Cracking the Code Failure - Doreen Indicted

[JohnnyCash]

Walter, that doesn't jibe with my experience. See here I filled up the 1040 form (page 2) that resulted in a full refund. Subsequently the IRS never came back with penalties or anything.

[ManOntheLand]

Exactly what contract and what does it say?

In Doreen's case, she is presumed to be a "taxpayer" due to information returns issued by third parties. She is presumed subject to Internal Revenue Code, under which she has some statutory rights as a taxpayer. These are far inferior to common law rights of course.

Pete and Doreen argue that they have rebutted the information returns issued against them, but unwittingly contradict themselves by admitting that the amounts reported on the info returns are correct. They do not recognize the nexus conferred from the transfer of Federal Reserve Notes. Therefore the presumptions of taxpayer status stand unrebutted.

[ManOntheLand]

Walter, that doesn't jibe with my experience. See here I filled up the 1040 form (page 2) that resulted in a full refund. Subsequently the IRS never came back with penalties or anything.

An information return creates a presumption of "taxpayer" status and tax liability (at least potentially). Redeeming lawful money of all such amounts mathematically eliminates the tax liability. I think you are still presumed to be a "taxpayer" i.e. "subject to internal revenue tax" if you did receive a transfer of Fed Reserve credit because you would have had a liability if it were not for redeeming lawful money. They could conduct an audit if they require substantiation of your claims. (Probably unlikely that any IRS agent would bother with this.) This is why it is a good idea to have your evidence repository and save copies of your checks where you made your demand for lawful money etc.

Arguably the information return may not create obligation on you in the first place, due to no voluntary knowing waiver of rights on your part, economic duress (you have to work for a living and are in no position to reject payment in the form of Fed Reserve credit) and unconscionable contract (why would any one willingly exchange their right to work for a living for a taxable privilege, absent consideration?).

But it seems far simpler to just make the demand for lawful money and eliminate your tax liability that way than to argue with IRS about information returns. Pete and Doreen's method revolves around arguing about the information returns.

[John Howard]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. The only relevant "rights" to the court are "contractual" rights per the terms of the contract.

We are still waiting to see said contract. Please link us to it.

I believe Doreen submitted tax returns per the court order, with the notation to the effect "here is the perjury you ordered."

[ManOntheLand]

It seems the point I was trying to make about Doreen's cases has eluded you. If you read my posts again on this thread, you will see that I contend that no contract was actually formed, but Doreen's conduct implies that one was formed, and the Court presumes that one was formed.

In any case, a written contract is not necessary, as you seem to presume. Contracts may be formed by conduct, as when you sit down in a restaurant and order from the menu, forming a contract to pay the prices on the menu for the items you have ordered.

Contracts may also be formed by course of dealing over time. A person who has filed tax returns every year for several years has established a course of dealing, by which a contract may be inferred.

A contract may be silently presumed by a court, and in fact this is exactly what happens in the admiralty jurisdiction of a federal court in a revenue related matter.

Until Doreen recognizes the presumed contractual nature of her obligation to file the way the court ordered her to, she will misunderstand what is going on. Arguments about common law rights in her case are futile, irrelevant, even frivolous. She is presumed to have waived her rights, and presumed to know that she has done so.

I will be the first to agree this is deceptive, but it is how it works. We would all be better served to understand this and inform others than to just complain that the system is not how we think it should be.

I don't know whether Doreen complied with the court orders or not. I know the IRS frowns upon any additions or modifications to the perjury statement that constitute a negation. Referring to her own testimony as perjury is very likely to result in the return being considered a nullity, as though no return was filed. This is how Wesley Snipes ended up being convicted for willful failure to file, by negating the perjury statement.

[John Howard]

I don't know whether Doreen complied with the court orders or not. I know the IRS frowns upon any additions or modifications to the perjury statement that constitute a negation. Referring to her own testimony as perjury is very likely to result in the return being considered a nullity, as though no return was filed. This is how Wesley Snipes ended up being convicted for willful failure to file, by negating the perjury statement.

Let me offer a possible solution. The court wants certain testimony, then go ahead and declare her incompetent, then let IRS fill out the form, forge her signature on it, and let the fed pay the bill. They could then claim victory.

[ManOntheLand]

Let me offer a possible solution. The court wants certain testimony, then go ahead and declare her incompetent, then let IRS fill out the form, forge her signature on it, and let the fed pay the bill. They could then claim victory.

If you are suggesting the conduct of the IRS is ridiculous, I agree with you. IRS could have just audited Doreen's returns and recalculated her tax bills. But they obviously want to grandstand, probably in an effort to discourage Pete Hendrickson (since he has not given up on spreading his CTC dogma despite going to prison himself) by going after his wife.

[JohnnyCash]

I wonder why none of the lawyers here will admit they are attorneys? If I make it through law school I might be the first.

Pete has done a great and valuable thing by digging into the tax code, discovering it really has a narrow focus, but misapplied by the priesthood to things it shouldn't. And then he bravely shared that by authoring books. I applaud him for that. It's unfortunate he isn't open to the notion of a tax on currency issued by a federal instrumentality (Federal Reserve bank). You know the railroads were determined a federal instrumentality and gains from railroad investments are taxable. The combination of Pete's Cracking the Code and David Merrill's redeeming lawful money has been a 6-year winner for me.

30 minute video - Unlearning the Income Tax with Peter Hendrickson

[ManOntheLand]

I would admit to such if I were a lawyer, Johnny Cash. I guess I should be flattered by your repeated accusation. I am an informal student of the law, but I do take my study very seriously.

I learned much from Pete's work and agree with your take on him overall. I also learned a lot from Pete's criminal trial. It is unfortunate he is closed minded about the way the court system really works as well as the remedy we discuss here. It was the feeling of "just one more piece missing from the puzzle" that led me here. I am grateful for Pete for shedding light on such a big part of that puzzle.

[Goldi]

I contend that no contract was actually formed...

Oh really? Because a contract was formed with a W-4 creating a W-2 or a W-9 creating a 1099. Which one was it for Doreen?

[Goldi]

And all of the blathering and whining and nonsense is NOT GOING TO CHANGE A GOD DAMNED THING.

[ManOntheLand]

I contend that no contract was actually formed...

Oh really? Because a contract was formed with a W-4 creating a W-2 or a W-9 creating a 1099. Which one was it for Doreen?

I contend that no contract was actually formed. There is a presumed contract only. The fact people do not know there is any contract being formed is exactly my basis for saying no contract was actually formed.

Waivers of rights must not only be voluntary, but must be knowing intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the likely consequences, per U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. United States.

For a contract to actually be formed (as opposed to mere presumption of a contract) there must be a meeting of the minds, intent to be bound, consideration, and most basic of all, DISCLOSURE THAT A CONTRACT IS BEING FORMED and a VOLUNTARY EXERCISE OF ONE'S FREE WILL TO ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT.

If you really had a choice explicitly offered to you, who would voluntary elect to receive Federal reserve credit in lieu of lawful money? Who would agree to convert his right to work and be paid tax free for his labor into a taxable privilege?

Economic duress, no practical alternative, absence of consideration and no disclosure whatsoever. Any one of these conditions may render any presumed contract voidable. However, the party presumed to be obligated has to first recognize that they are being presumed to be under contract, and then challenge that presumption.

In Doreen's case, a presumed contract will stand unless and until she recognizes that the Court presumes a contractual obligation exists (as opposed to obligation conferred by public law).

[John Howard]

The combination of Pete's Cracking the Code and David Merrill's redeeming lawful money has been a 6-year winner for me.

Your 6 and my 2 makes 8, anyone else? Please add your years to the scoreboard.

[John Howard]

And all of the blathering and whining and nonsense is NOT GOING TO CHANGE A GOD DAMNED THING.

Let me suggest that you find your happiness elsewhere.

[walter]

forge her signature on it,

no signature is needed,
better not to sign, no perjury,