Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?

[JHV]

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.

OK- I got all the default judgment docs but but the LoR link isn't working.

Peculiar is good...

[JHV]

A good fraud by omission definition.

Libel of review definition. So many new concepts, so little time.

[JHV]

"Fraud in the factum means fraud in the obtaining the execution of the agreement or delivery of a document. As opposed to fraud in inducing someone to sign a document, it is fraud regarding the contents of the document, so that the person defrauded is unaware of what they are signing."

As in the back of a check.

[David Merrill]

The Judiciary Act of 1789 invented the District overlays on the States. By 1790 the purpose in doing so was also clarified. On Page 77 we find the 'saving to suitors' clause amidst the nature of municipal insurance (bottomry) the Admiralty. Therefore it behooves the man on the land to approach (see the word appear in approach? Restricted Appearance - Rule E(8)) and to inform that domain of his true identity and that they will no longer be splashing navigable waters on his yard and home through that little federal enclave, the mailbox.

"Fraud in the factum means fraud in the obtaining the execution of the agreement or delivery of a document. As opposed to fraud in inducing someone to sign a document, it is fraud regarding the contents of the document, so that the person defrauded is unaware of what they are signing."

As in the back of a check.

I discovered that I included "Naked" when I photographed "Name" in Black's Fifth:

In my description and you will find it in the Instructions at the bottom of the Libel of Review, the fraud is deeper than even NLP goes; that you own your mailbox just because government has tricked you into paying for it.

The LoR can easily be described as fluff around your first R4C (Refusal for Cause) where you start regulating the presentments in your life, mostly through the mail, that will turn into agreements by and large through acquiescence and negative averment; perfectly acceptable commercial practices...

In the admiralty!

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAVID BOSSET,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:07-CV-967-T-30MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,



Contrary to Plaintiff?s characterization of the case, nothing in the complaint suggests that this case is within the Court?s admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction exists only if the complained of incident occurred on navigable waters or is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.

See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 533 (1995);

Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 364 (1990).

It is plain from the face of Plaintiff's original and amended Complaints that neither admiralty nor maritime law is implicated here. There are no allegations in either complaint of any maritime activities, no allegations of any incident having occurred on navigable waters of the United States, and no suggestion that any maritime vessel (i.e., boat, ship, barge, etc.) is implicated. As far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff?s claims relate to the assessment and collection of taxes. This matter is, therefore, governed by the General Provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Plaintiff?s motion to strike is frivolous and should be denied.

[David Merrill]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAVID BOSSET,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:07-CV-967-T-30MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,



Contrary to Plaintiff?s characterization of the case, nothing in the complaint suggests that this case is within the Court?s admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction exists only if the complained of incident occurred on navigable waters or is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.

See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 533 (1995);

Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 364 (1990).

It is plain from the face of Plaintiff's original and amended Complaints that neither admiralty nor maritime law is implicated here. There are no allegations in either complaint of any maritime activities, no allegations of any incident having occurred on navigable waters of the United States, and no suggestion that any maritime vessel (i.e., boat, ship, barge, etc.) is implicated. As far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff?s claims relate to the assessment and collection of taxes. This matter is, therefore, governed by the General Provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Plaintiff?s motion to strike is frivolous and should be denied.

Thank you for that citation and opinion BY. I am processing this...

[Chex]

Contrary to Plaintiff?s characterization of the case, nothing in the complaint suggests that this case is within the Court?s admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction exists only if the complained of incident occurred on navigable waters or is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.

Does not the long arm of the law have reach to all it?s members?

Some understand when a jury seas the truth in ?things?, even though they were not a jury of his peers i.e. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest. http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42749/

Even the family sort of agrees?but they missed an important word.
Basically, liens and levies are claims upon the property of a person based either on the operation of law or of contract. however, that NO NATURAL PERSON can be liable for personal income taxes under subtitles A and C. http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/In...eAllLevies.htm

Even the irs has sympathy??..
In my description and you will find it in the Instructions at the bottom of the Libel of Review, the fraud is deeper than even NLP goes; that you own your mailbox just because government has tricked you into paying for it.
(5) Undelivered mail. Mail, addressed to any person, which has not been delivered to the addressee. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6334 from here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6331

I truly believe that it would be Inconvenience (In the rule that statutes should be so construed as to avoid inconvenience," this means, as applied to the public, the sacrifice or jeopardizing of important public interests or hampering the legitimate activities of government or the transaction of public business, and, as applied to individuals, serious hardship or injustice.) if Provision and funding: were taken away from the zombies.

I believe many went interregnum because of words? Incompetency. Lack of ability, knowledge, legal qualification, or fitness to discharge the required duty or professional obligation. A relative term which may be employed as meaning disqualification, inability or incapacity and it can refer to lack of legal qualifications or fitness to discharge the required duty and to show want of physical or intellectual or moral fitness. County Bd. of Ed. of Clarke County v. Oliver, 270 Ala. 107, 116 So.2d 566, 567.

Reread the court documents?..
Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.

See also Person.

As an adjective, "individual" means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto.

Individual assets. In the law of partnership, property belonging to a member of a partnership as his separate and private property, apart from the assets or property belonging to the firm as such or the partner's interest therein.

Individual debts. Such as are due from a member of a partnership in his private or personal capacity, as distinguished from those due from the firm or partnership.

Individually. Separately and personally, as distinguished from jointly or officially, and as opposed to collective or associate action or common interest.

Have you see the commercial for chase with the take a picture of your check and deposit it electronically?

The signature on an instrument of a person who has the liability thereon of an indorser. Any signature in an ambiguous capacity is an indorsement. U.C.C. ? 3-402. As applied to documents, the term means the signature thereon of a person to whose order the document runs.

An indorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder and on the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof. An indorsement is effective for negotiation only when it conveys the entire instrument or any unpaid residue. If it purports to be of less it operates only as a partial assignment. U.C.C. ? 3-202.

Accommodation indorsement. In the law of negotiable instruments, one made by a third person without any consideration, but merely for the benefit of the holder of the instrument, or to enable the maker to obtain money or credit on it.

Unless otherwise explained, it is understood to be a loan of the indorser's credit without restriction.

Accommodation indorser is not liable to party accommodated. U.C.C. ? 3-415.

Makes you wonder why?

Skeleton bill = Health care bill.

Now what?

[David Merrill]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAVID BOSSET,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:07-CV-967-T-30MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,



Contrary to Plaintiff?s characterization of the case, nothing in the complaint suggests that this case is within the Court?s admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction exists only if the complained of incident occurred on navigable waters or is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.

See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 533 (1995);

Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 364 (1990).

It is plain from the face of Plaintiff's original and amended Complaints that neither admiralty nor maritime law is implicated here. There are no allegations in either complaint of any maritime activities, no allegations of any incident having occurred on navigable waters of the United States, and no suggestion that any maritime vessel (i.e., boat, ship, barge, etc.) is implicated. As far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff?s claims relate to the assessment and collection of taxes. This matter is, therefore, governed by the General Provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Plaintiff?s motion to strike is frivolous and should be denied.

I have spent a bit of time mostly just to acquire the story behind the quote. What you have done is blend BOSSET with a couple other opinions. In BOSSET, the plaintiff failed to serve the Secretary (US Governor for the IMF) properly so the DoJ should not have responded at all. However they could not help getting their jab in at process (BOSSET obviously stumbled across Are You Lost at C? and he utilized its Memorandum of Law in adding respondents). However the judge dismissed the case with prejudice because the Respondent was never properly served a summons.

Just because the Defendant says he is not affiliated with the IMF does not mean that it is true. Look at Page 8 of the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements. The Secretary has since alienated himself from the position, US Governor for the IMF by delegation. He is still very much the principal for operations of the Treasury internationally.

I believe that some of the other case opinions arise from a non-suitor, not being instructed and taught as he goes, using the Libel of Review and misunderstaning its intent is to open up an evidence repository so the man on the land can keep a record of truth and become the court of record. What a few folks have done is to put the dismissal into the appeal process, where it generates a published opinion. That is called bad precedent.

I have looked into that in the past and not encountered any names of current or former suitors. Any navigator of a LoR in contact with me understands that he will be seeing the LoR dismissed and be taught how to manage the remaining evidence repository.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[macaddictjay]

Notes from a CtC "victim"

By way of introduction to this forum, I read Cracking the Code several times before filing in the "CtC-educated" manner. For the first two years, I got full refunds, and was emboldened to file amended returns for two previous years. Then, the series of letters began from the IRS. I followed the examples of replies to these letters found on Pete's site, until I got letters assessing me multiple $5K "frivolous" penalties. Pete maintains that those who send timely replies to these letters, and don't back down, ultimately prevail. I will never know if this would have been true in my case; after missing a reply deadline, the IRS proceeded to levy my assets and announced their intent to lien all future income. My wife prevailed upon me to hire an attorney, and it hasn't gone so well since. It doesn't seem to matter (to my attorney and my CongressCritter) that the IRS ignores the law and their own procedures.

I've been reading with interest your websites, forum and source materials, and have a few comments on the post quoted below:

By signing a 1040 Form under the penalty of perjury the IRS agent is compelled to honor the initial assessment and send the Refund Check. Pete's book however leaves people in the lurch though, upon a reassessment based on the 1099 and W-2 Forms.

My insight, as is typical is from a suitor who was applying CtC methods to garnishments by the IRS and state DoR. He had Pete for a houseguest for strategy sessions. Cracking the Code is not about what it pretends to be about. The suitor disclosed to me, It is all about the Right to be Heard. Since I have not read it, I am going on that testimony, that to the Reader, CtC is about something else while the real operation of law is that Taxpayer Signature under the Penalty of Perjury. Since the IRS in America is based in voluntary self-assessment that means unless the IRS agent is willing to stop processing on the spot to investigate the 1040 Return Form, he is compelled to send the Refund Check.

Pete maintains that all "CtC-educated" returns are immediately forwarded to the department that investigates suspect claims, and the refunds are sent out with their foreknowledge?indicating that there is some strategy involved here, not just the compulsion of law (which they flout regularly). I have (what I thought was) written evidence that a human eye had examined my return and agreed with my self-assessment that I had no "income." (Do I see an entrapment scheme here?) My attorney had taken an IRS "tour" and saw the computer systems that auto-respond to return data, and is of the opinion that no human eye necessarily "saw" my return. (I remain skeptical of this.) He also said that the IRS can make any "mistake" they want with impunity.

I posted most of my "interactions" with the IRS on my blog, but am now faced with updating all these posts with the foreword/disclaimer, "kids, don't try this at home." The most recent relevant post is here, where I was introduced to your forum.

Again, I will never know if simply responding to all the IRS letters within the stated deadlines would have saved me from the levy. I agree with other forum members here that Pete's analysis of tax law is correct, as far as it goes. One key aspect of taxation that Pete does not address (or seem to recognize) is the nature of money, and the fact that all IRS rules apply to what everyone assumes is "money," while what we commonly (and usually unknowingly) deal with in commerce is actually certificates of debt, masquerading as money. The acquisition of this perspective changes the whole ball game. Although I doubt that Pete will change his perspective, as he has a tremendous psychological investment in his analysis of the law, I hope he can see the bigger picture. The issue of money versus debt certificates is a realm of knowledge which lies outside of, or above, Pete's legal analyses. I hope he will come to see this, and not fall victim to his own hubris by dismissing the issue as just another "patriot myth."

Meanwhile, I look forward to learning more from this group, and finding an effective remedy for my current situation.

[Treefarmer]

.....SNIP...
Again, I will never know if simply responding to all the IRS letters within the stated deadlines would have saved me from the levy. I agree with other forum members here that Pete's analysis of tax law is correct, as far as it goes. One key aspect of taxation that Pete does not address (or seem to recognize) is the nature of money, and the fact that all IRS rules apply to what everyone assumes is "money," while what we commonly (and usually unknowingly) deal with in commerce is actually certificates of debt, masquerading as money....

Hello macaddictjay, welcome to the forum.

From personal experience with filing "HENDRICKSON" style, I can say that responding to every single IRS letter is the best way to go, as long as you respond by writing "Refused for Cause" with a thick red marker on every page they sent you. Then you send that back to them within 72 hours, by registered or certified mail, with green return receipt. You send a copy of that refusal for cause to a United States District Court near you, where you instruct the court clerk to file that copy into a miscellaneous case file, or if you go on the offensive, a civil case file.

In your correspondence with the court you use your true name so that they know that you are not a fictitious entity or trust account, because they have a bit of secret voodoo constructed around the legal name, which hinders them from seeing the living man.

There are instructions posted here in various places around the forum, search for "refusal for cause" or "refuse for cause", or R4C, as well as "Libel of Review" or LoR.
David Merrill is very knowledgeable about this, so if in doubt, ask him.

Pete HENDRICKSON interpreted the IRC in a logical and honest manner, IMHO, and fell into the trap that is built into the IRC for that type of personality.
I have noticed other traps that are built into the IRC, which are so clever and subtle that only haSatan himself could have devised it all.
That's a study unto itself, and various people have left evidence of it all over this forum.

For me the quest to figure out money and taxes started a long time ago; from the time that I found a token on the sidewalk which was inscribed FREEDOM on one side and NO CASH VALUE on the other, at the precise moment that I challenged the universe to show me truth about money, to filing tax returns HENDRICKSON style, to filing a Libel of Review and learning about law and identity. It's been an amazingly rewarding trip spiritually as well as physically.

Among other things, I have begun to understand what Yahushua (aka Jesus CHRIST) said in John 8:32:
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. "

Godspeed for your journey.

Shabbat Shalom

[David Merrill]

Thanks for the information and welcome MacaddictJay.

[macaddictjay]

Since my dropping of the ball as a "CtC-educated" filer (see my first post above), I've been looking here and elsewhere for alternative solutions to the IRS assault on my finances. In the category of "elsewhere," I found a website called "teamlaw.net" and its associated forum. In this thread, the forum takes up the topic of redemption of FRNs in lawful money, and has a different take than in this forum. Rather than copy/pasting this entire thread here, I ask that David and other readers of this forum visit the above link, and provide their feedback on this thread and/or the whole "Team Law" enterprise (they offer paid services in addition to the free areas of their site/forum).

The first post in the thread begins: "Can anyone comment on the suggestion that Sec.411 of Title 12 (Federal Reserve Act) is an inherent remedy?" and is answered by several posts and a comment from their Admin that states:

(You don't seem to) understand that the FRN:
Is not money;
Is not a ?private credit instrument?; and,
Is merely a rented transaction instrument.
Thus, the use of the instrument creates no such ?contract? with Corp. U.S. binding anyone to pay income taxes. Any obligation to pay income taxes must come from the law and not from some such alleged implied but non-existent contract. In fact, it is highly unlikely that people are involved in the process of income tax paying obligations at all. The parties so involved in the process of paying income taxes are ?taxpayers??all of which have Taxpayer Identification Numbers. From the evidences we have seen and reviewed, we have never seen people that were taxpayers unless they were linked to the taxpayer through a general partnership.

The bottom line: though we are not aware of where you got that understanding from; it is not supported by what Team Law presented in our presentation of Myth 22!

In the forum, "Myth 22" is a hyperlink which explains their take on what they categorize as a "patriot myth."

My criteria for choosing a personal defense/offense strategy with the IRS is more practical than theoretical. At this point, I care more about what will work than whose theory is correct. I'm not sure at this point if their core remedy and yours are mutually exclusive; it may be that an apparent conflict stems from different definitions of terms. Might there be a meeting of the minds here?

[David Merrill]

Since my dropping of the ball as a "CtC-educated" filer (see my first post above), I've been looking here and elsewhere for alternative solutions to the IRS assault on my finances. In the category of "elsewhere," I found a website called "teamlaw.net" and its associated forum. In this thread, the forum takes up the topic of redemption of FRNs in lawful money, and has a different take than in this forum. Rather than copy/pasting this entire thread here, I ask that David and other readers of this forum visit the above link, and provide their feedback on this thread and/or the whole "Team Law" enterprise (they offer paid services in addition to the free areas of their site/forum).

The first post in the thread begins: "Can anyone comment on the suggestion that Sec.411 of Title 12 (Federal Reserve Act) is an inherent remedy?" and is answered by several posts and a comment from their Admin that states:

In the forum, "Myth 22" is a hyperlink which explains their take on what they categorize as a "patriot myth."

My criteria for choosing a personal defense/offense strategy with the IRS is more practical than theoretical. At this point, I care more about what will work than whose theory is correct. I'm not sure at this point if their core remedy and yours are mutually exclusive; it may be that an apparent conflict stems from different definitions of terms. Might there be a meeting of the minds here?

Admin is Eric MADSEN up in Aurara, Colorado. He seems extremely clever but I find it impossible to teach him anything because he is a master of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming). He has weaponized it and admits doing so.

In the post you quote him describing or defining what Federal Reserve notes are. He is probably right. They are also stock certificates in the Fed according to many courts and I like to view them as insurance policies which I feel agrees with Eric in your post. - Well, sort of.

I will play around on the public forum at Team Law and maybe see if Eric has matured in being a little open minded. He has been around the block though, and is very intelligent.

[shikamaru]

Since my dropping of the ball as a "CtC-educated" filer (see my first post above), I've been looking here and elsewhere for alternative solutions to the IRS assault on my finances. In the category of "elsewhere," I found a website called "teamlaw.net" and its associated forum. In this thread, the forum takes up the topic of redemption of FRNs in lawful money, and has a different take than in this forum. Rather than copy/pasting this entire thread here, I ask that David and other readers of this forum visit the above link, and provide their feedback on this thread and/or the whole "Team Law" enterprise (they offer paid services in addition to the free areas of their site/forum).

The first post in the thread begins: "Can anyone comment on the suggestion that Sec.411 of Title 12 (Federal Reserve Act) is an inherent remedy?" and is answered by several posts and a comment from their Admin that states:

In the forum, "Myth 22" is a hyperlink which explains their take on what they categorize as a "patriot myth."

My criteria for choosing a personal defense/offense strategy with the IRS is more practical than theoretical. At this point, I care more about what will work than whose theory is correct. I'm not sure at this point if their core remedy and yours are mutually exclusive; it may be that an apparent conflict stems from different definitions of terms. Might there be a meeting of the minds here?

I have found keeping things simple is just as effective as anything, but I do delve into the complicated.

If a system is tremendously arduous and complicated, it is safe to deduce that something is being hidden or deception is being perpetrated.

[Treefarmer]

Since my dropping of the ball as a "CtC-educated" filer (see my first post above), I've been looking here and elsewhere for alternative solutions to the IRS assault on my finances. In the category of "elsewhere," I found a website called "teamlaw.net" and its associated forum. In this thread, the forum takes up the topic of redemption of FRNs in lawful money, and has a different take than in this forum. Rather than copy/pasting this entire thread here, I ask that David and other readers of this forum visit the above link, and provide their feedback on this thread and/or the whole "Team Law" enterprise (they offer paid services in addition to the free areas of their site/forum).

The first post in the thread begins: "Can anyone comment on the suggestion that Sec.411 of Title 12 (Federal Reserve Act) is an inherent remedy?" and is answered by several posts and a comment from their Admin that states:

In the forum, "Myth 22" is a hyperlink which explains their take on what they categorize as a "patriot myth."

My criteria for choosing a personal defense/offense strategy with the IRS is more practical than theoretical. At this point, I care more about what will work than whose theory is correct. I'm not sure at this point if their core remedy and yours are mutually exclusive; it may be that an apparent conflict stems from different definitions of terms. Might there be a meeting of the minds here?

About three years ago I also looked into Team Law, because their research seemed thorough and intelligent. But then I quickly ran into the "beneficiary" hurdle which is evidenced in the thread to which you linked.
Whereas I have no problem with compensating people for their labors and efforts, for it is written "the workman is worthy of his meat", I do have a problem with the secret society approach of Team Law.

If Team Law had insights which are liberating and conducive to the pursuit of happiness for many, then why wouldn't they want to make their material slightly more accessible?
The more accessible they made it, the more popular and widespread it would become, provided it's any good.

If I wanted secret knowledge which can only be obtained by joining an exclusive club with membership fees then why wouldn't I join the Freemasons?
Could Team Law be a branch of Freemasonry?