IRS recognizes Redeeming Lawful Money - Yes!!!

[Brian]

* DING *
No more calls; we have a winner!

No more calls from the Dragon?

[Michael Joseph]

I am sure that the vast majority of readers here wish they had never filed a W-4 or 1040 Form. However how many people regret being employed?

Exactly! I like to think of my Service in Employment or otherwise as sharing of my gift for the Public benefit. Therefore wages issue also to sustain me so that I can continue to be a blessing to the Public. this is Corporation Sole in a sense. I am working in my Ministry on behalf of the Public at Large. I must work as I am required in Duty to God and I work to sustain this temple and to promote the Word of God in effort to glory God in this Earth both within - my body, and without the Planet. Is not the Heavens my Thoughts and the Earth my flesh? For Yehovah Elohim FORMED man from the dust [Adamah] of the Earth.

The Mayor for the City of Name is also a Corporation Sole with specific Ministry to the Public. The Bishop of the Church of Rome is a Corporation Sole with its Ministry the Public. Therefore the Preamble to the Constitution creating a more perfect Union - is a Ministerial Trust - provide for the general Welfare.

Therefore, putting my ego on the shelf and removing the saying my wages, my income - is not the circulation of notes issued to a Public Name. Of course it is. And if the Usufructuary is holding both the Legal and the Equitable titles in Name then my interest is IN the USUFRUCT claiming for the benefit of the Public and not for my private gain.

However, i am of the mindset that even money may not be necessary if one is upon his Priestly office of Corporation Sole a member of the Church of Christ providing services in Ministry to promote the Public Good.

Great no more Enemy of the State. I come in peace - therefore I will not play the game. For if I do the ONLY office available is Trustee. Trustee to Trustee provides for an even playing field in Commercial Affairs. Therefore if Trustee/Trustee then UCC law can control in Commerce.

Shalom,
MJ

[David Merrill]

Priesthood without priestcraft. Melchizedek prior to the Golden Calf that created the Levite.

[samgans]

how to fill out tax return form for full refund

I have amended some of this Crosstalk so as to keep this suitor's identity concealed. FIRST MIDDLE LAST is most commonly the trust company in most people's minds when they become aware that their parents named them First Middle. - Like with this Massachusetts Trust.




This testimony is very revealing. Early on, so early that we were using the non-negotiable verbiage a suitor deposited a rubber paycheck. The bank called him when the funds would not go through the boss's bank. He went to the bank and they gave him back the instrument but the non-endorsement had been torn off the end of it. He described it over the phone so you see this example is a simulation for demonstration, not the actual torn check:

Together this suitor testimony reveals the nature of fractional lending and how it creates currency in circulation. This extra currency must be bonded, it has to be worth something for people to place any value in the (extra) currency, and since the extra currency looks just like the US (Treasurer and Secretary signatures) bonded currency that means we have inflation anyway...

In the Crosstalk testimony above, the bank was treating the non-endorsed demanded lawful money like it was endorsed and had to clean house rather than be sanctioned by the Reserve Board or OCC, maybe even prosecuted for counterfeiting. The funds that are non-endorsed need to be treated as special deposits or the accounts, after fractional lending will simply not balance out.

This is why many suitors have noticed after non-endorsing funds on a long-held account it will be revised to non-interest bearing without mention or notice. If the bank can have no benefit of fractional lending on the funds then there is no cause for the bank to be paying for that benefit as a State bank.

At the first glance it is a bad thing for people to have their bank accounts closed out. True. But you should sit back a bit and look what is really happening. The bank, ignoring putting the funds into special deposits had cost jobs and risked criminal prosecution. Therefore closing the bank accounts fit under their Quit for No Reason clause on the signature cards.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Treefarmer;


I am sure that the vast majority of readers here wish they had never filed a W-4 or 1040 Form. However how many people regret being employed?

I have been writing on all deposit slips and checks redemption for lawful money for almost half a year now, I recently started working for a company and didn't want to raise red flags so i signed w4 form. so I'm not sure how to fill out a 1040 (i sent out a letter to bank stating all deposits for credit or exchanged for lawful money etc, notarized and return reciept, and i have a copy of the letter) i wanted to file for full refund for all tax taken out of paycheck

[ManOntheLand]

I spoke with a suitor who said effectively, I think the IRS is looking for a template like the LoR that they can attack and make it look as though Redeeming Lawful Money is bogus.

Most certainly that was Wserra's - Wesley SERRA - objective on Quatloos recently. I think that is quite possibly an objective but Congress says differently. If you contract with the Congress-created jurisdiction of the Fed, it would seem things get arbitrary fast. However if you stay out in the original cognizance of the Judiciary Act (1789 'saving to suitors') we find that the Memorandums are resorting to a term in context of the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION to attempt slurring LM redemption.

So maybe your gut is sensing the IRS desire more than the IRS ability to slur remedy?

David, please pardon this very long post. But the following has got to be said and heard before anybody else files a return claiming a deduction for lawful money or encourages others to do so. This is a WARNING.

I speak from experience. I have successfully avoided all income tax for 12 years. At first I did not file at all for 4 years in a row (this is when I had my own business and no W-2 reporting). Ultimately I filed zero returns for those years, and those filings were never challenged. For a few years after that I received W-2's and then filed a return Cracking the Code (CTC) style to claim a 100% refund, and actually got the refunds for a couple of years. Very exciting!!

But I saw the writing on the wall with CTC 3 years ago and started claiming exempt on W-4 so I would not NEED to claim a refund (except for FICA). After 3 years of being hammered with frivolous penalties and harassment due to the CTC returns I filed, I have come full circle and I am back to not filing a return at all (this is not to say I ignore the evidence being sent to IRS by third parties, as this is unwise.)

But if I must have a debate with IRS, I would rather it be about that information return and whether I am required to file (a discussion I can have from outside their jurisdiction) than to be in a position of begging them to give me my money back and filing a "taxpayer" return that argues that I am not actually a "taxpayer", regardless of how great the argument seems to be.

Or worse--having to argue with them about "frivolous return" penalties. You cannot win a debate with them if they decide your return is frivolous. It is a total nightmare. And no one will help you. Not the taxpayer advocate, not the due process appeals officer, not the Tax Court, probably not even a District Court or Appeals Court. They are all in on it. People I tell about this act like they don't believe me, like I am exaggerating. It is no joke. A "Frivolous return" penalty is a "scarlet letter". They will never tell you what it was that was "frivolous" about your return. If they could just kill you for filing such a return, they would. To them a frivolous return filer is a contagion that could infect the minds of the other cattle.

Don't be fooled that you have found a "magic bullet" with the lawful money redemption. You cannot possibly win any argument as a "taxpayer" unless they allow you to win. By filing a return you agree to play by their "rules" (there actually are none, if they find the rules are too inconvenient--its completely arbitrary). What hope does making an argument for your "remedy" ultimately have in such an environment? Filing a return with any argument on it is like asking for their approval. When they decide they no longer approve, watch out! This is what happened with Cracking the Code returns. It will happen with "lawful money" returns as well.

People have got to be careful about relying on remedy exclusively to extract themselves from the income tax system. I learned this lesson with CTC the hard way. IRS does not like to lose customers. Don't think IRS will not fight as hard as it can for survival. It has survived this long by bamboozling the public and terrorizing individuals. IRS will use bamboozling the public and terrorizing individuals to defeat remedy if it can, no matter how bulletproof you think remedy is.

Public perception is everything. The remedy has been there since 1913, yet people did not know it, so it has done them no good. IRS has had no reason to attack remedy, because so few people knew about it, its better (even at this point) to keep it quiet. If enough people do start to learn about this and use it, it will soon no longer be possible for IRS to sit quietly. If IRS survival is threatened, you can bet the IRS will attack remedy.

Do you really think they care that remedy is legitimate? So is your right to due process, and they trample on that every day. They know (and you should know) that even if people know about remedy, but they don't believe it or they are conditioned that it could land them in prison, or get them harassed by IRS, remedy will be useless.

I am gravely concerned about people getting too excited about filing "lawful money" returns. All it will take to slur remedy publicly is for one person to go to prison for filing "false documents" with the IRS (as Pete Hendrickson was convicted of), and for that person's filing to make anything close to an argument about "redeeming lawful money" along with a good media campaign by IRS to spread the word about the "remedy freaks".

I am not fear-mongering. But don't underestimate the adversary. Don't underestimate the lengths they will go to, no matter how long it takes them! It took them 8 years to bring Hendrickson down, but they had no choice once they were seeing tens of thousands of people (and growing every year) exiting their system for good with CTC!

As Hendrickson found out, a "false documents" charge does not require that any money be owed (they never claimed he owed any, in fact he got 100% refunds for the documents he went to prison for!! Almost 6 years afterward, they charged him with felonies) They also never contested any of his legal arguments on his returns, because they didn't have to! Pete failed to realize that the judge instructs the jury on the law, and that Pete would not be allowed to discuss the law to the jury. A defendant's only realistic defense in a tax case is to convince the jury he had a "sincere belief" he was not breaking the law, but a couple of frivolous return letters is all it will take to show that somebody was put on notice they were "breaking the law" so they "should have known".

Of course, if somebody can't successfully articulate remedy to the average folks on the jury, (or if the jury is rigged, or just impatient, or angry that he isn't paying his "fair share") the defendant is going to be up a creek! And even people who have been acquitted for tax crimes (based on whatever sincerely held belief they have) have been forced to abandon their "wrong" belief afterward (since the Court finds they have broken the law, and the acquittal was based only on the lack of "willfulness", the acquitted defendant can no longer claim he does not "know" he is violating the law if he persists in not filing the way the IRS prefers).

Let's say they don't want lawful money actually discussed in a trial. No problem! Faced with criminal charges, most people will abandon their position and agree to pay whatever IRS demands in back taxes, penalties and interest. When the public sees a "remedy" tax filer having to pay big bucks (by their own agreement, to avoid a trial) after making the remedy argument, IRS can and will discredit remedy without having to even risk a public trial.

But what has really caused the downfall of CTC (and will no doubt be used to destroy remedy) is the relentless $5,000 penalties issued out to thousands of CTC filers. IRS has gotten totally lawless with the 6702 penalties--I have friends who got $5,000 more added to their penalties every time they simply wrote a letter back in response to IRS bills. My friends know that is messed up, but they are no less terrified and they are not exactly referring CTC to anybody like they used to. And that's the whole point. IRS has to stop the spread of the idea. Terror works. Have you seen the lost horizons website lately? Every week Pete is bitching that nobody sends him scans of refund checks anymore.

This is my concern for remedy. Not that it is wrong, but that IRS will try to discredit it sooner or later. If remedy catches on, they will find the lamest person they can to pick on, someone using some convoluted version of remedy, so they are sure to get a conviction (or even an acquittal may serve IRS purposes, since they can still discredit remedy as an argument). But mostly, they will use the frivolous penalty to hammer people who file returns that way into submission (or at least shutting up about it, or advertising it as a recipe for trouble).

[ManOntheLand]

The Achilles heel of any alternate method of filing a return is that you are filing a return. Once the system is targeting your style of return, they can claim the return you filed is frivolous and false etc. and the party is over.

The solution is simple: stop playing by their rules (i.e. don't file a return until it is explained to your satisfaction why it is required), don't rely on a single argument for not filing, go on the attack so that its not just about defending yourself from not filing, and MOST IMPORTANT have at least one argument that a third grader can understand and will grasp on a common sense level.

"Everybody has to pay their fair share" appeals to a very superficial level of common sense, which is why it won't go away. This is what you are up against. A good counter-argument on about the same grade level is: "Who says I have to?" and "Show me what I am required to do and/or why I am required to do it, and I will do it!!" Pretty powerful. That alone has won some tax acquittals, and it may ensure you are never in court to begin with. Think they can or will ever prove you are required to file, or why? They would rather put up with you not filing and leave everybody wondering.

To make remedy useful for tax purposes, and protect against the inevitable IRS assault on remedy, people will be much safer questioning whether they are required to file at all than to send in documents claiming a deduction for lawful money that a dumbed down jury won't understand ("My turbo tax didn't have that deduction!") and which can easily be used against the filer for frivolous penalties or criminal charges. Again, they do not care one bit if your argument is actually on their list of "frivolous positions". Your return will be frivolous because they said so! Don't think for a second that any of your great arguments about why your position is not frivolous will make a bit of difference. I know remedy seems to be "working" right now just fine, and some people are getting refunds. So did CTC filers for 8 or 9 years. Things will change fast if remedy catches on. Let's get real. Pete Hendrickson still insists that the refunds people have gotten from CTC filings "prove" he is 100% correct. His federal felony conviction indicates that at least his method left something to be desired.

You need more than one argument: You can't count on one "silver bullet" with a beast like IRS, especially one they can paint as a "crazy conspiracy theory" (no offense). You need all the silver bullets you can get your hands on! CTC has a lot of truth to it--its just the method of implementing it that ultimately failed. The same arguments behind a CTC filing could be used as an argument for why you do not have to file at all, in addition to the fact that you are redeeming FRN's for lawful money. What's wrong with having a spare argument (as long as its solid)?

I got sick of being hammered with frivolous return penalties two years ago, so instead of a CTC style return, now I send in a statement to rebut any information returns, based on the duress used against me to force me to furnish a SSN, and to sign a W-4. I did not elect to contribute to FICA and I did not elect to have my payments treated as "wages". I worked in the private sector.

Even a third grader can understand its not ok to force people to sign an agreement. The real beauty of the above statements is that they are FACTUAL. I either consented to give a SSN and sign a W-4 or I did not. What I am claiming the employer did to me is so obviously wrong legally as to be almost self-evident. Other than "did this really happen?" there is no debate!! Unless you want to argue that it is somehow okay that my employer coerced me! This puts you in the position of arguing that my signature actually was not even required on the W-4. Then why was I forced to sign it? And if my SSN was required to work there, why did they not demand that number BEFORE they hired me?


I make it clear that I am not a U.S. citizen or resident, and that I did not have any income effectively connected to a trade or business AND (thanks to you David!) that I am redeeming lawful money. These are technically legal arguments, but depend so much on facts within my personal knowledge that they are virtually impossible to contest. You want to tell me I actually am a U.S. Citizen? You want to say I did work in a trade or business within the U.S.? Or that I did not redeem for lawful money? Without being able to contest these, no tax nexus can be established.

Go on the attack: I like the idea of filing something in the USDC from the get go instead of dealing with IRS clowns. I hope a good reliable method in that vein can be worked out. But as long as you are going on the offense, demand that IRS update their records to remove the false information they have received (e.g. the W-2) , unless they can rebut your dispute statement within a reasonable time. If they don't do that, and especially if they start claiming I need to file, I have laid the grounds for a lawsuit that anybody can understand--my right to demand that incorrect information about me be corrected (unless they can prove its true, which they cannot). And all my other claims are built into it already--clues to how their scam works---things they do not want talked about in any court EVER. Think they will give me my refund and leave me alone then?

The IRS still controls the Courts and they still control the media (don't be fooled by the recent "scandal"-- nothing will change over there). You don't want a close game against the IRS in the court of public opinion, you have to beat them by 8 touchdowns. You have to show them that you could make your case that you are so OBVIOUSLY right that even third graders know you are right. And people have to see that there is a SAFE way to implement what you are talking about here on this forum. Otherwise its just sophistry.

They have built their scam with layers of fraud. So the solution should also be multi-layered. Let's not hang our hats totally on lawful money. You already know you are right. They know you are right. But the remedy will be safer in the long run if its integrated with other topics they wish to avoid and can't label a "frivolous argument", such as factual claims about coercion and duress.

[David Merrill]

Five or six suitors are CtC victims (Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code). A couple now have their current full refunds absorbed by past tax liabilities. This is a good verification that redeeming lawful money functions as it is described by law.

I have never promoted Redeeming Lawful Money as a silver bullet.

The problem with your approach (and I only glance at the approach, because if the foundation is faulty that renders the remainder of the post immaterial) is that most people have to have a job, to be employed. Therefore the employer will send W-4 Withholdings or 1099 Reports to the IRS. The IRS makes sure this is done.

Therefore the employee is out about the same amount that would be due if he were to file, and may incur a criminal complaint for failure to file if he or she does not file a Return. In the instances of a self-employed individual he will file, even without any Withholdings due back to avoid presumption of a liability based on the 1099 Reports from clients (employers). Of course if you can get by prosperously without this paper train that is wonderful.

Three suitors have been attacked by $5K Frivolous Filing Penalties (FrivPens) after redeeming lawful money. The first is an international banker in a global (huge) bank working in "International Settlements" and keeps an unused "Tax Preparer License" to improve his resume. He got mixed up with Ed RIVERA's school and began trying to educate the clerk of court in the Clerk Instruction about various patriot mythology. [I should sanitize an example some day.] I felt this was "entrapment" of sorts; to come off to the IRS as a dimwit and making himself a target.

In his banking/social circles he overheard an associate's sister, an IRS attorney saying, "There is a group of people in Colorado who do not have to pay Income Tax. They are doing it right." He drifted over and inquired but she became nervous and clammed up. So he immediately figured out this was reference to suitors and contacted me.

The other two are highly paid financial advisors. So there must be (I work on intuition and deduction as intelligence nexus in the brain trust) a career nexus implied or express about that field. In gaining the benefit of the financial advisory industry I can understand how it is presumed one honors the private credit game inside the scope of the Federal Reserve and other central banks.

You go ahead and refine your WARNING but please examine your premise and put it at the beginning of your posts. I am not defending Redeeming Lawful Money so much as reporting findings of fact. I sanitize the examples for privacy of the suitors and for the quality of this website. Connecting real people over the Internet to their actual names and addresses, phone numbers etc. feels like crap. It violates a trust in cyberspace and emotionally people jockey their mouses elsewhere.

There are many, many reports of this working and working permanently than I bother to report by Crosstalk here. - From the other day:

Speaking of refund - file up yet another year of a full refund [withholdings from both State and Fed]. We received the State refund Friday. I, use the royal We, meaning my Wife and I. We form One in Union - where there was once fear it has been replaced with knowledge. We are about the business of teaching our children.

Elevation for those who can receive it: Yehoshuah [Jesus] did not ride one animal into Jerusalem - he rode TWO. Furthermore, the Magi did not come to the manger, they came to the House - he was almost two years old. Gifts fit for a King.

Excellency, I come in the Name of the King. There, now you have standing!

I find the highlighted sentence very enlightening. Before the supreme Lawgiver this couple is productive and industrious. They create issue. That issue (children) again creates issue (generations). They are productive and honor true balances. The IRS is subject to law and honors their place without the scope of the Income Tax.


This is quite fascinating to me,


David Merrill.

[ManOntheLand]

[QUOTE=David Merrill;10745]Five or six suitors are CtC victims (Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code). A couple now have their current full refunds absorbed by past tax liabilities. This is a good verification that redeeming lawful money functions as it is described by law.

I have no doubt that redeeming lawful money should function as described by law. My doubt lies in the presumption that IRS has any respect for any law but the law of necessity for its own survival. On that basis, I predict diminishing returns (no pun intended) as more people employ this method of obtaining refunds, as happened with CTC.

Much ado is being made about the speed of delivery of these refunds but this is probably a function of an IRS clerk not knowing what else to do with the claim and just sending it on. Such a return does have the advantage over CTC filings of not claiming the income was zero (zero income on a return gets IRS very upset). But do you seriously think an IRS clerk has any idea what a lawful money filer is talking about? Such rapidly honored claims do not appear to be scrutinized at all by IRS. Yet.

Furthermore, the IRS computers will not recognize this deduction people are taking, and eventually these returns will automatically get flagged for an audit. And when the audit comes, these filers will learn the hard way about the other nexuses of taxation they ignored while they were hanging their hat entirely on lawful money redemption. It is flawed application of the knowledge that will lead to the opportunity for IRS to discredit the lawful money redemption remedy, as happened with CTC.

I have never promoted Redeeming Lawful Money as a silver bullet.

People who look to you for guidance are filing for 100% refunds based only on LM deduction and being told of others doing the same. What do you expect they are going to do with that information? They are using it as a silver bullet. This is the danger. These people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in abandoning all things CTC and the very important aspect of the non-resident alien status (for tax purposes) of Americans. And totally ignoring the fact that there are multiple nexuses of taxation in effect. See Lawful Tax Avoidance by Richard DiMare.

The problem with your approach (and I only glance at the approach, because if the foundation is faulty that renders the remainder of the post immaterial) is that most people have to have a job, to be employed. Therefore the employer will send W-4 Withholdings or 1099 Reports to the IRS. The IRS makes sure this is done.

Yes they do have to have a job. And based on undue influence and economic duress, they sign agreements they would never sign of their own free will. Should we ignore this gigantic legal flaw in the tax system? Yes the IRS does intimidate employers into coercing their employees into the system. This is the easiest WRONG thing about the system to identify. Why ignore that?

My approach is very centered around those info returns and the need to dispute them with SSA and IRS due to duress and fraud, because of the independent nexuses of taxation those info returns represent. I have successfully gotten IRS and state tax agencies (after a couple of go-arounds) to beg off by simply disputing info returns. They don't give up easy, but if they can't get anywhere with you after a couple of letters asking why you didn't file, and pretending you did not dispute the info returns, all they are left with is to pretend you did not respond to them. Pretty flimsy and easy to counter--especially if one uses an evidence repository at the USDC (or merely warns IRS they are in the process of doing so).

Understandably people do not want to rock the boat at their job, but you are not required to agree with false third party reporting either. This area seems to me to be a serious gap in the understanding of the brain trust on this forum. People love the fantasy of the quick easy solution where you don't have to confront anybody and you get to be "nice" the whole way through. But I think it is very naive to believe you can just file your return a certain way and escape the tax system. Do you really think it is this easy? Who do you think you are dealing with? This was Hendrickson's problem--he recognized corruption only to a point. He actually expected to get a fair shake in the Courts. They are not going to just stand around and let you ruin their scam. Not without a fight. Sorry to burst anybody's bubble. Right now LM is not a serious threat. It has not warranted a memo to all personnel quite yet. But don't think it won't.

Therefore the employee is out about the same amount that would be due if he were to file, and may incur a criminal complaint for failure to file if he or she does not file a Return. In the instances of a self-employed individual he will file, even without any Withholdings due back to avoid presumption of a liability based on the 1099 Reports from clients (employers). Of course if you can get by prosperously without this paper train that is wonderful.

The employee should be claiming exempt on the W-4 to minimize withholding. After all, if you expect to get a 100% refund anyway, why are you NOT claiming exempt? You might want to note the duress with a TDC by your signature, because the employer has no lawful right to force you into a voluntary withholding agreement (per IRC 3402). The proper form is actually a W-8BEN. Maybe they won't accept it, but you should at least try.

As described in my approach, a properly made dispute of info returns (not with Forms 4852 attached to a return as CTC filers do) will eliminate the presumption one is required to file. If you are concerned about criminal complaints, you should pay close attention to how Hendrickson got snowed on felony charges for filing false documents. This is far worse than a misdemeanor for failing to file. And since most people will not ever be prosecuted, a more realistic concern is the audit and frivolous return penalty. All avoidable by establishing that you are not required to file in the first place. No one filing a LM return seems to understand non-resident alien status either. A 1040 with your signature establishes that you are a "U.S. Individual". i.e. a federal peon. Another unfortunate gap in the understanding of this brain trust.

[ManOntheLand]

Three suitors have been attacked by $5K Frivolous Filing Penalties (FrivPens) after redeeming lawful money. The first is an international banker in a global (huge) bank working in "International Settlements" and keeps an unused "Tax Preparer License" to improve his resume. He got mixed up with Ed RIVERA's school and began trying to educate the clerk of court in the Clerk Instruction about various patriot mythology. [I should sanitize an example some day.] I felt this was "entrapment" of sorts; to come off to the IRS as a dimwit and making himself a target.

In his banking/social circles he overheard an associate's sister, an IRS attorney saying, "There is a group of people in Colorado who do not have to pay Income Tax. They are doing it right." He drifted over and inquired but she became nervous and clammed up. So he immediately figured out this was reference to suitors and contacted me.

Perhaps by "doing it right" it is meant merely that they have chosen not to harass such filers (for now) out of practical concerns (not wanting to expose the FRN nexus) until they are ready with their plan to discredit the argument in the mind of the public (should it spread to a point where that becomes necessary). Let's not assume there are no errors in ignoring other nexuses of taxation. How exactly do you suppose redeeming lawful money legally trumps other nexuses of taxation, like (presumed) federally privileged employment or participating in FICA?

The other two are highly paid financial advisors. So there must be (I work on intuition and deduction as intelligence nexus in the brain trust) a career nexus implied or express about that field. In gaining the benefit of the financial advisory industry I can understand how it is presumed one honors the private credit game inside the scope of the Federal Reserve and other central banks.

You go ahead and refine your WARNING but please examine your premise and put it at the beginning of your posts. I am not defending Redeeming Lawful Money so much as reporting findings of fact. I sanitize the examples for privacy of the suitors and for the quality of this website. Connecting real people over the Internet to their actual names and addresses, phone numbers etc. feels like crap. It violates a trust in cyberspace and emotionally people jockey their mouses elsewhere.

There are many, many reports of this working and working permanently than I bother to report by Crosstalk here. - From the other day:





I find the highlighted sentence very enlightening. Before the supreme Lawgiver this couple is productive and industrious. They create issue. That issue (children) again creates issue (generations). They are productive and honor true balances. The IRS is subject to law and honors their place without the scope of the Income Tax.


This is quite fascinating to me,


David Merrill.[/QUOTE]

I love your idealism. I am studying ACIM myself. But IRS stands for Individuals Representing Satan. Th evil goes all the way up the chain. They know the Courts will back them up. I had a Tax Court case recently. You should have seen how cocksure of herself the IRS attorney (my opponent) was. She knew she could not lose no matter what. I am dealing with the Tax Court judge right now who on the record ordered the clerk to reject and not file my Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and then proceeded to conduct a trial in my absence. I re-submitted the Motion to Dismiss, which the judge treated as a Motion to Vacate. The judge then vacated all his orders and decision at trial, only to re-issue the same exact orders and decision four days later, adding a $1000 fine because of unspecified "frivolous arguments". I am moving to vacate those orders, expecting a denial. Then I will find out if the Appellate Court is as corrupt as this judge is. BTW he is a brand new appointment to the bench.

[JohnnyCash]

Just a note to quickly say ... I read Cracking the Code back in 2008, filed a near-zero-income return for that year and received a full refund and then stopped filing. Fortunately I then discovered David Merrill and moved outside the scope of the Federal Reserve. 2013 marks my sixth year as a NONTAXPAYER with no issues. Yes, the IRS recognizes lawful money! God bless you David!

Interesting to note the many posts from the disinfo agents here. I sense desperation yet wonderful to see. This tells me we are having an effect. I note that Jay's blog no longer boasts "Creator of the anti-scam website Quatloos.com"...

Current: http://blogs.forbes.com/jayadkisson
2012: http://jesse2012.com//Forbes2012.JPG

[Brian]

MOTL: Did I understand what you said correctly? You filed a tax court case and then motioned to dismiss it?

[ManOntheLand]

I ended up Moving to Dismiss just before trial when I realized I had unknowingly entered a jurisdiction where incorrect presumptions were being made by virtue of my mere presence in the forum. Since I was the Petitioner, it seems I would have every right to voice this mistake of law and withdraw my Petition. I was all ready to litigate the case but in pre-trial conference, the IRS attorney made it clear she would not be required to meet the burden of proof that I was a "person" as defined in IRC 6671(b) which is the operative definition for a 6702 penalty and a factual predicate to the offense (that I was under a duty to file the returns in question). I was under the impression when I petitioned the Court (based upon federal case law) that IRC 6703 required the Secretary to meet the burden of proof for all factual predicates as to whether I was liable for a frivolous penalty. This was clearly not going to be the case--and the IRS attorney in her arrogance could not help but tip her hand to me that the fix was in, in every way. For some reason the judge thought it was very important to keep my Motion out of the record so he could pretend to have jurisdiction without meeting any of my challenges to that jurisdiction. He then denied my Motion previously filed for judgment on the pleadings, as IRS never alleged sufficient facts to support a finding that I was liable for a 6702 penalty. It was the form of a legal process with none of the substance. Total kangaroo court.

[ManOntheLand]

Just a note to quickly say ... I read Cracking the Code back in 2008, filed a near-zero-income return for that year and received a full refund and then stopped filing. Fortunately I then discovered David Merrill and moved outside the scope of the Federal Reserve. 2013 marks my sixth year as a NONTAXPAYER with no issues. Yes, the IRS recognizes lawful money! God bless you David!

Interesting to note the many posts from the disinfo agents here. I sense desperation yet wonderful to see. This tells me we are having an effect. I note that Jay's blog no longer boasts "Creator of the anti-scam website Quatloos.com"...

Current: http://blogs.forbes.com/jayadkisson
2012: http://jesse2012.com//Forbes2012.JPG

Not sure if you are referring to me as a disinfo agent, J.C. but I am all in favor of claiming redemption in lawful money. I agree with your approach of not filing. That is my main point for those who are filing a return and taking a "lawful money deduction": lawful money redemption could be used just as much to justify not filing at all (provided you adequately rebut information returns) and you would be safer than signing a return and putting yourself at Auntie's mercy any time they feel like coming after you. Congrats on your 6 years of success with this. Remember that CTC had a good run of 8 or 9 years, before too many people were doing it and IRS went on the attack. I have successfully avoided income tax for 12 years, three of those with a CTC type approach. I too have stopped filing. I have had very little trouble since then and some good success for a couple of years just deflecting any of their efforts to get me to file. Probably in the long run it would be best to be proactive and ask them to correct info returns filed against me in their records. I am guessing this is more important if a larger amount of "income" is being reported on those forms.

Millions of people don't file and do not have any particular method or justification. They can't go after everybody obviously. Not being harassed is great, but does not prove anything in itself. IRS is like a glacier: very slow moving, but once it is upon you, can cause a lot of damage. Expect the best but plan for the worst, that's all I am saying. What would you do if you were suddenly arrested tomorrow and charged with tax evasion? How would you defend yourself? This is probably really unlikely to happen, but to me its about being prepared. "The art of war teaches us not to rely upon the enemy not coming, but instead to rely on our readiness to receive him".

[ManOntheLand]

According to Mr. Merrill, three suitors have been attacked for frivolous penalties (that we know of). This just illlustrates that, right or wrong, you are actually at Auntie's mercy the whole time not to attack you this way when you choose to file a return (again, my point is only that LMR and not filing is safer than using LMR as a "position" on your tax return.)

I understand why, as a practical matter, IRS may choose not to mess with LMR filers (for now) But I still do not understand legally how LRM can trump the other presumed nexuses of taxation created by 1099 forms and W-2 as these have nothing to do with what you did with your payment once you got it. The activity you were being paid for is presumed taxable when those forms are used. This leaves a gaping vulnerability for people who file this way, and expect LMR to act as a silver bullet.

[Brian]

I ended up Moving to Dismiss just before trial when I realized I had unknowingly entered a jurisdiction where incorrect presumptions were being made by virtue of my mere presence in the forum. Since I was the Petitioner, it seems I would have every right to voice this mistake of law and withdraw my Petition. I was all ready to litigate the case but in pre-trial conference, the IRS attorney made it clear she would not be required to meet the burden of proof that I was a "person" as defined in IRC 6671(b) which is the operative definition for a 6702 penalty and a factual predicate to the offense (that I was under a duty to file the returns in question). I was under the impression when I petitioned the Court (based upon federal case law) that IRC 6703 required the Secretary to meet the burden of proof for all factual predicates as to whether I was liable for a frivolous penalty. This was clearly not going to be the case--and the IRS attorney in her arrogance could not help but tip her hand to me that the fix was in, in every way. For some reason the judge thought it was very important to keep my Motion out of the record so he could pretend to have jurisdiction without meeting any of my challenges to that jurisdiction. He then denied my Motion previously filed for judgment on the pleadings, as IRS never alleged sufficient facts to support a finding that I was liable for a 6702 penalty. It was the form of a legal process with none of the substance. Total kangaroo court.

Ok, I get that. The problem with lawful money of the U.S. is it is fire! They may find ways to intimidate and coerce as always but this remedy is correct in my view. I don't think they will want to discuss this topic in court. Oh and as far as attacking folks attempting remedy, it is bound to happen as most agents only know what the IRM says. Your material probably has to be pitched to someone (a lawyer) who has a clue. Most people are just flat ignorant of this distinction between different types of "money".