the Libel of Review evidence repository and including a formal Notice and Demand will likely keep any enforcement actions like levy and lien from being executed against the billing. There are noticibly sparse injuries after a proper evidence repository is established.
That thread seems to be focused on 1040 filings. I am interested in how they react to the Libel of Review in the event one is already dealing with a notice of lien or levy and trying to get it withdrawn or "unfiled".
There is very little "reaction" to the Libel of Review (LoR) because it is dismissed. There is however very little repeated billing.
Has any suitor tried filing for a Form 843 abatement of amounts that are the subject of a notice of lien or levy, informing IRS in the abatement request that they are redeeming lawful money and/or that they filed a Libel of Review?
Here it helps to understand the concept of presentments - affidavit and rebuttal. Just recently a suitor got a $5K FrivPen with $.53 accrued interest and ten days to pay up. - The three-page letter urging he call for more information. Well he utilized the 843 Form for late September in the amount of some $13K.
Just trying to understand clearly--was he asking for an abatement of $13K in tax he had previously self-assessed? Or is the $13k from something else?
It is a big hassle considering the IRS agent is being paid to create these presentments. To a skilled eye though, the new presentment is obviously unrelated to the R4C and 843 Form.
An 843 is not one of the specified frivolous submissions IRS can penalize under 6702. IRS would be blatantly misapplying the Code in that case. More likely they are penalizing a return he filed.
Therefore the process in the evidence repository worked fine! It is easy to think that the presentments should have ended there but the IRS agent can offer up contracts all day long and is being paid to do so. A R4C would probably work real nifty but I suggest the 843 Form too with the R4C process since that is what it is for. [The agent is compelled to see the Form and therefore the R4C has a built-in Proof of Service in addition to the Registered Mail and PACER services.] Since the suitor redeems lawful money there is no assumption of jurisdiction, like you have argued about filling and signing their forms.
I may seem inconsistent on that point, but my logic is this--I am not worried about any jurisidictional issues with submitting an 843 to try to abate a frivolous penalty, because if they are sending me bills for frivolous penalties, they already think I am in their jurisdiction for that tax year (and in fact I unknowingly reinforced that perception by filing a 1040 form, even though I was just trying to claim a 100% refund). I don't think filing a 1040 actually puts a suitor in their jurisdiction, but I think I will try to avoid confusing them and giving them an opportunity to harass me with more frivolous penalties. If they have some kind of targeted people list I am definitely on it. So that's where I am coming from on the use of "their" forms. If I can avoid having any more frivolous return penalties imposed , I can avoid having to file an 843 in the future as well.
I am getting ready to try an abatement of frivolous penalties on Form 843 (which does not have "U.S. Individual" in its title by the way, as the 1040 does). I will let you know how it goes. I am redeeming lawful money now, always would have if I had known about it, and will mention that. But even before I learned about LMR I was refusing their presentments for cause, and I have a mountain of correspondence prior to that which they never replied to in good faith. They are required under IRM to make a quality response to inquiries, but they never have. Before they imposed penalties, they had sent me a letter demanding that I correct my purported "frivolous return" but gave me no guidance on what was wrong so that I could correct it. I wrote back to ask, but they just responded by imposing the penalty. The imposition of the penalty was therefore arbitrary and capricious. So I think in any case I have a good argument for abatement based on violation of administrative due process. I really would have corrected the return if they had just told me what was wrong with it. But they would have to reveal how the whole thing works in order to do that, wouldn't they?
I am filling out a response because you insist on pressing around here. - This time in red font even. If you want to show me an image of a bill - what was it? $80K? Then upon confirmation you are not just here to undermine remedy for everybody else I will likely take an interest in your implementation of remedy. Maybe even let you into the brain trust and then you can actually report here your progress on the forums?
Thank you. I will find the notice of lien and PM it to you.
I should warn you in advance that there are skeptics watching this website who are either IRS agents or are in contact with IRS agents so do not disclose anything on the forums unless you want that additional burden - to be a target for an example.
Yeah, I kinda know what that's like already.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply With Quote