Can requesting one's IMF trigger new scrutiny?

[the_awakening_one]

I'm intrigued with the tactic of getting my IMF data and seeing what's there, but would hate to trigger some interest or scrutiny by doing so. I have not had any contact with the beast since about 1993 or '94. Is there a significant risk in doing so?

Same question applies to any other similar strategy, the goal of which would be to obtain information about my "account" (I don't know what these moves would be, but I assume there are numerous ways one could request or obtain one's own "account status" info.

More posts to come in near future with good questions... I've been reading here (and elsewhere) a long time now and studying these matters even longer, and am starting to get quite a bit wiser, though many contradictions and conundrums still confuse consistently.

[weishaupt1776]

IMF decoding is a huge waste of time, energy, and possibly FRNS

Time could be much better spent reading Marc Stevens or LB Bork, or THe LEgal Bear, or jurisdictionary

[the_awakening_one]

Thanks Weis... it looks like I double-posted, yikes how embarrassing... sorry everyone. Maybe Mr. Mod could delete the other one...?

To me it seems like vital intelligence though... why do you call it a waste of time? How could it be a waste of time to obtain evidence of the fraudulent/erroneous basis for possible future malfeasance against me?

I plan on reading Bork, in fact I'm eager to, despite that his basic position appears to get shot down just like every other one. I will check into your other recommendations.

t_a_o

[weishaupt1776]

They ignore IMF's in court and at collection due process hearings

My friends have tried it at both venues and still got liened/levied

The people who take on status positions are shut down because they didn't submit paperwork with the right position(s) in law to the right agencies PRIOR TO the action

They try to claim "who they are" in a legal brief at the last minute when they are coming after them

Also, there are very few of us doing it, which makes it easier to possibly get shut down

The real issue is not really "does it work", but "is it the right thing to do?"

When you see that it is a crime to be a U.S. Citizen pursuant to the 14th Amdmt, you will realize that doing the right thing is more important than "will get me out paying income taxes"

Most people who do this process just to get out of paying income taxes wind up being pretty useless for our cause anyway, and I wish they had never done
it

at LB's last seminar last month, an ex-deputy who is doing the process, called the New Hampshire STATE police, and they verified that New Hampshire nationals are recognized

one of the guys who did the process got pulled over w/no tags, etc . . , and the cop came back after looking on the 'puter and asked him what a New Hampshire national was

So, I could say w/ 100% confidence that, who ever got "shut down" in the cases you refer to, didn't perform a process such as State Nationals, and also thought they could just whine about how sovereign they are in a legal brief, thinking that alone is sufficient

Another nugget is that Micheal Badnarik will be joining state nationals soon


That speaks volumes

[the_awakening_one]

Interesting, thank you for the comprehensive reply.

I understand and agree that there are bigger reasons to correct one's status than avoiding taxation. I share your view there. I agree that "is it the right thing to do?" should be the overriding question, but having it work (or at least having a chance to) is also a very important factor. I hope you would also agree with me that there would be no point in thousands of us pursuing a strategy that was noble, but often failed and still landed most of us in trouble.

To be clear, my original comments didn't mean to imply that I don't have any hope that the "Bork position" (for lack of better shorthand) has merit. In fact, I do have such hope. And I would also state that I put much more stock in real-life examples of successes, especially when there are more than one to point to, than I do in cool-sounding but untested/losing positions.

Correcting the administrative record in the way that we are referring to is actually the only method that at this point in my studies I have any real feeling could work---although there are "failure stories" out there for it, too, aren't there? I could swear I've read some. The record-correcting path makes a lot more sense to my mind than relying on any esoteric legal positions, especially code-based arguments.

What it seems like I haven't read, though, is a verifiable case where a court or the IRS came up against someone who had corrected their status and backed off, saying basically "whoops, we can't touch this guy because he has corrected his status and we no longer have jurisdiction over him". If you have something along those lines, I certainly would love to see it.

With regard to what Bork offers as to how to

"...exercise [your rights] without having to create a movement or obtaining signatures on a petition. The book lets you establish the parameters of your private relationship with government. It puts you firmly in the seat of governance where Jefferson, Madison, etc., intended for you to be."

...I hope after I buy and read the book that I will find that that promotional description refers to actual steps that can be taken and things to do, and not just theoretical stuff.

Put another way, I fully understand (and like a lot) the concept of proactively correcting presumptions in the administrative record, but what I DON'T see is any indication that the federal overlords care what the administrative record says. I need an explanation of what happens---real-world, not theoretical---when they encounter someone who has corrected his record before any action began.

I would think I'm an ideal candidate for this path (where the IRS aspect is concerned---I know there are other reasons) because I have no contact with them and haven't for many years, and don't anticipate any coming out of the blue since no one is reporting returns on me.

So you see, my IMF question was asked from curiosity, not an intention to do it as the main thrust of a strategy. Administrative record correction is likely to be my main strategy, but in the meantime I would like to see what's in my IMF, *if* I knew that getting it would not trigger any interest (put me "on the radar").

Another very big question I have is: even if I do this now, are its effects retroactive? Let's say I properly correct the record in 2008---does that cover me for the time before that? Does the correction work ab initio and nunc pro tunc?

[weishaupt1776]

the book does indeed explain the law which supports it, but is not an instruction manual on the steps

the process is separate from the book

yup, we do work it ab inition/nunc pro tunc

I was playing it close to the vest, but after I read the whole book, I knew what I had to do

I don't recommend anyone attempt the process unless they understand the concepts in the Red Amendment

How many of the know it alls on this forum and elsewhere on the web have written a treatise as accurate and substantive as The Red Amendment?

I'm waiting for your book(s) . . .

[the_awakening_one]

But you can't offer anything at all that would give me a little hope that it legally works...? I'll still buy the book, but I'm a lot less pumped about it if it doesn't give tangible help in the area of how to apply its method nor examples of where it has worked.

Does it at least give an outline of steps? e.g. "first you file an affidavit of citizenship status with this and that agency, then you file this here, then that there..." That is the info one would be needing after reading it...

So you can't talk about even one case? I don't mean a citeable legal case necessarily, just a true anecdote that could be verified.

[the_awakening_one]

Sorry if my questions are a bit stupid, but I've been reading and thinking about this stuff for so long that my head is starting to spin.

[Livefire]

I think what Weis is stating is that its important to know and understand who you are. Filing the paperwork is important. but will you be able to stand when confronted by govt. If all you seek is to "get out of stuff", you will fold like a bad poker hand when pressured. I know Weishaupt has faced down the state of Florida concerning misdemeanor charges, so he has definately put his money where his mouth is so to speak!

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by the_awakening_one

But you can't offer anything at all that would give me a little hope that it legally works...?

Not sure If you are talking about reproducable results on a consistent basis or not, but if you are , you are in dreamland, sir. We have reproducable results, but some not so, due to variables such as judges who don't know what's up, or people who have done the process, but then mix in BS processes from others which screw up the whole premise

Originally Posted by the_awakening_one

I'll still buy the book, but I'm a lot less pumped about it if it doesn't give tangible help in the area of how to apply its method nor examples of where it has worked.Does it at least give an outline of steps? e.g. "first you file an affidavit of citizenship status with this and that agency, then you file this here, then that there..." That is the info one would be needing after reading it...

No, the book gives all of the law you need to know in order to intelligently present yourself AFTER you have done the process WHICH IS NOT IN THE BOOK.

Again, if you are looking to put the EXPEDIENCY of "getting out of stuff" (paying taxes, etc . . ) OVER the PRINCIPLE of having the right knowledge to intelligently present the state national position, then you would fall into the "opportunist" category

if you want, PM me, and I'll send you the web page of my dismissal for "no valid DL" on the court's website, but I won't send you the paperwork i filed