Determination of the scope of "gross income"

[John J. Bulten]

I'm a pessimist about the IRS, so I don't think the appeals office will eliminate my liability for 99-02 as they are lawfully required to do. I also don't think that, when I get a credit letter for 06 and later years as I received for 05, it will quickly complete the erasure of the liability for 99-02 (although it did for 99 in 05). I wouldn't mind losing in court, because then I'd have a substantive answer to my questions about the law (probably not until the appellate level though).

This is why I'm preparing "Bulten v US": it seems the most direct route to the ending I am seeking (declaratory judgment followed by correct IRS assessment). If you recall American history, the patriots were not galled at "wasting" so many years petitioning King George III, nor could they see their way clear to change their minds about their convictions. But the civil disobedience they eventually adopted is still a long way off for us.

[Lambkin]

Still bollocks. Where is the popular base for your revolution? It only exists in your angry imagination. Go for it, your failure is our entertainment.

[Nikki]

I'm a pessimist about the IRS, so I don't think the appeals office will eliminate my liability for 99-02 as they are lawfully required to do. I also don't think that, when I get a credit letter for 06 and later years as I received for 05, it will quickly complete the erasure of the liability for 99-02 (although it did for 99 in 05). I wouldn't mind losing in court, because then I'd have a substantive answer to my questions about the law (probably not until the appellate level though).

This is why I'm preparing "Bulten v US": it seems the most direct route to the ending I am seeking (declaratory judgment followed by correct IRS assessment). If you recall American history, the patriots were not galled at "wasting" so many years petitioning King George III, nor could they see their way clear to change their minds about their convictions. But the civil disobedience they eventually adopted is still a long way off for us.

First, read the Anti-Injunction Act, the specific laws prohibiting lawsuits to restrain tax collection, and a few treatises on sovereign immunity.

[David Merrill]

My examples were not about NOD, because CtC filers who file properly and timely, and respond to IRS tactics properly and timely, seldom see NODs. But in that case the equation would be: If I and my payor argue over whether it was wages or pay, and the IRS agrees with the payor, we can go to court.

However, I was a nonfiler from 8/15/00 to 2/2/05, and am happy to admit my mistake (and even join with you in encouraging nonfilers to file, as Pete does). So I've seen most of the notices and in the past 2 years have learned to respond more effectively. My latest notice from the IRS admits I had zero income for 2006, but tries to pretend I had zero withholding too.

My full history used to be available at LH and I hope to repost it with updates. But the short version is, for your edification:

-98: normal mistaken filings
99-02: all filed 2/2/05, disallowed only recently; writing appeal
03-04: no info returns, filed in 05, no income, no dispute
05: info returns again, timely CtC filing and full refund credit
06: info returns, IRS stalls as above; writing rebuttal

Anything more specific you want? Do you want it so you can use it in your own case, or so you can call Ogden and slam me?

That's what I am talking about. Judge Roy Bean knows full well that my name is David Merrill. He knows that I have no legal or full name, where I put my surname on my Christian or given name(s) until I say so - until I knowingly adopt that convention in contract. Having done so in the past does not count. No judge can say, "Because you were confused about your name in the past, we can hold you to that past confusion now."

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

Judge Roy Bean is just a member blurting whatever here like any of us. Being a judge in real life makes him no more of a judge in cyberspace. Hopefully he has a grasp on reality to know that Rules of Court would come into effect should he be a real judge in real life.

E(8) Restricted Appearance.

An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.

Just like the IRS agent is no attorney or accountant in real life. That is the way the game is played. The IRS agent is not in any way held to Rules of Evidence or especially - Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. So in the administration of processing Tax Returns, the IRS agent is not accepted competent to rule the employer's statement more pertinent or relevant than the taxpayer's statement - signed under the penalty of perjury.

The Quatlosers of course feel that, and are conditioned to think that even an IRS agent thinking there to be a tax liability can cure a lien. That is not what the tax code says and that is because the tax code must adhere to common law or the taxpayer can simply demand common law.

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

Ergo rumblings about taking the IRS agent to judicial court. The problem with Bulton being plaintiff however is that he must bear burden of proof. Ergo he is (I presume) talking strictly counterclaim - Libel of Review.

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

Otherwise John is in for an uphill battle where the DoJ picks apart his every signature and transaction for anything that can convince a jury John agreed to the administrative decisions of an untrained IRS agent as though they were judicial decisions. Since all the jurors have made such agreements, they will likely see things the DoJ's way. Myself, I do not even understand Judge Roy Bean in real life at work to be anything more than a municipal administrator, a magistrate. He is not a judge and I would never agree to let him judge squat, much less tell me my name.

So John; Read Rule E(8) and understand your interlocutory appeal that holds all proceedings in administrative lockdown until you manage to open up judicial review.

http://usa-the-republic.com/items%20of% ... xposed.pdf
http://www.freedom-school.com/the-1994-ebsworth.pdf

I know suitors who are managing to hold their own with Hendrickson's process. And believe me, they are the ones who know the difference between their true name and a legal fiction. If you can hold your own in court with the burden of proof, by convincing them that your testimony is to be heard while the IRS agent should not be listening to a corporation or any third party testify for you when you are right there testifying, so that the truth can come out convincingly; go for it.


Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S.

Anything more specific you want? Do you want it so you can use it in your own case, or so you can call Ogden and slam me?

You asked an important question. The motivation is to smash you and laugh at you. If you are not learning something important here about that Quatloser psychological profile - you better run away fast!

Here is some known information about Demosthenes:

http://www.deathandtaxes.com/bio.htm
http://www.freedomradio.us/news/2004/de ... sleuth.htm



I have sent this same P.S. warning to John at Lost Horizons:

Sorry, but the administrator has prevented you from sending private messages.

Think of that! Demosthenes does not want me to communicate with any members here in private.

Hey John;

Are you still allowed to send PMs here?

[natty]

I know suitors who are managing to hold their own with Hendrickson's process. And believe me, they are the ones who know the difference between their true name and a legal fiction. If you can hold your own in court with the burden of proof, by convincing them that your testimony is to be heard while the IRS agent should not be listening to a corporation or any third party testify for you when you are right there testifying, so that the truth can come out convincingly; go for it.

This is simply insane. The idea that you can immunize yourself from taxation by insisting on your "true name" and that you are only liable for taxation if you are considered a "legal fiction" is crazy. When they throw your ass in jail, who sits behind bars- the human being or your legal fiction? Too funny.

Besides, whether or not you earned taxable "wages" is an issue of law. Whether or not you got paid for your work is an issue of fact. Crack heads admit they got paid for their work. So there is nothing to change on the reporting by the payor and there is nothing to testify about. They got paid for work. That is the only fact to testify about.

Testifying that your pay isn't wages is meaningless and only proves how ignorant you are.

[wserra]

I know suitors who are managing to hold their own with Hendrickson's process.

Who might they be, David?

[LPC]

This is why I'm preparing "Bulten v US": it seems the most direct route to the ending I am seeking (declaratory judgment followed by correct IRS assessment).

The ending you will receive: Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (anti-injunction act) followed by sanctions.

[The Observer]

I know suitors who are managing to hold their own with Hendrickson's process.

Who might they be, David?

Gosh, it must be those same ones whom David taught about how to "terminate" liens, who then had to file suit in district court to see if they still could get those IRS levies released. But for some strange reason David never wants to provide any specifics about what the results were...

[John J. Bulten]

The motivation is to smash you and laugh at you. If you are not learning something important here about that Quatloser psychological profile - you better run away fast!

I returned here last year thinking the motivation was the same as back in 2000-2001 (before they sold out), i.e., to analyze fraud honestly. When I realized the motivation was exactly as you say, I backed off until I could return to apply the same motivation to them.

For example, did you notice how closely the picture at that link resembles the melonhead picture?

[David Merrill]

This is simply insane. The idea that you can immunize yourself from taxation by insisting on your "true name" and that you are only liable for taxation if you are considered a "legal fiction" is crazy. When they throw your ass in jail, who sits behind bars- the human being or your legal fiction? Too funny.

Yes. Amusing indeed to hear about such conditioning. You took only one sentence from the context to attack. While I find it edifying you Quatlosers will stay in the dark, I should explain the Post was about the inherent right to be heard.

By reading the links, especially search Proctor Wiswall's 1994 Lecture for "interlocutory" you might discern that administrative is the same as sub judice in the admiralty terminology. The assumption being made is that signing the 1040 Form under the penalty of perjury is forfeiture of John's right to a judge. The IRS agent is no more a judge than Judge Roy Bean.

The item lacking in Hendrickson's process is the redemption of lawful money. Dealing in the private credit of the federal reserve incurs the irrecusable obligation to file a Return of Income.

Ergo, CtC is still a crap shoot. However intelligent attorneys will not step on the inherent right to be heard. - Unless they think they can get away with it.

Pete Hendrickson explained in an email how his process all depends on the right to be heard.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. The Observer;

The tax liens have been removed.

[Quixote]

CtC filers who file properly and timely, and respond to IRS tactics properly and timely, seldom see NODs

"CtC filers who file properly and timely" is an oxymoron.

[David Merrill]

CtC filers who file properly and timely, and respond to IRS tactics properly and timely, seldom see NODs

"CtC filers who file properly and timely" is an oxymoron.

I agree that one must understand the redemption of lawful money to properly say that they have earned no taxable income.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... cMoney.wmv

John;


You should order up a certified copy of the published law that expresses we are entitled to lawful money. By prodding at the Quatlosers, namely AndyK/later ObviousMan here, I was able to confirm all the IRS has in its arsenal is the presumption the taxpayer is demanding gold and silver coin for lawful money in Title 12 U.S.C. §411. So the proper argument has yet to make it into court and any attorney in a black robe will reject it being entered.

Call (719) 520-6200 and blow $2.25 for a certified copy. Request Reception #207015932.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

P.S. The Observer;

The tax liens have been removed.

P.P.S. David, the levies/seizures are still taking income, accounts and property - and we have yet to see any proof from you that a district court has recognized your "termination" method as a remedy and ordered release of such levies.

[David Merrill]

P.S. The Observer;

The tax liens have been removed.

P.P.S. David, the levies/seizures are still taking income, accounts and property - and we have yet to see any proof from you that a district court has recognized your "termination" method as a remedy and ordered release of such levies.

It seems to shut them up pretty good, even around here.

So if you really want the punch line, let Judge Roy Bean or even funnier, UGA Lawdog explain how to redeem federal reserve notes in lawful money.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... -000-.html

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department...

Regards,

David Merrill.

[Brian Rookard]

So the proper argument has yet to make it into court ...

The same tired refrain ...

And here's a prediction David ... it will lose.

[David Merrill]

So the proper argument has yet to make it into court ...

The same tired refrain ...

And here's a prediction David ... it will lose.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... case_2.jpg

...although entitled to redeem his note...

Nope. It has already won.

And The Observer in her personal insanity has convoluted the fact that the district court must issue a judgment for a lien, any lien to ever go into effect lawfully. If it has never become a lien in the first place, then why would she be looking for recognition from the district court that the non-lien has been removed?

answer: Pseudonomania; false name craziness - A form of insanity characterized by a morbid propensity to lying.

That she brings it up again and again, like she knows is her being a troll. It is not even on point for this topic.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Brian Rookard]

David Then ...

So the proper argument has yet to make it into court ...

David Now ...

It has already won.

Ok, so if it "has yet to make it into court" ... then how could there be a case in which it has won.

Either it has (a) made it into court (and you claim it won) ... or (b) it has *not* made it into court, in which case a non-existent court case can't possibly win.

Which statement is true David?

___ It has *not* made it to court.

___ It has made it to court (where it won).

You were either lying the first time (when you said it hadn't made it to court) or you were lying the second time (when it had supposedly made it to court).


(We'll leave aside for the moment the fact that the person trying to redeem in gold and silver in the case you cited lost).

[Randall]

CtC filers who file properly and timely, and respond to IRS tactics properly and timely, seldom see NODs

"CtCers who file properly and timely" is an oxymoron.

Your keyboard must have gotten stuck, I am sure you meant "CtCers are morons".

[David Merrill]

The argument for redeeming lawful money has gotten into the courts. And it won. But you would have to be curious enough to look at the link to understand that the man redeeming lawful money was insisting it be in gold or silver coin - in error.

Then you would have to get curious enough to read the article in my video to understand the form lawful money has taken since January of 1971.

I understand though Brian why you are not curious enough to deal in the facts and history.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Brian Rookard]

The argument for redeeming lawful money has gotten into the courts. And it won.

So when you first said that the argument did *not* get into court ... then you were being untruthful.

Thanks for confirming (yet again) that you are a liar who will say anything to boost your credibility in your own eyes.