IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?

[Michael Joseph]

That does not affect the validity of my point one iota. I find it curious, self-contradictory and even suspicious that for all your talk about remedy, you still encourage suitors to sign their name to a 1040 that clearly constitutes appearance in the IRS jurisdiction. Sorry, but it causes me to be distrustful of your judgment, if not your intentions.

I cannot speak for David Merrill, he is capable of that himself; however, I must say that I would never sign my own name on an IRS form - I would use the name that is on the Birth Certificate and the number assigned to that name.

Equity acts in personam.

[ManOntheLand]

Treefarmer said:

It seems like they always wait a while in order to draw as many fish into their net as possible and when they see that the catch is big enough to be worth their while, they draw up the net.

I agree. This is the pattern. The more valid your position on the return, the greater the potential threat it is to them. Once it gets their attention, (I am sure it has already) they will wait for enough people to file this way, so that when they bring the hammer down, they will instantly have thousands of people who can spread the word that remedy "doesn't work" and that remedy has been "shot down". This will also condition potential jury members to lump "the remedy thing" in with all the other "scams" so they can get a token conviction out of it. More discrediting.

That's how I would do it if I were them and I were trying to discredit remedy. Because if I were them--I would fight like hell for survival. The current system needs people paying into it, regardless of whether they do so out of ignorance or just fear. This props up the "money" system we have, which is backed only by people's confidence that it isn't going anywhere--even if they lack confidence that it serves them.

You know what else I would do if I were trying to discredit remedy? Whatever it takes!! I would even plant an agent provocateur (or encourage a true believer to become one) to advocate remedy, sell it to the tax honesty folks as a silver bullet, win their complete trust, and then encourage them to implement remedy in the most idiotic and indefensible way possible i.e. filing a 1040 claiming a "deduction."

If I were trying to discredit remedy, I would also encourage people to rely solely on this remedy and encourage the belief that it somehow nullifies any other nexus of taxation, and eliminates any need to pay attention to anything learned about taxation in the last four decades. Finally I would encourage arrogance and presumptuousness in those who have received refunds from filing a 1040 with LMR deduction, and encourage a naive belief that the system is not set up to defend itself from the overwhelming brilliance of a suitor and his knowledge of the remedy.

Get a grip and be careful whom you trust. Remedy appears to be legit, but so what? IRS could not care less what you think you know. They deal in presumption, deception and intimidation. If they can't dupe you or intimidate you, they will dupe or intimidate the payroll department at your work to hand over your money. The Powers That Be will enjoy most of all the eventual crushing of your enthusiasm and the demoralization. This leads to either passivity or more belligerence, which they will use as an excuse to crack down with the militarized police state they already have in place.

Any suitor filing a 1040 is playing right into their hands. And guess what? If you are a "taxpayer" (as evidenced by your signature on the 1040, then your LMR deduction IS a frivolous position (but only because you have declared yourself a "taxpayer" by filing the 1040.). Look for its debut as a carefully phrased "frivolous position" coming soon! It's all part of the op.

Just say NO to Ten-four-o!!!

[David Merrill]

Treefarmer is a Pete HENDRICKSON, Cracking the Code victim.

[Michael Joseph]

I think the IRS is just chomping at the bit to get some numbskull into court that has zero clue what they are doing - just following some guru they read about on the internet. They will twist said numbskull like a pretzel and make it LOOK like 12USC411 is no longer valid. I actually heard recently that an attorney actually tried to tell my young friend that US. v RICKMAN was solid proof that making a demand for lawful money was bogus. Now who is the bigger fool, the attorney or my young friend for listening? Actually my friend just laughed, he could not be blown from his foundation - he realized that just because someone has fancy initials behind a name does not mean there is a lick of sense in their head!

So let me get this straight - all I have to do is write what again on my check? This is the fool the IRS is waiting for and they shall have it soon enough. I pity the soul that blindly follows absent knowledge and understanding, wisdom and prudence.

For the Scripture does clearly propound STUDY to show thyself approved. But fools despise wisdom...or the simple pass on and are spoiled.

In the end it appears that men and women have made the IRS to be as the Anakim. They see the IRS as a Giant - and what they perceive is what they will get. If one dwells on fear then fear will manifest in their life. So if one thinks the IRS is a giant and cannot be overcome it would be wise for them to pay up and keep their mouth shut.

Jos_12:4 And the border of Og king of Bashan, (which was of the remnant of the giants) that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, giants.

But to the OVERCOMERS who, like Caleb and Joshua say Elohim has promised - let us go forth and begin to possess - to them be the victory. Each man according to his order and rank.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and sat down with My Father in His throne.

How can i return to Kindergarten when I am in College? Kindergarten has nothing for me.

So Study to show thyself approved - if you [collective] feel that you cannot do a thing or the probability is that you will fail - then you have the full liability not to do the thing. So why complain - just get on with life. I grow tired of those bad mouthing Pete HENDRICKSON. Those that trusted in him should just get on with it. What? are they all Pete's children? Is that it? Or are we to move about in full liability? So then, to each his own, in his full liability status. Else, do as your told CHILD because one in limited liability is just that a CHILD in daddy's house.

"Your money"? Pray tell where is "Your" name on the money? And, oh by the way, Federal Reserve Notes and Checks ARE NOT MONEY - they are a legal tender! "Your Money" - now that is just too precious. There goes another MIN-O-SAUR.

To those that are tested because they made a use of 12USC411, shall we all line up and stone David Merrill? I think that is the height of stupidity. No wonder the court sees these a little children WARD comes to mind. Whaaa, I want my money. I am still looking for my name on the Notes. I can't seem to find it on any coin either?

Until the day I become ceasar - which ain't gonna happen - talk about a dog returning to his own vomit. I have interest in the Account held in the NAME but the Titles are not mine. Anyone who comprehends trust law knows the Trustee holds the Property Titles for the benefit of others. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY is an eye opener.

I am sure i make many friends. The time for soft words is over.

Shalom,
MJ

[EZrhythm]

I must say that I would never sign my own name on an IRS form - I would use the name that is on the Birth Certificate and the number assigned to that name.

Equity acts in personam.

Wise decision! ...Because that's how we roll.

Treefarmer said:

Any suitor filing a 1040 is playing right into their hands. And guess what? If you are a "taxpayer" (as evidenced by your signature on the 1040, then your LMR deduction IS a frivolous position (but only because you have declared yourself a "taxpayer" by filing the 1040.). Look for its debut as a carefully phrased "frivolous position" coming soon! It's all part of the op.

All the more reason to understand about disqualifying one's signature or obligation with "By:", "All Rights Reserved", "Without Prejudice", "Authorized Representative", etc. keeping the FIRST MIDDLE LAST or the obligation and one's self separate.

I actually heard recently that an attorney actually tried to tell my young friend that US. v RICKMAN was solid proof that making a demand for lawful money was bogus.

Even the FRS uses case cite to validate "lawful money"; http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm

[ManOntheLand]

Treefarmer is a Pete HENDRICKSON, Cracking the Code victim.

Your terse ad hominem attacks in your last couple of posts are doing nothing for my confidence in your judgment or your intentions. I just hope suitors will follow your example in not filing, rather than follow your indefensible suggestion that they take an LMR deduction on a 1040.

JUST SAY NO TO 10-4-0!!!

There are no victims. Only volunteers. The Achilles heel of the CTC "method" is that it involves filing a 1040. You can argue duress to void a W-4 or W-9 form since you have to work, but nobody makes you file a 1040. Unless you are going to do it their way, there is no excuse for filing a 1040. Those who do so with LMR are volunteering and may someday be referred to as a "David Merrill Remedy victim". How do you like the sound of that? Maybe the proponent of the next cute method of tax return filing will dismiss what your "victims" have to say on their forum.

When I stopped filing 1040's and just disputed information returns with a simple written statement (noting the duress and that I actually work in the private sector) and demanded they update their records, I had no problem. Even before I ever heard of LMR. I see LMR as a remedy for one of several nexuses of taxation. The others are created when I am trying to just make a living and can be nullified by making a record of the duress and fraud.

Since I sent an inquiry letter to Commissioner of IRS and Secretary of Treasury about filing requirement and received no response, I have not even bothered to dispute information returns much less file a 1040 and they are leaving me alone.

Best defense is a good offense though. Dispute info returns and demand they update their records so their computer doesn't start spitting out demands for you to file.

The only way any tax avoidance method is really going to "work" for anyone is to the degree you are too much trouble for too little payoff (whether in money or publicity a la Wesley Snipes). No matter what argument you rely on, they can get the argument "rejected" by a Federal Court. So they have to know you are ready to ruin their cover story that "everybody has to pay his fair share" and that all Americans are taxed directly on all that comes in. This is what a jury of average Americans will believe. They won't risk having that bubble burst. Part of the reason I sent my letter to the Commish is to get such bubble bursting into my administrative record, so it is automatically admissible evidence.

Since no one can be 100% guaranteed against being harassed by auntie no matter what they do, make the worst case scenario being charged with a misdemeanor (willful failure to file) rather than a felony (tax evasion or filing false documents). JUST SAY NO to 10-4-0.

[ManOntheLand]

I think the IRS is just chomping at the bit to get some numbskull into court that has zero clue what they are doing - just following some guru they read about on the internet.

Or a "numbskull" filing a 1040 with an LMR deduction. One can challenge jurisdiction but if they have your signature on a 1040--not so much.

[David Merrill]

Or a "numbskull" filing a 1040 with an LMR deduction. One can challenge jurisdiction but if they have your signature on a 1040--not so much.

ManOntheLand has become unrealistic. In reality people may be charged with a criminal penalty for Failure to File. If one redeems lawful money then it is only honest to claim so on the 1040 Form, under legal signature.

Treefarmer is a Pete HENDRICKSON, Cracking the Code victim.

Your terse ad hominem attacks in your last couple of posts are doing nothing for my confidence in your judgment or your intentions. I just hope suitors will follow your example in not filing, rather than follow your indefensible suggestion that they take an LMR deduction on a 1040.

I feel compelled to react because I am not attacking Treefarmer, I am simply stating something revealed in the forums here. This kind of projection and illusion that remedy is ineffective is disturbing and disruptive.

The bottom line is that people are getting full refunds with the IRS blessing and the only FrivPens incurred are to suitors who have signed into the financial industry sponsored by the Federal Reserve's elastic currency. This makes perfect sense to me in hindsight.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I recently encountered a suitor preparing his 1040 Form for 2012 and planning for a full refund. His descriptions caused me to inquire when he began redeeming lawful money - May 1, 2013 - just recently. I informed him that he could not realistically try for a refund until filing for 2013 (in 2014) and even then only from May 1 onward.

I think that readers here might be able to ponder that and see why I am reacting to MOtL's attacks on my character.

[Brian]

David: Take a look at ORS 652.110 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/652.html

I'm curious your thoughts on that.....

[David Merrill]

David: Take a look at ORS 652.110 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/652.html

I'm curious your thoughts on that.....

PAYMENT AND COLLECTION OF WAGES GENERALLY



652.110 Method of paying employees; agreement on method of payment; revocation of agreement. (1) A person engaged in any business or enterprise of any kind in this state may not issue, in payment of or as evidence of indebtedness for wages due an employee, any order, check, memorandum or other instrument of indebtedness unless the instrument is negotiable

I presume that your direct my interest to the term negotiable.

Our original non-endorsement demanded payment in non-negotiable Federal Reserve notes. Negotiable instruments must be redeemable in equal or better value. This by deduction leaves US notes the non-negotiable instrument in America. Therefore the suitor would demand US notes in the form of FRNs.

The law above stipulates that the instruments employers use to pay employees be of a set value and that the employee not be required to discount his pay when redeeming the instrument. From the employer's perspective I do not see this having any impact on the employee's demand for lawful money.

[Brian]

I presume that your direct my interest to the term negotiable.

Our original non-endorsement demanded payment in non-negotiable Federal Reserve notes. Negotiable instruments must be redeemable in equal or better value. This by deduction leaves US notes the non-negotiable instrument in America. Therefore the suitor would demand US notes in the form of FRNs.

The law above stipulates that the instruments employers use to pay employees be of a set value and that the employee not be required to discount his pay when redeeming the instrument. From the employer's perspective I do not see this having any impact on the employee's demand for lawful money.

I also found this part interesting "pay the instrument in lawful money of the United States." + the demand part. It seems as though the local law spells it out pretty clearly. Thanks!

[David Merrill]

The person (employer) shall, upon presentation and demand, pay the instrument in lawful money of the United States.

Stipulated the employee demands such.

[Michael Joseph]

ManOntheLand has become unrealistic. In reality people may be charged with a criminal penalty for Failure to File. If one redeems lawful money then it is only honest to claim so on the 1040 Form, under legal signature.



I feel compelled to react because I am not attacking Treefarmer, I am simply stating something revealed in the forums here. This kind of projection and illusion that remedy is ineffective is disturbing and disruptive.

The bottom line is that people are getting full refunds with the IRS blessing and the only FrivPens incurred are to suitors who have signed into the financial industry sponsored by the Federal Reserve's elastic currency. This makes perfect sense to me in hindsight.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I recently encountered a suitor preparing his 1040 Form for 2012 and planning for a full refund. His descriptions caused me to inquire when he began redeeming lawful money - May 1, 2013 - just recently. I informed him that he could not realistically try for a refund until filing for 2013 (in 2014) and even then only from May 1 onward.

I think that readers here might be able to ponder that and see why I am reacting to MOtL's attacks on my character.

I comprehend your position David Merrill. I am only saying the blessing is in the hand of the doer. The researcher and the hearer cannot receive the blessing. But one acting in any fashion must take full liability for himself. As such you will NEVER get a call from me saying this 12USC411 stuff did not work for me.

Rather, my response, if any, is going to be in analysis of what I may have done incorrectly - so I propound that one is bound by the laws of nature to look inward into his own heart.

Shalom brother,
MJ

[Michael Joseph]

Or a "numbskull" filing a 1040 with an LMR deduction. One can challenge jurisdiction but if they have your signature on a 1040--not so much.

I have given this a bit of thought. I only have this to offer. As a man I can agree to do certain things for another group of men. Now if I am in agreement to make a use of another's property - then clearly the other has jurisdiction regarding the matter. I made a use of their property. Society [the other] generally likes other folks to handle the nasty affairs [call them representatives]. Until the day I find my name on the money....it ain't mine.

[David Merrill]

Stipulated the employee demands such.

Thank you MJ!

I will add that endorsment is making a demand for private credit from the Fed.