redeeming coupons

David Merrill · Post by **David Merrill** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:06 pm

The Observer wrote:How about going to the county recorder's office and looking up what got recorded there? Why are you relying on the hearsay of a "suitor?"

Because the release was recorded there. That is what I told him to do. Record the release.

If I verify what he said was true, then you will want me to tell you all about it. I do not drag others into this nutty site, into the insultinator. At this time, my ongoing conclusion about the Quatloser psychological profile is under alteration.

I figured the first thing you all would attack was the credibility of the fax itself. I did not figure you would try to make:

The NFTL says:

IMPORTANT RELEASE INFORMATION: For each assessment listed below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date given in column (e), this notice shall, on the day following such date, operate as a certificate of release as defined in IRC 6325(a).

and the Release of Lien says:

With respect to each assessment below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e), this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a).

say the same thing. That is a little new spice I will savor for a while - that you are that stupid, trying to make that make sense.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Post by **The Observer** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:15 pm

David Merrill wrote:Because the release was recorded there. That is what I told him to do. Record the release.

And did he try to record that release? Simply amazing that you cannot follow up on such important things to verify that they actually happened.

If I verify what he said was true, then you will want me to tell you all about it.

Well, of course we would. That is what logical people do when conversing with intellectually dishonest people such as yourself. We want to see facts and verification, not listen to your pipe-dreams about what you presumed or dreamt happened.

I do not drag others into this nutty site, into the insultinator. At this time, my ongoing conclusion about the Quatloser psychological profile is under alteration.

Translation: I just want to swallow and accept what the suitor told me as fact. If I have to bother to explain and verify what I am saying, I am going to be exposed as a liar.

I figured the first thing you all would attack was the credibility of the fax itself. I did not figure you would try to make:

ATTENTION, DAVID: I DID ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY OF THE FAX. I TOLD YOU THAT IT IS AN UNOFFICIAL DOCUMENT AND WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE IRS. IT HAS NO OFFICIAL RECORDER'S STAMP ON IT. I EXPLAINED THAT IT IS AN INTERNAL TRANSMISSION DOCUMENT FOR THE IRS' ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM. THEREFORE, IT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING IN OF ITSELF AS A RECORDING DOCUMENT.

The NFTL says:

Yes, now go back to the county recorder's office and find what was recorded in the suitor's name. Then we can talk about what appears on that document

David Merrill · Post by **David Merrill** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:06 pm

The Observer wrote:
David Merrill wrote:Because the release was recorded there. That is what I told him to do. Record the release.
And did he try to record that release? Simply amazing that you cannot follow up on such important things to verify that they actually happened.

Actually I think the broker got a kick out of getting the IRS agent fired; all before the suitor even needed to publish the release.

If I verify what he said was true, then you will want me to tell you all about it.
Well, of course we would. That is what logical people do when conversing with intellectually dishonest people such as yourself. We want to see facts and verification, not listen to your pipe-dreams about what you presumed or dreamt happened.

I prefer we simply comment about the verbiage in the image:

I do not drag others into this nutty site, into the insultinator. At this time, my ongoing conclusion about the Quatloser psychological profile is under alteration.
Translation: I just want to swallow and accept what the suitor told me as fact. If I have to bother to explain and verify what I am saying, I am going to be exposed as a liar.

I expected you all to debate the verbiage on the fax - to say I falsified the TAX LIEN DOCUMENT. Nobody has. Wesley Marc suggested that you do not know and I agree. Judge Roy Bean has suggested that I not be able to link images at all. Now that would be interesting to see; tie David Merrill's hands so that he cannot show any evidence of anything, much less ever prove anything.

I figured the first thing you all would attack was the credibility of the fax itself. I did not figure you would try to make:
ATTENTION, DAVID: I DID ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY OF THE FAX. I TOLD YOU THAT IT IS AN UNOFFICIAL DOCUMENT AND WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE IRS. IT HAS NO OFFICIAL RECORDER'S STAMP ON IT. I EXPLAINED THAT IT IS AN INTERNAL TRANSMISSION DOCUMENT FOR THE IRS' ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM. THEREFORE, IT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING IN OF ITSELF AS A RECORDING DOCUMENT.

Then you admit it is a notice from the IRS agent faxed to the broker.

The NFTL says:
Yes, now go back to the county recorder's office and find what was recorded in the suitor's name. Then we can talk about what appears on that document

There is an interesting ending. Thomas Miller was fired from the IRS and immediately got a job consulting about tax matters with a new but growing firm. Coincidentally the suitor was one of the three founders of the same firm. Since the firm had gone public, it was up to the board of directors what to do about Tom working there. But since Tom knew to send the Release to the first broker, the suitor was fine with Tom staying at the new job, working effectively for the suitor.

Ain't life Grand??

Regards,

David Merrill.

Post by **The Observer** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:47 pm

David Merrill wrote:Actually I think the broker got a kick out of getting the IRS agent fired; all before the suitor even needed to publish the release.

That actually would be a logical conclusion if the facts supported your gibberish. Got any proof that the IRS agent was fired for serving a unlawful levy? Or are you just posting this in desperation?

I prefer we simply comment about the verbiage in the image:
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/su ... uitors.gif

Sorry, comments are not fact and your preference does not suffice for the actual test of truth. So please stop ducking the issue.

I expected you all to debate the verbiage on the fax - to say I falsified the TAX LIEN DOCUMENT. Nobody has. Wesley Marc suggested that you do not know and I agree. Judge Roy Bean has suggested that I not be able to link images at all. Now that would be interesting to see; tie David Merrill's hands so that he cannot show any evidence of anything, much less ever prove anything.

I haven't accused you of falsifying anything. What I have accused you of is relying on a facsimile that isn't an official recorded document. What I have asked for is you to supply a copy of the official recorded document so we can see what was competely recorded. So far, you have failed to post anything that would remotely represent an official document recorded by the government.

I figured the first thing you all would attack was the credibility of the fax itself. I did not figure you would try to make:

ATTENTION, DAVID: I DID ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY OF THE FAX. I TOLD YOU THAT IT IS AN UNOFFICIAL DOCUMENT AND WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE IRS. IT HAS NO OFFICIAL RECORDER'S STAMP ON IT. I EXPLAINED THAT IT IS AN INTERNAL TRANSMISSION DOCUMENT FOR THE IRS' ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM. THEREFORE, IT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING IN OF ITSELF AS A RECORDING DOCUMENT.

Then you admit it is a notice from the IRS agent faxed to the broker.

No I do not admit anything of a sort. I have no proof whatsover that it was faxed to broker from the IRS. But even if were to have been faxed to the broker, that does not mean that the IRS agent faxed it as a statement of a lien release - the agent could have faxed it with the intent of notifying the broker that there was a lien against the taxpayer.

There is an interesting ending. Thomas Miller was fired from the IRS and immediately got a job consulting about tax matters with a new but growing firm. Coincidentally the suitor was one of the three founders of the same firm. Since the firm had gone public, it was up to the board of directors what to do about Tom working there. But since Tom knew to send the Release to the first broker, the suitor was fine with Tom staying at the new job, working effectively for the suitor.

Again, I would love to see proof of all the above. Up to this point, you haven't provided any proof.

David Merrill · Post by **David Merrill** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:02 pm

The Observer wrote:
I prefer we simply comment about the verbiage in the image:
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/su ... uitors.gif
Sorry, comments are not fact and your preference does not suffice for the actual test of truth. So please stop ducking the issue.

I guess that is where we leave it then. The real issue here is that Judge Roy Bean decided to suggest an injunction be imposed on me that I could no longer post links to images and documents. That is the issue, whether you like it or not.

I expected you all to debate the verbiage on the fax - to say I falsified the TAX LIEN DOCUMENT. Nobody has. Wesley Marc suggested that you do not know and I agree. Judge Roy Bean has suggested that I not be able to link images at all. Now that would be interesting to see; tie David Merrill's hands so that he cannot show any evidence of anything, much less ever prove anything.
I haven't accused you of falsifying anything. What I have accused you of is relying on a facsimile that isn't an official recorded document. What I have asked for is you to supply a copy of the official recorded document so we can see what was competely recorded. So far, you have failed to post anything that would remotely represent an official document recorded by the government.

It was years ago but as I recall, the broker got the IRS agent fired and that of course proved in the broker's mind that the fax was indeed, and like it says on its face, a release of federal tax lien. The suitor probably published the release in order to protect his good legal name though.

I figured the first thing you all would attack was the credibility of the fax itself. I did not figure you would try to make:
ATTENTION, DAVID: I DID ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY OF THE FAX. I TOLD YOU THAT IT IS AN UNOFFICIAL DOCUMENT AND WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE IRS. IT HAS NO OFFICIAL RECORDER'S STAMP ON IT. I EXPLAINED THAT IT IS AN INTERNAL TRANSMISSION DOCUMENT FOR THE IRS' ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM. THEREFORE, IT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING IN OF ITSELF AS A RECORDING DOCUMENT.

Then you admit it is a notice from the IRS agent faxed to the broker.

No I do not admit anything of a sort. I have no proof whatsover that it was faxed to broker from the IRS. But even if were to have been faxed to the broker, that does not mean that the IRS agent faxed it as a statement of a lien release - the agent could have faxed it with the intent of notifying the broker that there was a lien against the taxpayer.

Indeed true. That was the agent's intent. However in the doctrine of CYA, the agent sent a release of lien instead of a confirmation there was a lien. That is because there never was a proper lien.

There is an interesting ending. Thomas Miller was fired from the IRS and immediately got a job consulting about tax matters with a new but growing firm. Coincidentally the suitor was one of the three founders of the same firm. Since the firm had gone public, it was up to the board of directors what to do about Tom working there. But since Tom knew to send the Release to the first broker, the suitor was fine with Tom staying at the new job, working effectively for the suitor.
Again, I would love to see proof of all the above. Up to this point, you haven't provided any proof.

Yep. All I have provided is a notice faxed to the broker that says this notice shall constitute release of lien. You think my objective is to convince you of anything. That is just silly.

You are better off to just think maybe I am creative enough to generate all this stuff from my imagination. That would be a very good compliment actually. I could get along well in Hollywood if that were only true.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Post by **Judge Roy Bean** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 12:29 am

Since so much of what you generate is imaginary, the entire point is moot. Your credibility is zero.

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:02 am

Isn't it interesting how he diverted his own thread away from the opening topic which he couldn't substantiate?

David Merrill · Post by **David Merrill** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:32 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:Since so much of what you generate is imaginary, the entire point is moot. Your credibility is zero.

This is all about you anyway JRB. - Your injunction on me and links...

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/success-s ... oupon.html

Take a look at the coupon redemption linked...

Here is the Statement from Chase they redeemed the entire amount of the coupon! Good thing I can post links to documentation - otherwise it might be difficult to believe.

Regards,

David Merrill.