Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?

[JohnnyCash]

For the past 3 years I have filed a 'CtC-educated' return - owning a business (medical practice), I have rebutted any 1099-misc that was reported. I have not had any problems with the "Service" - they have even sent a refund of monies that were withheld because I refused to submit a W-9 to one particular company. I didn't even ask for any type of refund.

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

[Gregory Harold]

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

[JHV]

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

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

[JohnnyCash]

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6888/1099k1.jpg
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9056/1099k2.jpg
What you believe may not be what happens in the real world. That is a recent Form 1099K and no taxes were withheld. This is a new Form started TY2011 and that's the first 1099K I've seen. It seems the banking cartel didn't rest easy knowing they might be losing a tiny portion of their annual take due to non-reporting of credit card transactions. It's been said they really wanted info on the PayPal transactions and eBay owns PayPal. PayPal uses the JPMorganChase bank, the largest manifestation of the banking cabal as it exists in this country (or is Quatloos.com bigger?). But I digress; I'm having trouble comprehending how the Feds are withholding all the money that you later say is being automatically refunded to you ... without you even asking? There are currently no backup withholding provisions with 1099-K, those were planned but delayed.

[David Merrill]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, David. Yes, I definitely realize I am having trouble with all of this. That Libel of Review was especially headache-inducing since it was just a collection of scans, and no real direction. Of course, I'm not expecting anyone to completely hold hands, but at least knowing what we're looking at would be helpful.

As far as Lawful Money, while a worthy application, only one piece of my personal situation. I wasn't specifically asking about getting past returns back, it was just an example. My biggest issue right now is the 80% of my pay being taken by levy. I don't think telling them that I'm redeeming Lawful Money is going to help with that... Hell, I can't even talk to a [i]human[i] at the IRS who is even willing to simply reduce the amount so I can live, without that invasive 433-F with all my bank info and mortgage information.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Regards,

David Merrill.



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

[JHV]

The Lesson Plan is:

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

[David Merrill]

The Lesson Plan is:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Regards,

David Merrill.


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

[JHV]

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

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

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

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

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

[David Merrill]

When you're strange?

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



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

[allodial]

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

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

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

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

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