redeeming coupons

[The Observer]

David,
I've left you an email before, didn't know if you got it
or not. I like your postings on here, I was wondering if I can
speak with you off of this nutty site? I am also in Colorado.
my email address is:...

You might wonder with backstabbing Demosthenes the Queen of Quatlosers, why I am not out of here long ago?

Well, David, how do you know that Demo isn't the sender of all those e-mails, pretending to be persons who are interested in corresponding with you? Or that the e-mails might be sent by government agents hoping to get enough testimony from you for an indictment? Or do you just naturally assume that Internet voices that claim to adore you are friendly? Are you really claiming to be that naive?

[David Merrill]

David,
I've left you an email before, didn't know if you got it
or not. I like your postings on here, I was wondering if I can
speak with you off of this nutty site? I am also in Colorado.
my email address is:...

You might wonder with backstabbing Demosthenes the Queen of Quatlosers, why I am not out of here long ago?

Well, David, how do you know that Demo isn't the sender of all those e-mails, pretending to be persons who are interested in corresponding with you? Or that the e-mails might be sent by government agents hoping to get enough testimony from you for an indictment? Or do you just naturally assume that Internet voices that claim to adore you are friendly? Are you really claiming to be that naive?

Are you really claiming to be that naive?

That's just a wasted post there.

[The Observer]

Are you really claiming to be that naive?

Sorry, I asked you first. Apparently you are naive enough if you are posting e-mails as proof that you are intriguing the readers - it indicates that you are accepting them for face value. If you weren't naive, you wouldn't bother counting them for the Internet voices that they are.

[David Merrill]

Are you really claiming to be that naive?

Sorry, I asked you first. Apparently you are naive enough if you are posting e-mails as proof that you are intriguing the readers - it indicates that you are accepting them for face value. If you weren't naive, you wouldn't bother counting them for the Internet voices that they are.

This is about an image of a Release of Lien disguised to be a NFTL. I linked a believable image of it and you started off on a rant about Demosthenes spoofing fans. Did you think maybe she does not want to be painted in such a light?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

This is about an image of a Release of Lien disguised to be a NFTL. I linked a believable image of it and you started off on a rant about Demosthenes spoofing fans. Did you think maybe she does not want to be painted in such a light?

I was only responding to your slur about Demo being a backstabber. Did you think maybe she does not want to be painted in such a light? So it is really ironic that all of a sudden you are concerned about her reputation supposedly being harmed.

Oh yeah, by the way - about that supposed Release of the lien. That was disproved over on another thread.

[David Merrill]

This is about an image of a Release of Lien disguised to be a NFTL. I linked a believable image of it and you started off on a rant about Demosthenes spoofing fans. Did you think maybe she does not want to be painted in such a light?

I was only responding to your slur about Demo being a backstabber. Did you think maybe she does not want to be painted in such a light? So it is really ironic that all of a sudden you are concerned about her reputation supposedly being harmed.

Oh yeah, by the way - about that supposed Release of the lien. That was disproved over on another thread.

I invited Demosthenes to post the original Wall Street Journal article referred to. She is a backstabber. I just figure since she thinks I am insane that she can remain in denial...

You think you proved the Release of Lien wrong? You are a very peculiar lady The Observer!

I guess you are simply not paying attention.

No, you are not paying attention. You are just standing there with your fingers in your ears and screaming.

If you think you are such a smarty pants, grab any standard NFTL and then quote exactly what the wording is.

No need. There is nothing misquoted - what we differ over is how you are interpreting the meaning of the wording.

This fax was a spoof of that verbiage that as you just admitted is a Release of Lien.

I admitted nothing of the sort. This is why people keep accusing you of being delusional. I said that it was NOT a Release of Lien and that is what I am saying now.

There it is. Now do a careful comparison to the verbiage on a Notice of Federal Tax Lien. You just can't seem to tolerate the truth.

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

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).

Thank you for quoting both sections together. It completes the picture. The readers will realize that the bolded section is the condition that I was mentioning earlier. It clearly states the the notice of tax lien will operate as a release on the date in column (e) for each period. So, for the facsimile, that means the lien releases on 11/22/2010 - and not anytime earlier.

You, however just want to focus on one word - "release" - and make it so. That is intellectually dishonest, David. If you insist on refusing to deal with the context of the issue, you are just setting yourself up for failure.

Please keep up your blurting, David. There is nothing I appreciate more than when someone actually proves me right.

You are a very peculiar debater Observer. And I find it rather odd that a document that clearly states it constitutes a Release of Lien can be construed otherwise by you - and then you call me intellectually dishonest.

It is actually evidence of a very deceptive fraud - the document that was faxed to the broker by the IRS agent. Which is something LPC seems a little confused about:

Responding to a lot of tax protester arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel, except that the fish are already dead.

It is not a Tax Protester argument. It is a fax sent from an IRS agent to a broker who was considering diverting funds on an alleged tax lien. By the way, the IRS agent was fired as this transpired.

But your intellectual dishonesty occurs in your post when you thanked me for posting the verbiage of the other part. That is not the other part. There is no other part. Look at the fax. There is no part that says what you say.

You are dishonest and if you think you have been proven right, fine. You can shut up. You will not shut up though - I figure you will start attacking the fax like I doctored it up to say what it says. It is a release of tax lien:

...this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a).

The fax does not say what you are trying, through sophistry and distortion, to say it says:

...this notice shall, on the day following such date, operate as a certificate of release as defined in IRC 6325(a).

The Reader should specially note that to cover the agent's bogus tax lien - to be sure any black robed attorney in tax court or whatever would not accuse him of being unclear this fax was a Release of Lien, he changed operates as to constitutes. This is no typo. It is fraudulent misdirection.

The real joke is that you follow that misdirection by insulting my honesty. Thanks, The Observer; I get it. I am laughing at it. Very funny!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

Now Van Pelt has posted on three threads his delusional belief that a notice of lien which will also operate as a release at some point in the future if not refiled is somehow an immediate release.

He certainly is industrious about advertising the fact that he can't read and comprehend simple English that the average 10 year-old would have no problem understanding.

No wonder he doesn't understand why everyone thinks he is delusional.

[David Merrill]

Now Van Pelt has posted on three threads his delusional belief that a notice of lien which will also operate as a release at some point in the future if not refiled is somehow an immediate release.

He certainly is industrious about advertising the fact that he can't read and comprehend simple English that the average 10 year-old would have no problem understanding.

No wonder he doesn't understand why everyone thinks he is delusional.

I understand that it is distressing to Quatlosers. "." has juxtapositioned the verbiage between a NFTL and the faxed Release in the image.





Regards,

David Merrill.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Now Van Pelt has posted on three threads his delusional belief that a notice of lien which will also operate as a release at some point in the future if not refiled is somehow an immediate release.

He certainly is industrious about advertising the fact that he can't read and comprehend simple English that the average 10 year-old would have no problem understanding.

No wonder he doesn't understand why everyone thinks he is delusional.

I understand that it is distressing to Quatlosers. "." has juxtapositioned the verbiage between a NFTL and the faxed Release in the image.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bonds ... uitors.zip



Regards,

David Merrill.

Hey, how's that job search going Davey? How's your daughter doing these days? I bet she's just being showered with child support.

She's not? Heh...and we're the "losers".

Tell me something, Davey: if you're so goddamn smart, how is it you're not rich?

[.]

He is rich. In delusional thoughts.

A notice of lien is a release of lien. A notice of lien is the same thing as the lien itself, which arose automatically by statute. Which means, on Planet Van Pelt, that a statutory lien is the same thing as a release of lien. Who knew?

Taxable wages aren't taxable if you "redeem" them properly. Up is down and black is white. Such is life on Planet Van Pelt, where correctly comprehending simple English is a rarity.

[David Merrill]

He is rich. In delusional thoughts.

A notice of lien is a release of lien. A notice of lien is the same thing as the lien itself, which arose automatically by statute. Which means, on Planet Van Pelt, that a statutory lien is the same thing as a release of lien. Who knew?

Taxable wages aren't taxable if you "redeem" them properly. Up is down and black is white. Such is life on Planet Van Pelt, where correctly comprehending simple English is a rarity.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bonds ... uitors.zip

Like I said Doktor, I understand how distressing this all is to Quatlosers.

"." is defending his juxtaposition. The verbiage is on the face of the document as notice. That is what will be read if the argument were ever to get in front of a judge:

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

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).

The fax says that the release is immediate unless notice of lien is refiled before the date in column (e). The typical NFTL verbiage says that the release will operate the day after the date in column (e).

Which of course is the reason for the confirmation to be a disguised release.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

He'd go away if he couldn't post links to drive up his hit counters.

Hint, hint.

A special injunction for David Merrill...


No links! http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... cMoney.wmv

Good morning, David!



I just wanted to send a thank you note. Your video helped to solidify my understanding of the legal structure of the US tax code.



I was up until 2:30am watching and reading that night, and awoke at 6:15am, I have a 3 year old, but I was not tired. In fact, I was energized.



I had always thought the purpose of FDRs theft of the public's gold was primarily due to simple greed, and the massive amount of liquidity dumped into the market during the 20's meant the gold coins metalic content would soon be worth more than face value and people would definitely hoard the gold then. While this is true, more importantly, gold and silver were only taxable in certain events that impacted maybe 5% of the population...





Again, thank you David.

Thank you. I have sanitized the PM to stimulate some folks.



I am starting to wish I had written the 1984 article in the video. Not just caught on to the significance.





Regards,



David Merrill.

You are a real piece of work JRB!

[.]

The fax says that the release is immediate unless notice of lien is refiled before the date in column (e).

Ah, no, it doesn't say that. Your own quote of it says "by," not "before" the date in column (e).

Do you really think there is something magic about the day after "by" which is also the day before "after" the date in column (e)? Is that your delusional secret?

Which of course is the reason for the confirmation to be a disguised release.

Only on Planet Van Pelt, where the word "unless" has no meaning and the lien just filed against you has been magically released. Where plain English is some sort of "disguise."

I hope you make your "argument" in front of a judge, so we can read about the sanctions.

Speaking of juxtaposition, it might be interesting to juxtapose Van Pelt's delusions about liens, lien filings, lien releases and tax law in general against Wile E. Coyote's delusions about catching the Roadrunner. There is no substantive difference. Wile's domicile could easily be on Planet Van Pelt.

[David Merrill]

Like I said, I understand why you are getting so upset about it. You can see by simply reading it, it 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).

Unless means that the latter clause will hold true - unless - unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e).

So I figure you guys are just messing around. And I admit, it is pretty fun to watch you all - especially Wesley Marc (Wserra), a trained attorney making feeble attempts to distort a simple sentence.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Just look closely:

The fax says that the release is immediate unless notice of lien is refiled before the date in column (e).

Ah, no, it doesn't say that.

It says:

unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e),

Most people think refiled by means refiled before.

[.]

Since you persist in posting your garbage on multiple threads, I will repost what I posted on another thread in response to your same old tired rubbish:

------------------

No, it means that the lien is in full force and effect until the date specified in column (e) and when that date is reached it may remain in full force and effect if the lien is refiled.

If you don't believe me and many others on this point, feel free to pursue it in court. Enjoy your sanctions and ignominious defeat.

Other than the fact that you are delusional, why is this simple stuff so hard to understand?

Well, then again, considering the fact that you are totally delusional, I guess that I shouldn't expect a coherent answer, so never mind.

[.]

Most people think refiled by means refiled before.

No, as far as I can tell, only the insane, such as yourself, think any such goofy thing.

It would appear that I have uncovered a sensitive point.

[David Merrill]

No, it means that the lien is in full force and effect until the date specified in column (e) and when that date is reached it may remain in full force and effect if the lien is refiled.

If it meant that, it would not have removed:

...on the day following such date,

Reducing you to such infantile assertions is quite big fun!!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

on the day following such date

Really? Are we in the year 2010? Or is that only true on Planet Van Pelt?

Where notices of liens are releases of liens and wages aren't taxable and all sorts of other wonderful stuff is true.

Good luck in court, you'll need it.

[David Merrill]

on the day following such date

Really? Are we in the year 2010? Or is that only true on Planet Van Pelt?

Where notices of liens are releases of liens and wages aren't taxable and all sorts of other wonderful stuff is true.

Good luck in court, you'll need it.

Yes indeed. A true dissociation from reality. Did you note that this happened back years ago? And you seem to be saying that the verbiage "...on the day following such date," was in the fax when it is obvious to the Readers who look at the Release of Lien that you are wrong.

I understand you are upset about it but you really should calm down so that you might make a little more sense.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

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?"