What you're swearing to when you sign a 1040

[Nikki]

David:

What if someone is paid in Euros, Yen, Rupees, or Pesos?

Is that taxable income, or does your theory only apply to FRNs?

[.]

I found a recent opinion

When asked to cite a court case, Van Pelt instead cites gibberish from some miscellaneous idiot who has been bamboozled by Van Pelt's gibberish.

Circular, mutually-reinforcing gibberish. Seek help, dude.

[Famspear]

Dear David Merrill:

What everyone is explaining to you is that the Federal income tax is not a tax on the receipt of legal money, or of illegal money, or of Federal Reserve notes, or of legal tender. It matters not what term you use. "The law" does not "care."

Hold your breath, now: The Federal income tax is a tax on INCOME (tautological, but concise, right?). You continue to struggle with the concept of "income" -- a concept that most college accounting students have mastered by the end of the first semester. You might want to consider taking a basic course in taxation, as well as a basic course in accounting.

Individuals have tried in courts of law for years to make the kinds of arguments you are making - without success. Yours, Famspear

[David Merrill]

Redeem lawful money directly through non-endorsement of private credit.
For one thing you cannot endorse currency, and for anther this is pure malarky.

If the wages are paid in lawful money instead of FRNs, they are not taxable.
And what cranberry bush did you unearth that from under? Aside from being the total bilge, it doesn’t matter if you are paid in cumquats, you are still liable for the dollar value of what you were paid. The taxable event is you getting paid, not you cashing the check, so all your voodoo about redeeming currency is just more nonsense.

The justices had to make the FRNs into lawful money (upon Rickman's bond; not by Congress' definition) in order to color lawful money taxable. Otherwise the citation is right there on the US notes and FRNs;

More of your lack of reading comprehension showing, Rickman was claiming he couldn’t pay his taxes because FRN’s were not lawful money, and the courts told him in great detail not only that he was WRONG, but that they were not only legal tender, by statute, but were lawful money by definition, and by court concurrence, something you keep trying to ignore. There was no bond involved, just your delusions.

The nature of US obligations, US notes shall be lawful money, means they are non-taxable.

Wrong again, that only applies to securities, not currency, and US Notes-which are no longer in circulation, and FRN’s-which are all that is circulating now, are by law and definition legal tender, lawful money, and currency, not securities.

Who is this guy?

http://www.iwfbsnewyork.com/jsp2650291.jsp

Is he Wesley Marc?

Or is he Wesley M. Serra?

He is the one who gave you the opinion in court you are after. Simply read for yourselves the Tenth Circuit court says that Federal Reserve notes are not lawful money and that United States notes are. They say so simply by citing Congress and explaining why by the Constitution only Congress is in authority to make those definitions.

There are two ways for Rickman to have turned the FRNs into lawful money, seeing as how he failed to redeem them in lawful money cash. He redeemed them with his own obligations, private credit with the Fed or he redeemed them in groceries, rent, a car etc... Real and tradeable goods.

Since the Tenth Circuit is saying that FRNs are not lawful money and Rickman's FRNs are, then they may just be mistaken. But I will grant them not to have made an opinion that is contrary to the facts presented in the same opinion and their opinion cited therein - Ware.

Notorial Dissent; If you were basing your post in the facts of the cases you are talking about, then you would have said the opposite about me of what you said.

The obligation to file income tax returns comes only out of one's obligation to the Fed. The public money and obligations of the US notes are a different matter.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

Dear David Merrill:

What everyone is explaining to you is that the Federal income tax is not a tax on the receipt of legal money, or of illegal money, or of Federal Reserve notes, or of legal tender. It matters not what term you use. "The law" does not "care."

Hold your breath, now: The Federal income tax is a tax on INCOME (tautological, but concise, right?). You continue to struggle with the concept of "income" -- a concept that most college accounting students have mastered by the end of the first semester. You might want to consider taking a basic course in taxation, as well as a basic course in accounting.

Individuals have tried in courts of law for years to make the kinds of arguments you are making - without success. Yours, Famspear

See my last paragraph above. There is no taxation on the public side of the issue. And of course you are wrong in the last paragraph, unless you consider the fact that Rickman is probably the closest the argument has ever come to getting into court, and Rickman was endorsing himself for the bond...

[Famspear]

Eeeyikes!

---"The obligation to file income tax returns comes only out of one's obligation to the Fed" ????

Earth, calling David ..

Earth, calling David...

[Famspear]

--"There is no taxation on the public side of the issue. And of course you are wrong in the last paragraph, unless you consider the fact that Rickman is probably the closest the argument has ever come to getting into court, and Rickman was endorsing himself for the bond"

Earth, calling David....

[Famspear]

--"Redeem lawful money directly through non-endorsement of private credit.

--"If the wages are paid in lawful money instead of FRNs, they are not taxable."

Earth calling David... please come in, David....

[The Observer]

And this is what David's "theory" all boils down to:

1) If you received FRNs or some instrument that you need to convert to FRNs, you have a situation where the government can tax you.

2) So to avoid this, you need to hand the FRNs back to someone else (like your friendly neighborhood merchant) for merchandise, thus getting rid of the evil FRNs.

3) Return the merchandise for a refund, but refuse to endorse any document for the refund amount. Be persistent and bamboozle the clerk into handing you FRNs without getting a signature from you. By doing so, you have now received "lawful money" which cannot be taxed since the FRNs have been converted by your refusal to endorse.

4) A similar procedure is used when you get stuck with a check. Go to the bank where the account is held and refuse to endorse the check, raise a fuss with the local management and bamboozle them into allowing you to avoid endorsing the check with your name.

Of course, even David has had to acknowledge that the government isn't going to recognize any of this malarkey and will continue to assess and collect taxes and filing liens. So to fool his mark into giving him money for "teaching" them about his theory, David sells them the "bonus" package about how to "terminate" liens.

That is why I immensely enjoyed how David had to blurt out how "terminators" would still have to go to the lawyer in black robes with hat in hand and see if the district court would make those wage and bank levies issued by the IRS go away. I mean, the truth of this was so obvious that David had to blurt it out twice.

I suppose David has at one point tried to develop another "method" of how to "remove" wages or levies, but had to give up once he realized that he couldn't avoid that lawyer in black robes. Hence the reason for his blurt.

[Demosthenes]

There's a big criminal trial going on in Las Vegas right now of a tax protester/employer who thought that if he paid his employees in silver, the transaction would be tax free.

He was wrong.

[.]

While less elegant, a less complicated explanation of his non-stop gibberish is that he's delusionsal.

[webhick]

There's a big criminal trial going on in Las Vegas right now of a tax protester/employer who thought that if he paid his employees in silver, the transaction would be tax free.

He was wrong.

I don't think David is talking about Gold & Silver.

[Famspear]

Thanks to The Observer for providing the translation of David's theory. You know, I'm thinking -- under David's theory -- shouldn't there be a requirement that the taxpayer wear a tinfoil hat or something, while handling Federal Reserve notes? I mean, to shield the bearer from, well, you know. Here's some authoritative literature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat

I'm surprised David missed this aspect of the problem. Yours, Famspear

[David Merrill]

Here on planet earth I have redecorated my cubicle like a great little coffee shop. Thank you Famspear for your inquiry but if you had been reading the threads you would know The Observer is not very.

The income tax as it stands today was declared illegal back around 1894 and had to be reconstructed within the scope of private central banking - the Federal Reserve Bank. That was in 1913 and that is what I am talking about.

Otherwise Wserra himself will tell you that FRNs are not lawful money, it's right there in the Congress' definitions within the two cases he brought to my attention. Thanks again Wesley Marc!

I suppose that you might be better off to examine the issue I have brought here by asking yourself, if US notes in the form that says UNITED STATES NOTE at the top were still available and you demanded them, lawful money instead of FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE currency, would you accrue a tax liability?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

David:

You still haven't addressed this question.

David:

What if someone is paid in Euros, Yen, Rupees, or Pesos?

Is that taxable income, or does your theory only apply to FRNs?

Also, you STILL haven't cited the alleged court case to which you keep referring. Did the case take place here or somewhere on planet Merrill?

[Famspear]

---(crackle ... fuzzy white noise ....) "[ . . . ] US notes in the form that says UNITED STATES NOTE at the top were still available and you demanded them, lawful money instead of FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE currency, would you accrue a tax liability [ . . . ]

Hold on, my tin foil hat is slipping off. I just need to bend it here a little around the edges.....

[The Observer]

..but if you had been reading the threads you would know The Observer is not very.

Translation: I cannot deny or refute what has been said, so let me see if I can just repeat the gibberish I have created and see if it sticks.

[jg]

Thanks to The Observer for providing the translation of David's theory. You know, I'm thinking -- under David's theory -- shouldn't there be a requirement that the taxpayer wear a tinfoil hat or something, while handling Federal Reserve notes? I mean, to shield the bearer from, well, you know. Here's some authoritative literature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat

I'm surprised David missed this aspect of the problem. Yours, Famspear

Sorry, it has been too long since the best source of information on making and maintaining your own protective device was listed in these forums.
See http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

[silversopp]

Here on planet earth I have redecorated my cubicle like a great little coffee shop.

Does this mean that you're daughter is getting child support money now? Or do you "redeem FRNs" in order to get out of that obligation too?

The income tax as it stands today was declared illegal back around 1894 and had to be reconstructed within the scope of private central banking - the Federal Reserve Bank.

David deliberately ignores the 16th amendment because on Planet Merrill in the Van Pelt system they don't believe in the number sixteen.

I suppose that you might be better off to examine the issue I have brought here by asking yourself, if US notes in the form that says UNITED STATES NOTE at the top were still available and you demanded them, lawful money instead of FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE currency, would you accrue a tax liability?

Yes.

[David Merrill]

Here on planet earth I have redecorated my cubicle like a great little coffee shop.

Does this mean that you're daughter is getting child support money now? Or do you "redeem FRNs" in order to get out of that obligation too?

The income tax as it stands today was declared illegal back around 1894 and had to be reconstructed within the scope of private central banking - the Federal Reserve Bank.

David deliberately ignores the 16th amendment because on Planet Merrill in the Van Pelt system they don't believe in the number sixteen.

I suppose that you might be better off to examine the issue I have brought here by asking yourself, if US notes in the form that says UNITED STATES NOTE at the top were still available and you demanded them, lawful money instead of FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE currency, would you accrue a tax liability?

Yes.

Nope. You are wrong. The US notes are obviously backed by obligations of the US.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. What really gets me chuckling is when the defendant's attorney in a Libel of Review writes a letter to the suitor about how stupid the bogus suit is, imploring that the suitor needs to seek out an attorney who understands real law! That is what The Observer reminds me of.

She understands exactly what I have said and parrots back a rediculously distorted rendition. Why? Something really bugs her about the truth. By the way, someone has Googled my video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9308133588

David,



Would you mind if I made this searchable through google video? It would seem that doing that would help us get the word out?

and...

I'm just signing up to keep up on this....

Thanks for contributing to there. Always good to read your posts.

What fun! You folks are a real gas.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

P.S. What really gets me chuckling is when the defendant's attorney in a Libel of Review writes a letter to the suitor about how stupid the bogus suit is, imploring that the suitor needs to seek out an attorney who understands real law! That is what The Observer reminds me of.

She understands exactly what I have said and parrots back a rediculously distorted rendition. Why? Something really bugs her about the truth.

Nothing distorted at all, David. I have asked you twice what
"terminators" would have to do when their employer or bank ignored their "termination" of the tax lien and continued to forward monies to the IRS. You clearly stated both times that they would have to go to district court.

There is a significance to that question that I asked which you have failed to grasp or recognize. That failure is what is causing you to blurt out the remedy of seeking the lawyer in black robes. What is comical/ironical/amusing to me in all of this is that your blurt is really a correct and accurate action under the law. If you really understood what I was asking, you would have just lied off the top of your head and said that "terminators" need to pursue some other course of action that takes them nowhere near that district court. But as it is, your ignorance is actually leading you to recommend the correct course of action. Naturally at this point all the readers, including you, understand that the lawyer in black robes is never going to agree that (1) the terminator received lawful money that isn't taxable, (2) that the IRS levy was illegal, and (3) that the banker or employer is liable for turning over the terminator's money to the IRS.

This is why I have to grin of thinking about you selling that "termination" plan to your victims and imagining the looks on their faces when they check here and see you saying that they will still have to go into district court and lose to the lawyer in black robes.