Income Tax question

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Qreos

Equity and law PROCEDURE merged in America in 1938.

There is a definite upside - Good Faith must be recognized. Any equity judge must resort to good faith as crucial to any agreement.

If I had been informed, in good faith, that I could have been redeeming lawful money instead of FRNs, I would have been redeeming lawful money since my very first paycheck - ever.

Regards,

David Merrill.

[sucker4lush]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

It is always refreshing to hear from you Sucker4lush! You confirm that I am speaking plain English while a lot of folks might try to make it come off that I am only speaking in word salad.

I still don't get the "no DOB" thing though, even though I've used it*. I 'member when you told someone, "Just try to find a DOB for David Merrill". But just because they can't find one (unless maybe they looked in your family Bible), doesn't mean you don't have one, which just happens to be the same day as DMVP. Obviously, you are here, you were created, spawned, whatever... Is it a problem with the word "birth"? Is there a different, or more scientific word to use? Would you say you have a DON- "Date of nativity?"

*I was locked up for FTA on a suspended DL charge, which has no availability for a bond-out. The judge asked for my DOB and I said I didn't have one to give her. She gave the reply you'd expect and then I said that I didn't remember being born, so the date was just hearsay. She said, "Oh great, another jailhouse lawyer". I said, "I'm not the one with the state bar #". Next thing I know, OR.

(Another time, I had a case about a fine that I was never notified about and the judge told me he didn't have to give me notice if he didn't feel like it.)

[sucker4lush]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

2) He got a $500 bill for frivolous tax return from the IRS. Maybe $1000 for both years.

So it worked with the state, but not the IRS?

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Now he has a judgment Article III exclusive to the People in place res judicata in his true name with a seal (thumbprint) proving he is a man on the land. That is what I call capital integration.

How do these judgements come about? From the fact the other party never answers? NEVER? What is the next step if they challenge? Adjudication? How do things get adjudicated with no Art.III courts*? What kind of ID do they ask for when filing a LOR? How are people filing in their given names? (You can't get ID reflecting only your given name from the state, in my experience- I tried it and they told me "we don't do DBA") Could an illegal immigrant file a LOR in her given name?

Originally Posted by David Merrill

There is a longstanding tradition of changing the name. But since the 1960's that has taken on a new meaning as far as standing in the district courts and admiralty. see attachment and...

http://www.freedom-school.com/the-1994-ebsworth.pdf

To save time on that look at page 18 of this paper quoting the above lecture heavily:

http://usa-the-republic.com/items%20...%20Exposed.pdf

That stuff gives me a headache (score one for "the man") and it could be argued that WISWALL didn't say he was talking about names.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

And understand why after confirming that the Lecture was being removed from the Internet I recorded the conversation attached. In other words I suspected that when I reached Dr. Wiswall I would find evidence he had been harassed about saying...

You mean removed from that lawfirms site, right? Not the internet itself. Too convoluted and obscure to call in the Men In Black.

The District Courts under the new FRCP were quickly forced by the volume of litigation into the wholesale application of equitable remedies in actions "at law".

I am quickly forced by the volume of my bills to rob a bank. Necessary and definitely proper.
[Note to homeland security data mining personnel: Joke.]

My point is that the true name sounds silly unless you understand the context of Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph Vining. So I am sure the suitor knows when to identify himself correctly...

True name never sounded silly to me. It's just someone's individual, personal name without the collective family name. What can get silly is when people believe you have to have a collective name attached to properly identify someone. What if your biological family were psychos who locked you in a dungeon all your life, but you got out somehow and were loved and nurtured by a local church, so you used that doctrine to substitute the church's name for your family's? And you didn't stop there. To satisfy an urge to belong, you started adding names of all the collectives that you belonged to until your name was ridiculously long and ended in "homo sapiens". Silly.

But when he shakes your hand being introduced at a Sunday BBQ among friends, he likely says:

"I am First Last." - like normal people do.

Or when he writes books about legal identity. So obviously, what would be really cool would be to find a court case involving VINING and see what name he used. Do you have that page from the book sans note? Can you add more about the last sentence?

*The courts claim to be Art. III though, right? Isn't that claim, unchallenged, a default judgement? If your base LOR has statements that the courts are not Art. III- but that wording isn't what the case is specifically about- and you win by default or whatever, is that a judgement that the courts are not Art. III?

[jekylisland]

since this post is in success stories, i will post mine.

evidence: the back of a social security card states that the card and the information on it belong to the social security administration.

conclusion: social security cards, and the titles, and the numbers on them, belong to the social security administration.

evidence: trust, n. 1. the right, enforceable solely in equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of property to which another person holds legal title; a property interest held by one person (the trustee) at the request of another (the settlor) for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary). Black's Law Dictionary.

conclusion: if you are in possession of a social security card, you are holding the property of another for the benefit of a third party. out of ignorance you may be lending consciousness to the position of trustee, for a trust.

evidence: the district of columbia organic act of 1871 created a corporation known as the united states government. this corporation has a sub-unit called a social security administration. this corporation has created "persons" in the form of trusts, and has law's regarding how trustees manage the trusts.

conclusion: anyone lending consciousness to the position of trustee would have the ability to report income or losses from the trust's activities.

evidence: another sub-unit of the united states government has created a form for reporting the income or loss from a trust's activities. this form is a 1041.

conclusion: anyone acting in capacity of trustee should report income or losses from a trust's activities on a 1041, and in calculating income or loss, and an accounting of fiduciary fees should be indicated on the appropriated line.

i do this annually, however, there were years when i mistakenly sent in the wrong form. not only was it the wrong form it was filled-in incorrectly. so, the trust was assessed frivolous fees, penalties and interest. the principle balance for these years was returned upon completeing the 1041, but the frivolous fees, penalties and interest remain.

[Truth-Bringer]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

(3) I expect a lot of abuse for saying this but CRACKING THE CODE has not worked for people. The publishers just lost a major case with the IRS, and the few times that it's been mentioned in tax cases, the people relying on it went down to defeat.

I haven't read the book, but I've read over his website and most of his conclusions look accurate. I know the ultimate trick in the matter is classifying everyone as federal employees for the purpose of the tax, and he's absolutely right about that.

And the government is still having to use all manner of legal tricks to try and entrap him.

The key to understanding the whole issue is to see how they did it for the first income tax in 1862. They were using deception and trickery then, and they're using it now.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by jekylisland

since this post is in success stories, i will post mine.

evidence: the back of a social security card states that the card and the information on it belong to the social security administration.

conclusion: social security cards, and the titles, and the numbers on them, belong to the social security administration.

evidence: trust, n. 1. the right, enforceable solely in equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of property to which another person holds legal title; a property interest held by one person (the trustee) at the request of another (the settlor) for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary). Black's Law Dictionary.

conclusion: if you are in possession of a social security card, you are holding the property of another for the benefit of a third party. out of ignorance you may be lending consciousness to the position of trustee, for a trust.

evidence: the district of columbia organic act of 1871 created a corporation known as the united states government. this corporation has a sub-unit called a social security administration. this corporation has created "persons" in the form of trusts, and has law's regarding how trustees manage the trusts.

conclusion: anyone lending consciousness to the position of trustee would have the ability to report income or losses from the trust's activities.

evidence: another sub-unit of the united states government has created a form for reporting the income or loss from a trust's activities. this form is a 1041.

conclusion: anyone acting in capacity of trustee should report income or losses from a trust's activities on a 1041, and in calculating income or loss, and an accounting of fiduciary fees should be indicated on the appropriated line.

i do this annually, however, there were years when i mistakenly sent in the wrong form. not only was it the wrong form it was filled-in incorrectly. so, the trust was assessed frivolous fees, penalties and interest. the principle balance for these years was returned upon completeing the 1041, but the frivolous fees, penalties and interest remain.

I would agree with your points. Well done, keep the good work up.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by sucker4lush

I still don't get the "no DOB" thing though, even though I've used it*. I 'member when you told someone, "Just try to find a DOB for David Merrill". But just because they can't find one (unless maybe they looked in your family Bible), doesn't mean you don't have one, which just happens to be the same day as DMVP...

This moves into a paradigm shift for you. Do you have property rights? Do you have the entitlement to buy and sell? Can you acquire things by a gift, for free and own them?

Can you give things away?

In all its simplicity, why would you keep insisting I have something that I have told you I do not have? Why would you insist I have something that for all intents and purposes I do not wish to have?

I could leave that there but there is an ancient maxim in law that no man can be compelled to incriminate himself. Information by definition is used to indict before a jury. A law enforcement officer has every right in common law to demand for very little provokation that I identify myself. Which I do - I will show him a Certificate of Search on David Merrill. It has my name on it. Correctly spelled. There. I have identified myself.

Then he always asks for my DOB and I tell him I do not have one. He gets upset and threatens me. I tell him no man can be compelled to incriminate himself. He tells me that I will not be incriminating myself and that is not what Miranda means...

I just do not fall for the trap set. I informed him when he went that step from conversation to detainment, that he had fifteen minutes. Fourteen minutes of threats and radio chatter trying to dig up dirt on David Merrill and he gives me back my Certificate of Search, tries to make me feel stupid about my "stupid games" and walks away.

Originally Posted by sucker4lush

So it worked with the state, but not the IRS?

By working you mean full refund - Yes. However the state depends on federal which really sheds some light on things for you.

How do these judgements come about? From the fact the other party never answers? NEVER? What is the next step if they challenge? Adjudication? How do things get adjudicated with no Art.III courts*? What kind of ID do they ask for when filing a LOR? How are people filing in their given names? (You can't get ID reflecting only your given name from the state, in my experience- I tried it and they told me "we don't do DBA") Could an illegal immigrant file a LOR in her given name?

Default comes from not answering - Yes. No next step. The judge/suitor decides if there will be time granted but then again, the judge/suitor knows the answer already. Even if the foreign agent had filed in US district court, the judge/suitor would have been notified by summons and that did not happen.

They do not ask for an ID to file a LoR. They require an ID to get in the US courthouse. In one instance they tried to boil that over to the suit by a security guard coming into the clerk of court's office and demand the new suitor show his government-issued ID to the clerk. Silly. It was so rediculous that they never repeated that in Denver with the many subsequent suitors.

That stuff gives me a headache (score one for "the man") and it could be argued that WISWALL didn't say he was talking about names.

Yeah! One guy called it the biggest brainfart he had ever heard and another said he felt like sticking his head in a beehive. Wiswall was talking about the Trading with the Enemy Act (1917) amendments in 1933 and blending law and equity in 1938.

You mean removed from that lawfirms site, right? Not the internet itself. Too convoluted and obscure to call in the Men In Black.

The Wiswall paper was showing hits, about six and when I would go there, the Lecture was gone. I finally got so suspicious that I recorded first contact with Wiswall; I reached his wife who was treating me like somebody who seemed quite threatening to her before me.



True name never sounded silly to me. It's just someone's individual, personal name without the collective family name. What can get silly is when people believe you have to have a collective name attached to properly identify someone. What if your biological family were psychos who locked you in a dungeon all your life, but you got out somehow and were loved and nurtured by a local church, so you used that doctrine to substitute the church's name for your family's? And you didn't stop there. To satisfy an urge to belong, you started adding names of all the collectives that you belonged to until your name was ridiculously long and ended in "homo sapiens". Silly.

Like the DOB, legal or full name carries assumpsit (He Promised). It seems that the tradition has changed within the scope of court rules in the last 35 years.

Or when he writes books about legal identity. So obviously, what would be really cool would be to find a court case involving VINING and see what name he used. Do you have that page from the book sans note? Can you add more about the last sentence?

I gather you mean the main text covered by the Sticky, about the footnote:

One simply has to understand either that all US citizens are federal employees before and after 1861. Or that attachment to a birth certificate is prima facie bond to pledging Government bonds of 1933 - either one because they both say the same thing since that is when the US citizen became the enemy.

*The courts claim to be Art. III though, right? Isn't that claim, unchallenged, a default judgement? If your base LOR has statements that the courts are not Art. III- but that wording isn't what the case is specifically about- and you win by default or whatever, is that a judgement that the courts are not Art. III?

One has to remember that Article III is exclusive to the people. Original causes can be entertained in the Supreme Court as well. Just that nobody knows that so they always get there through appeal. I suppose the clerks would not even recognize it should it ever happen:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/Rules.pdf

PART IV. Other Jurisdiction

Rule 17. Procedure in an Original Action

1. This Rule applies only to an action invoking the Court's original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution of the United States. See also 28 U. S. C. §1251 and U. S. Const., Amdt. 11. A petition for an extraordinary writ in aid of the Court's appellate jurisdiction shall be filed as provided in Rule 20.

2. The form of pleadings and motions prescribed by...

and especially,

Rule 45. Process; Mandates

1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.

...not in the Name of the People.

Until I was utilizing the fact, the US Supreme Court clerk of court's telephone line proprietor was BATF!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[ThomPaine]

DM, how did you determine the BATF was the proprietor (owner, agent, registered party?) of their line. PM me if desired.

Thom

[Hugh]

jekylisland, Truth-Bringer,

Your comments are particularly interesting.

jekylisland, you have indeed discovered the truth.

Truth-Bringer, I am sympathetic to your understanding as it is precisely where I stood several years ago. Further study and reflection has demonstrated that the original income tax, and others of its progeny which were found to be unconstitutional, were quite different from the present day one.

The "New Deal" has proven to be a plan of "creativity" for the corporate governments whereby, with the contracted consent of the "people" new "persons" are created within the District States.

Download and study the application for a Social Security Card (SS-5) as well as the Social Security Act of 1935 (it isn't very large) for a start.

Research the postal abbreviations for the "states" which now have extensive use.

In spite of the obfuscation on the part of the Corp. U.S. and its several agencies the truth is in the documentation. And, thankfully, the solution to truthful living is simpler than many would believe.

jekylisland has clearly found the way!

[macerico]

Frankly, I don't see why people would do anything to try and get back former year taxes after learning the truth about the income tax.

To do so only draws unneeded attention. Chalk it up to experience and focus your energies on keeping as much of what is yours as possible without throwing up red flags.

Every time you file a tax return, you are making a sworn statement that you OWE the money listed. It's a trap. Yeah, you can get some of it back, but not most or all of it without raising a few eyebrows along the way.

It's the same thing with a tax audit. Don't sign nothing, don't make a case for anything, insist that the IRS prove that you owe anything at all with THEIR evidence. If they try to push the matter, the must go to court and get a judgment, and even a tax court is bound by rules of evidence. In most cases, the people lose because they gave the IRS all the "evidence" they needed to win, not because the IRS had a good case (or any case) to start with.