What you're swearing to when you sign a 1040

[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.

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.

Nope. You get it all distorted and parrot it out that way. Garbage in; garbage out.

That is really the best way to terminate a tax lien but it involves going into US district court at the onset of the libel.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... agram1.jpg

But since that is not what I was talking about, that is not what I would have said.

What I was talking about is removing the NFTL from publication. Both Prof and Judge Roy Bean admit that the tax lien process is a matter of filing the lien. That is foundational to all such chattel obligations - publication/recordation.

At any rate the IRS or State revenue agent will, when pressed by a broker, banker or employer, come clean and admit in writing that there never was a lien to begin with. It is very helpful for the holder of the funds subject to possible diversion not to be able to find the filed lien in form of an NFTL.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

Nope. You get it all distorted and parrot it out that way. Garbage in; garbage out.

No, that is your weak attempt at trying to get away from those unfortunate blurts you made.

What I was talking about is removing the NFTL from publication.

Yes, but what I was talking about was entirely different: what do terminators do when the banker or employer refuses to accept that the NFTL is "terminated" and send monies on to the IRS.

At any rate the IRS or State revenue agent will, when pressed by a broker, banker or employer, come clean and admit in writing that there never was a lien to begin with.

That is a very remarkable statement - but it would even be more remarkable if you could actually show some proof that an IRS agent is going to admit to issuing a levy without a lien being in existence. And what is even more remarkable, David, is that the IRS can issue levies for wages and bank accounts without having the Notice of Federal Tax Lien filed. And the most remarkable thing is that the IRS does it on a routine and daily basis. So the only question is why haven't you filed a class-action suit to stop the IRS from issuing all of those levies without having a Notice of Lien recorded?

It is very helpful for the holder of the funds subject to possible diversion not to be able to find the filed lien in form of an NFTL.

Only if you are trying to con a naive employer or bank employee - and that will last until the IRS starts inquiring why they haven't received a response. Then the employer/banker will be advised about their responsibilty in responding to the Notice of Levy and remtting the funds that were attached the very moment that the federal tax lien arose and were secured when the Notice of Levy was received. Otherwise the banker/employer get to face the lawyer in black robes and pay an additional penalty for failure to honor the tax levy.

So the "terminator" in that situation is going to find his paycheck garnished and his bank account frozen. Small wonder then that "terminators" will find it impossible to get anyone to agree to put their head on the block just because the "terminators" are waving around your useless paperwork and claimng the lien has vanished. The Notice of Levy is the notice that tells employers/bankers that a lien exists and that the government has an right and interest in the taxpayer's wages or accounts.

[David Merrill]

I see at a glance that you read my post.

[The Observer]

And I can see at a glance that you really don't understand how lien law works.

[David Merrill]

Here is my point again.

All the Reader needs to do is ask where the tax liens are filed. Both JRB and Prof have admitted that tax liens get filed.

If your answer is in the desk drawer or computer disk in the cubicle of the IRS agent then you are talking about (possibly) effective tax liens. That is to say that IRS agent might use the telephone there in the cubicle to threaten the employer, banker or broker into diverting funds. Those kind of liens, albeit effective, are not perfected liens.

Look at my signature line; thanks again Prof.

Keep in mind that filing of a tax lien is merely a perfection step, and has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the lien against the owner taxpayer. -Prof 5/29/07

When an employer, broker or banker is prompted by the account holder to make sure they have a paper indicating filing, the IRS mimics the NFTL - the only filing, with a release of tax lien.

On the State revenue level, they even send a statement of Payoff.

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

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).

What is pathetic about you Quatlosers is that I have already told you all about this. Nobody cares to talk about the release of tax lien attached, faxed to a broker on demand.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

Here is my point again.

Yes, on top of your head - the same place where we saw it the last time you posted

What is pathetic about you Quatlosers is that I have already told you all about this. Nobody cares to talk about the release of tax lien attached, faxed to a broker on demand.

What is pathetic, David, is either (a) you not being able to tell the difference between a release of lien and a notice of tax lien, or (b) your deliberate lying about what appears in that link you provided.

Contrary to what is scrawled in handwriting on the facsimile, the link shows a Notice of Tax Lien and not a release. A release of the lien would clearly be labeled as a "Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien" - words which any reader can see does not appear on that facsimile.

You have deliberately seized upon wording in the body of the notice of tax lien and want to desperately pretend that means the lien has been released. Of course you ignore the conditional wording of the statement (why do tax protestors seem to have great difficulty with conditional words like "if" and "unless?") and pass over the fact that those dates are a trigger to convert the notice into a release. So your link is meaningless until 11/22/2010.

This is why I can honestly say, that at a glance, you don't understand anything about the operation of lien law.

[.]

It's sad when someone provides a link which fails to support or disproves thir assertion. Unfortunately, in Van Pelt's case, that seems to be all he is ever able to do.

That Google strategy may not work out too well, eh, Van Pelt?

[David Merrill]

Here is my point again.

Yes, on top of your head - the same place where we saw it the last time you posted

What is pathetic about you Quatlosers is that I have already told you all about this. Nobody cares to talk about the release of tax lien attached, faxed to a broker on demand.

What is pathetic, David, is either (a) you not being able to tell the difference between a release of lien and a notice of tax lien, or (b) your deliberate lying about what appears in that link you provided.

Contrary to what is scrawled in handwriting on the facsimile, the link shows a Notice of Tax Lien and not a release. A release of the lien would clearly be labeled as a "Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien" - words which any reader can see does not appear on that facsimile.

You have deliberately seized upon wording in the body of the notice of tax lien and want to desperately pretend that means the lien has been released. Of course you ignore the conditional wording of the statement (why do tax protestors seem to have great difficulty with conditional words like "if" and "unless?") and pass over the fact that those dates are a trigger to convert the notice into a release. So your link is meaningless until 11/22/2010.

This is why I can honestly say, that at a glance, you don't understand anything about the operation of lien law.

The document says:

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).

Read it for yourself. When proof of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien was demanded, they sent a spoof that obviously to any attorney in a black robe would have protected the IRS agent. There never was a valid lien because certain process of law must be abided by and they were not.

Therefore the only defense for the broker was to say they got fooled into diverting funds by what looked like a lien but turned out to be a release.

This is why I can honestly say, that at a glance, you don't understand anything about the operation of lien law.

You are honestly a fool or thief if you think that is what the fax says. Look at a NFTL, it makes it clear that this subsequent document is a release of lien; like it says on its face.

The Readers can see that accompanied by the State payoff/setoff, the attorneys at both State and Treasury know how to mimick an obligation when in fact, like it says, it is a credit. - Bottom line.

So now you know why Judge Roy Bean is trying to banish my ability to link images and documents. Just read for yourselves!

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



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

The document says:

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).

Of course it says that. It says that on every Notice of Federal Tax Lien that is filed. It is a conditional statement that explains that if the government does not refile the notice by the dates listed below (in the refile) then the lien is considered released.

Read it for yourself. When proof of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien was demanded, they sent a spoof that obviously to any attorney in a black robe would have protected the IRS agent.

No spoof about it. If you really wanted to learn something about Notices of Federal Tax Liens, you should spend time visiting different states and viewing the filings yourself. You will find indentically prepared notices in every county recorder/clerk's office through the US.

There never was a valid lien because certain process of law must be abided by and they were not.

Really? What proof do you have to show that certain processes weren't followed?

Therefore the only defense for the broker was to say they got fooled into diverting funds by what looked like a lien but turned out to be a release.

Now I am really chuckling. You are blurting out that the "terminator's" monies were turned over to the IRS? I thought that your little process stopped that?

You are honestly a fool or thief if you think that is what the fax says. Look at a NFTL, it makes it clear that this subsequent document is a release of lien; like it says on its face.

No, it is you who are the fool, for you are demonstrating to all readers here that you cannot understand the word "unless."

The Readers can see that accompanied by the State payoff/setoff, the attorneys at both State and Treasury know how to mimick an obligation when in fact, like it says, it is a credit. - Bottom line.

And . is right - your posts are getting more hilarious by the day. Who would have imagined that you would admit that "termination" process gets defeated by the IRS? I never dreamed that you would keep making admissions like this. I agree, David - JRB is wrong. I think you should be allowed to keep posting those links - it is like watching a man shoot himself in the foot over and over.

[David Merrill]

The document says:

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).

Of course it says that. It says that on every Notice of Federal Tax Lien that is filed. It is a conditional statement that explains that if the government does not refile the notice by the dates listed below (in the refile) then the lien is considered released.

I guess you are simply not paying attention. If you think you are such a smarty pants, grab any standard NFTL and then quote exactly what the wording is. This fax was a spoof of that verbiage that as you just admitted is a Release of Lien.

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).

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.


Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S.


Hint:

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).

[LPC]

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

In the case of David Merrill, there is no barrel.

[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.

[David Merrill]

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.

[The Observer]

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.

There is no other part? Then why did you post that verbiage with the word "Hint"? Are you saying that you made it up? That you lied? That it just materialized out of thin air and appeared in your post?

Come on, David. It is pretty clear that you are upset that you defeated your own argument due to your inability to keep from blurting out unfortunate truths. That verbiage was supplied by you from a source other than yourself. You thought it was important to bring it up, only it turned out to more important than you bargained for.

[David Merrill]

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.

There is no other part? Then why did you post that verbiage with the word "Hint"? Are you saying that you made it up? That you lied? That it just materialized out of thin air and appeared in your post?

Come on, David. It is pretty clear that you are upset that you defeated your own argument due to your inability to keep from blurting out unfortunate truths. That verbiage was supplied by you from a source other than yourself. You thought it was important to bring it up, only it turned out to more important than you bargained for.

Now you are just clowning around. Just the same:

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

Open the image called Payoff from IRS.

There is only one explanation about what the document is. It explains the notice constitutes, is a Release of Lien.

The other verbiage I found is what is found on a typical Notice of Federal Tax Lien and is not found on the image linked.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

Now you are just clowning around.

No, the only clowning around is you. You are the one relying on a facsimile tax line notice provided to you by a third party. Even you admit:

The other verbiage I found is what is found on a typical Notice of Federal Tax Lien and is not found on the image linked.

Imagine what you would find if you went to the county clerk/recorder's office and look to see what was actually recorded? Here's a hint - where do you see a official stamp of the recorder's office on that facsimile? The answer is nowhere. Why? Because that wasn't the notice of tax lien document recorded at the county recorder.

This is where it gets really hysterical. The document your suitor fobbed off onto you is an internal facsimile that comes the IRS's electronic lien filing system. That document doesn't even begin to come close to meeting the county's standards for recording documents. In other words, David, the lack of the recorder's stamp on that document shows that you are relying on an unofficial and facsimile notice of lien!

I knew the moment you mentioned the second section of verbiage, that it meant you had never laid eyes on the official recording document! That was the mother of all blurts! I couldn't be sure until you cooperated by blurting out that:

The other verbiage I found is what is found on a typical Notice of Federal Tax Lien and is not found on the image linked.

Then I knew for certain that you had never bothered to check for yourself and verify at the recorder's office what your suitor showed you. This is typical for you, David. You immediately swallow what everyone else tells you and pass it off as gospel truth. You have been challenged in the past for not verifying the hearsays you pass along, and you admit that you didn't get verification.

This is so rich. Not only does David charge his "terminators" for advice on how to "terminate" a lien, admits that the "terminators" will still have face the lawyer in black robes when the levies attach, but then David gets fooled by his own "suitors" who pass him documents that he fools himself into believing for the real deal.

David, come back when you have a copy of the official notice of tax lien recorded at the recorder's office. Then maybe we can discuss what the verbiage on that document really says. Otherwise, you wanting to discuss what a facsmilie says rather than what the official recorded document says is just more of your intellectual dishonesty at work.

[.]

intellectual dishonesty

I doubt that the insane can knowingly be intellectually dishonest.

In any case, nothing has ever stopped Van Pelt from spewing an incessant stream of utter rubbish.

[David Merrill]

Now you are just clowning around.

No, the only clowning around is you. You are the one relying on a facsimile tax line notice provided to you by a third party. Even you admit:

The other verbiage I found is what is found on a typical Notice of Federal Tax Lien and is not found on the image linked.

Imagine what you would find if you went to the county clerk/recorder's office and look to see what was actually recorded? Here's a hint - where do you see a official stamp of the recorder's office on that facsimile? The answer is nowhere. Why? Because that wasn't the notice of tax lien document recorded at the county recorder.

This is where it gets really hysterical. The document your suitor fobbed off onto you is an internal facsimile that comes the IRS's electronic lien filing system. That document doesn't even begin to come close to meeting the county's standards for recording documents. In other words, David, the lack of the recorder's stamp on that document shows that you are relying on an unofficial and facsimile notice of lien!

I knew the moment you mentioned the second section of verbiage, that it meant you had never laid eyes on the official recording document! That was the mother of all blurts! I couldn't be sure until you cooperated by blurting out that:

The other verbiage I found is what is found on a typical Notice of Federal Tax Lien and is not found on the image linked.

Then I knew for certain that you had never bothered to check for yourself and verify at the recorder's office what your suitor showed you. This is typical for you, David. You immediately swallow what everyone else tells you and pass it off as gospel truth. You have been challenged in the past for not verifying the hearsays you pass along, and you admit that you didn't get verification.

This is so rich. Not only does David charge his "terminators" for advice on how to "terminate" a lien, admits that the "terminators" will still have face the lawyer in black robes when the levies attach, but then David gets fooled by his own "suitors" who pass him documents that he fools himself into believing for the real deal.

David, come back when you have a copy of the official notice of tax lien recorded at the recorder's office. Then maybe we can discuss what the verbiage on that document really says. Otherwise, you wanting to discuss what a facsmilie says rather than what the official recorded document says is just more of your intellectual dishonesty at work.

So now you put merit into recordation? What about a lien simply arising out of law?

Now that you admit the verbiage is an abuse of the truth, we are getting somewhere. I figured you Quatlosers were mature enough to head right where you are going with the county clerk and recorder publication. Instead of all this trying to convince me the Release says the opposite of what it obviously says.

So I will remind you that the broker was presented evidence there was a NFTL filed at the county clerk and recorder and the suitor, an accountholder told the broker to contact that IRS agent and confirm in writing that the IRS was willing to stand behind the agent's judgment that there was a tax debt. The broker listened and as a result, the IRS agent faxed the paper over to the broker who showed it to the suitor, explaining that he would have to divert the funds to the IRS.

So I pointed out that the fax was indeed a release. That is what it says. But your recent change of tactic tells me you know that already.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

the broker who showed it to the suitor, explaining that he would have to divert the funds to the IRS.

So I pointed out that the fax was indeed a release.

LOL. And thenceforth everybody ignored you, knowing that you are a delusional nut-case. What else is new?

Your gullible "suitor" still doesn't have his money back. And he never will. Probably because he's approximatelky as ignorant as you are. Not to mention at least as delusional.

[The Observer]

So now you put merit into recordation? What about a lien simply arising out of law?

I have always put merit into recordation - for the purpose of establishing what exactly a filed document says as well as for the purpose of establishing when and where it was recorded. You,on the other hand rely on hearsay, blather and facsimiles.

So I will remind you that the broker was presented evidence there was a NFTL filed at the county clerk and recorder and the suitor,

A facsimile isn't evidence. A certified copy of the NFTL would be evidence - one with the county recorder's stamp on it. You have a copy of such a thing? Otherwise, I don't believe you.

an accountholder told the broker to contact that IRS agent and confirm in writing that the IRS was willing to stand behind the agent's judgment that there was a tax debt.The broker listened and as a result, the IRS agent faxed the paper over to the broker who showed it to the suitor, explaining that he would have to divert the funds to the IRS.

So the suitor didn't get his money back? What a shocker! But I have been telling that to you since day one - employers, bankers and brokers aren't going to fall for that "terminated" lien nonsense. That is why the broker called the IRS for instruction.

Let me guess: is this the point where you told the suitor he would have to go see the lawyer in black robes?

So I pointed out that the fax was indeed a release. That is what it says. But your recent change of tactic tells me you know that already.

No, it means it is a facsimile of an electronic lien filing and in no way replaces the actual recorded and stamped document at the county recorder's office. Guess which document gets the attention of the court?