Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?

[JHV]

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.

[Taxd2death]

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.

[David Merrill]

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

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.

[Sabo]

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.

[Gregory Harold]

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.

[JohnnyCash]

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.

By 'CtC-educated' return I take it you mean zero-income return? What type of entity is filing these 'educated' returns, individual (proprietor), Partnership, S-Corp, Corporation? Generally, companies paying you and reporting on 1099s do not withhold federal tax. How are you rebutting your 1099s?

[Gregory Harold]

A mostly zero-income return. Interest is included. They are filed as a sole-proprietor. The 1099's are rebutted in a manner similar to what is explained in CtC (the 1099's are 'corrected' to reflect zero income due to the fact that neither party engaged in the "a trade or business". This is recorded on the form as a signed statement. Also, my understanding is that if a w-9 is not signed, a company may withhold a certain percentage of what they would pay out. I believe it actually states that on the form's instructions.

[JHV]

"By doubting we are led to questioning, and by questioning we are led to the truth."

Where is the statute that comes right out and says in terms my eighth-grade edumacated freinds can understand that redeeming lawful money allows one to escape taxation?

[JohnnyCash]

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6888/1099k1.jpg

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9056/1099k2.jpg

What you believe may not be what happens in the real world. That is a recent Form 1099K and no taxes were withheld. This is a new Form started TY2011 and that's the first 1099K I've seen. It seems the banking cartel didn't rest easy knowing they might be losing a tiny portion of their annual take due to non-reporting of credit card transactions. It's been said they really wanted info on the PayPal transactions and eBay owns PayPal. PayPal uses the JPMorganChase bank, the largest manifestation of the banking cabal as it exists in this country (or is Quatloos.com bigger?). But I digress; I'm having trouble comprehending how the Feds are withholding all the money that you later say is being automatically refunded to you ... without you even asking? There are currently no backup withholding provisions with 1099-K, those were planned but delayed.

[David Merrill]

"By doubting we are led to questioning, and by questioning we are led to the truth."

Where is the statute that comes right out and says in terms my eighth-grade edumacated freinds can understand that redeeming lawful money allows one to escape taxation?

In the Statutes at large it is found at Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act (1913).

There it is in the first sentence, Fed notes are for Fed banks. However they were to be issued for only twenty years until the Fed charter expired in 1933. To save the Fed from that run FDR opened up the contracting to everybody to behave like Fed banks.

Subsequently because it became illegal to "hoard" gold in America:

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.

I generally say the LoR is fluff for establishing an evidence repository. However there is a lot of much deeper meaning appertaining to the history of American law. I was worshipping in the charismatic community and there was a faction of anti-Masons who got me curious about all the hideous Satan worship allegedly happening up on the hill. So I went up there and after a few years of studying in their library and museum I discovered a very curious artifact - The Gospel of Philip the Deacon; 1938. I caught a snippet and ran out to buy it. The book alleges that Jesus spent a good deal of time touring the mystery schools in Babylon and Egypt! Well, I had been doing that too, without becoming an initiate like Jesus finally did in the Order of Archelaus, John (the Baptist). This explores through the Knights Templar into modern Freemasonry.

Not being a Mason gives me the freedom to speak about my research with complete immunity. This also gives me the freedom to change my perceptions and build my knowledge as I go, adapting to and incorporating new information. At this time I would best describe the Masons as Custodians of the Record. To the untrained eye though, it looks like they are in control but that is only to the extent that ignorance would allow. In other words remedy is what you can wrap your mind around.

James Harlan AYERS was a 32nd Degree Freemason when he and his friends wrote Are You Lost at C?

That is probably all you were after for now. The Lesson Plan is:

1) learn your true identity
2) become proficient at Record-Forming
3) redeem lawful money

So I suggest if you want to view the Libel of Review as anything more than fluff to establish an evidence repository in the federal courthouse for items like Refusals for Cause, then you might read it with the Lesson Plan in mind and imagine how executing the LoR and especially a Default Judgment against Timothy Franz GEITHNER might teach you the above objectives.


Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. Edit; Archelaus was Herod ANTIPAS's brother.

[JHV]

The Lesson Plan is:

1) learn your true identity I checked, my parents did not lie to me. I don't plan on changing my name this late in life.
2) become proficient at Record-Forming-I'll work on that.
3) redeem lawful money- Will do.

[David Merrill]

The Lesson Plan is:

1) learn your true identity I checked, my parents did not lie to me. I don't plan on changing my name this late in life.
2) become proficient at Record-Forming-I'll work on that.
3) redeem lawful money- Will do.

It is of course a good thing to check. I trust your parents were not offended by you checking.

It may be that upon a cursory glance you have still not discerned your true identity residing in your true name. Look very carefully at these Black's Fifth definitions:

Do you see how "name" in a legal/law dictionary is in quotation marks. This convention means it is a special use of the term. - Like in Private Use. Or maybe better "private use".

That definition compiles the story. Legal name is the same things as "name" within the same dictionary! In other words the lawyer/attorney will upon dictionary examination come away with the impression that Name and Legal Name are synonyms.

So for use in the Lesson Plan true name and true identity mean Given or Christian Name or Names; the First and Middle names only. Do not reject your family heritage; I certainly do not being a Patroon. There is no denying that I have a perpetual inheritance (Section VI). And unless you understand the superior court of public record and notice for a non-statutory abatement for misnomer, this is a silly thing to bring up in any inferior jurisdiction. However knowing who you are is fundamental in understanding the basic trust structure put in place to affect endorsement at large among the supporters of government debt called the US Dollar (implemented 1933). This is expecially important since the world considers the US Dollar the Reserve Currency of the World.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I just noticed the serendipity of keeping "Naked" in the image for "Name"! When you sign the backside of a paycheck that is obviously a "naked" contract agreement by signature. I believe I will write some verbiage about Naked Contract into the Libel of Review template. It certainly supports the idea that without consideration the entire government bonds scheme is completely without enforcement power, as if I had been informed in good faith I would have redeemed lawful money since my first paycheck ever!

[JHV]

My proposition is that once one begins to redeem lawful money, that they can apply remedy retroactively by one or both methods.

1) Stand on the accusation of Fraud by Omission. That is that the contract demanding Information and Self-Assessment (1040 Form) is vitiated by that fraud and that our civics teachers, parents and bank tellers are not to blame for the fraud, but rather are victims of the same fraud.

2) Stand on being a peaceful inhabitant. There has been some discussion here about that - being a conduit and allowing the State (by militant occupation) own the assets, but give you the usage. This involves volunteering to help the trustee settle up the account, after establishing that you know of the remedy and are consistently applying it. There is some evidence that this will "Satisfy" the IRS or DoR agent and cause setoff even for tax years prior to when the suitor began to redeem lawful money.

The above is from post #1 in this thread, and this much I actually understand. "Fraud vitiates everything." I hope so. So in my next letter to my Senator who offered to help me, only to send everything to the Taxpayer Advocate, I plan to give a notice of revocation for all previous returns, (without apology, it seems silly to me to apologize to the criminals who defrauded me) and submit new returns as if I had not been the victim of fraud by omission. I will also humor them in their interpretation of the code and enter the exact W-2 amounts, only to deduct them later with my lawful money redemption claim. After all, that is what I would have done from my first paycheck had I not been so victimized. Maybe this will get me out of the "no soup for YOU!" club at last.

As for the name stuff, it reminds me of an old Doors tune- "no one remembers your name, when you're strange."

[David Merrill]

When you're strange?

Maybe more peculiar treasure. You best have a Libel of Review and a default judgment in place for collateral copies of that accusation. You want a record of everything in the USDC to try something bold like that.



Maybe consider that you should be operating your legal identity as a trust. Knowing the difference between your true name and legal or full name is very powerful in that context.

[allodial]

So for use in the Lesson Plan true name and true identity mean Given or Christian Name or Names; the First and Middle names only. Do not reject your family heritage; I certainly do not being a Patroon. There is no denying that I have a perpetual inheritance (Section VI).

Usually doesn't take long for some to 'get' the notion of there being a complete difference between, say, my name and the name of my household. Some however cannot even mentally compute or conceive of this for whatever reason. To be Roy and to be, say, Roy Smith are two different things. Its interesting how not being stupid about basic grammar or use of the English language makes some bureaucrats angry. I am convinced that even with dropping the 'last name', one can keep up family heritage by... simply through wise and sound management of the household. I'm just unaware how the name of any household with which I associate would be my name. Is the name of one's city one's name? John de Chicago? John van Hamburg? If the idea of the last name is to help make distinctions, well seems there'd be around 2,853,114 people around Chicago with the 'von Chicago' 'surname' no? Why isnt David Van Chicago also David Van Illinois or or David Van Der Loop? The purported 'justifications' start clearly breaking down and their silliness revealed in their trying to force or impose upon us some kind of 'surname'. They they might say "van Chicago" isnt enough? Why isnt it enough? Distinguishing 2,853,114 folks from 6 billion others isn't enough!?!? So how about the kazillion John Rogers or Sarah Jones?

Also, its interesting that in German folks are asked "What are you called?" rather than "What is your name?"

P.S. I just noticed the serendipity of keeping "Naked" in the image for "Name"! When you sign the backside of a paycheck that is obviously a "naked" contract agreement by signature. I believe I will write some verbiage about Naked Contract into the Libel of Review template. It certainly supports the idea that without consideration the entire government bonds scheme is completely without enforcement power, as if I had been informed in good faith I would have redeemed lawful money since my first paycheck ever!

Whats interesting is the similarity between the backside of a check and a 'skeleton bill'.... Regarding consideration...the Government is perhaps providing consideration in the form of cancellation of debt.