PDA

View Full Version : Exactly what does the IRS agent think?



Pages : [1] 2

David Merrill
03-25-11, 04:10 PM
I have been updating this opening post so all the major memorandums, notices and updates might be here.




The best way to discern how an IRS agent is going to interpret your Zero-Income Return based on Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is to study his Required Reading. His boss tells him what he has to read, to train him about the guidelines about when to issue a warning or $5K penalty for a frivolous filing.

I invite even the most skeptical readers to find a directive about redeeming lawful money as framed in the Fed Act and Title 12.

https://books.google.com/books?id=AM8-nWqggpUC&pg=PA400&lpg=PA400&dq=title+12+frivolous+notices&source=bl&ots=T3Jw9F7XaC&sig=HW-q7uSP7X4g-P9UpmSkSRrPMJE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7ssXR6djQAhUCllQKHcISDhwQ6AEILjAF#v=on epage&q=title%2012%20frivolous%20notices&f=false - CFR Frivolous notices


https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/ir-05-064.pdf

Notice 2007-61

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2007-30

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2008-14

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf

Notice 2010-33 is inside this pdf:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf

Notice 2011-004


To save time I suggest keywords to search:


lawful
redeem
redemption
Title 12
411

Hbert997
03-25-11, 05:43 PM
Hi David,

Okay, I'm a 'noob' here and maybe this topic has been vetted and fully researched...however, I've searched the above documents in your post and found a reference in the last one to a US v. Rickman case where it states:

"United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) - The court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer's argument "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, Sub Section 8, United States Constitution."..."

Please comment and help me to understand the context. Thnx.

Hbert

motla68
03-25-11, 06:14 PM
The best way to discern how an IRS agent is going to interpret your Zero-Income Return based on Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is to study his Required Reading. His boss tells him what he has to read, to train him about the guidelines about when to issue a warning or $5K penalty for a frivolous filing.

I invite even the most skeptical readers to find a directive about redeeming lawful money as framed in the Fed Act and Title 12.

http://www.irs.gov/taxexemptbond/20k/0,,id=134362,00.html - notices

http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-33.pdf
http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf
Notice 2010-33

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=168637,00.html

Notice 2007-61

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2007-30

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-ccdm/cc-2011-004.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf


To save time I suggest keywords to search:

lawful
redeem
redemption
Title 12
411

David, there is a lot of links here to different resources, can you please put a side note to these links to point out the specific areas that are related to your post?
Not that I am a statutory employee required to file for the name though.

Thank you.

David Merrill
03-25-11, 09:54 PM
Hi David,

Okay, I'm a 'noob' here and maybe this topic has been vetted and fully researched...however, I've searched the above documents in your post and found a reference in the last one to a US v. Rickman case where it states:

"United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) - The court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer's argument "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, Sub Section 8, United States Constitution."..."

Please comment and help me to understand the context. Thnx.

Hbert

Gary RICKMAN was obviously not demanding redemption of lawful money. Two case decisions should be considered when understanding the demand.




In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and




United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Good Catch!!

I appreciate that. The first thing to know is that Congress has the power to define money. They define it for the States to be metal coin too. Ergo - In the exercise of that power... The Court has the authority to interpret and quite clearly, federal reserve notes are redeemable in lawful money, but are not necessarily lawful money.

There is a lot to be said on that but it is off topic here. What we are looking at is the instructions that an IRS agent gets and I had not noticed the January 1, rendition until yesterday while searching around. So thanks for looking for me - saved me a little reading.

You can get a look for yourselves though. I have attached Rickman in full.

Putting that into the recent rendition of Frivolous Notices tells me that the IRS has been watching SJC and minding Shoonra and my debates over the interpretation of Rickman and Ware. Primarily though Gary RICKMAN did not make demands with his paychecks so he was not applying remedy as prescribed in the Fed Act.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Motla68;

The common thread is that the IRS agents get training through notices. Those are the Notices about the Frivolous Filing Penalty - guidelines on when the IRS agent is to attach the fine. I will arrange them chronologically and note some details.

Treefarmer
03-25-11, 10:45 PM
Thank you for attaching US vs Rickman David.
That was an interesting read.

I think you are right about the IRS notices.
The notices seem to be the policy which the IRS agents follow.
The IRS gives public notice of its policies in those documents, and then its agents enforce those policies.
No tax payer can reasonably say that he didn't know what the rules were, since the policy rules are spelled out in the notices.

Bright blessings

Michael Joseph
03-25-11, 11:07 PM
within the United States being the key Phrase.....

David Merrill
03-25-11, 11:42 PM
Thank you for attaching US vs Rickman David.
That was an interesting read.

I think you are right about the IRS notices.

The notices seem to be the policy which the IRS agents follow.

The IRS gives public notice of its policies in those documents, and then its agents enforce those policies.

No tax payer can reasonably say that he didn't know what the rules were, since the policy rules are spelled out in the notices.

Bright blessings

You are quite welcome. If I may say so myself; this thread and that opening post is quite the Find!



within the United States being the key Phrase.....

Your keenness about boundaries, abutment, easement and diversity is greatly appreciated around here MJ!


Succinctly put though Gary RICKMAN did nothing by way of making his demand for lawful money at the proper juncture, by non-or-restricting his endorsement of private credit on the backside of his paychecks.

David Merrill
03-25-11, 11:50 PM
This is where I want to mention a fellow (before he became a suitor) in NY was at a friend's party where his friend's sister is an IRS attorney. He overheard her say, There is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay income tax, they are doing it correctly. He immediately thought about me, having read about me on the Internet.

He tried to keep her divulging information but she clammed up. He tells me that the next time he saw her he was hoping she would open up about it again, but no sugar.

Hbert997
03-26-11, 01:46 AM
I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy?

Hbert

David Merrill
03-26-11, 02:09 AM
I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy?

Hbert

The accusation would be a general fraud by omission. But then, the remedy was written in 1913.

Suitors are a brain trust. This fellow got both years Refunded (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_affidavit_of_public_money.jpg).

What has happened here today - that has come to light though - is that the IRS has brought up Rickman in the light to misdirect IRS agents to attach the $5K penalty for filing for a Refund by remedy.

David Merrill
03-29-11, 10:39 PM
In mid-2009 a banker read about me on SJC. Part of his job is to keep a current Tax Preparation License. He was at a party and his friend's sister, an IRS attorney was there. He overheard her tell her friends in conversation, There is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay Income Tax; they are doing it right. He moved closer and wanted more but she clammed up. He was convinced at that point though...

In 2010 he was happy to get a full Refund (http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2926/returnresults.png) and two State refunds too. (He works in two different states.) Today, he informed me that another full Refund is on the way. I asked him if this is the exact same amount on his Return?

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/1148/irs2010.png


Yes. Thank you David.


I was pushing my friend to discuss our redemption of lawful money with his sister that works in a legal department at IRS. She was very resistant and she would not discuss it even privately. I think they have a policy there at IRS.

It has been 4 weeks since IRS has received my 1040 and my continuous insistence and questioning whether there are any new developments at the IRS regarding demanding lawful money per Title 12 USC 411; this Monday she finally said that typically IRS has 6 weeks to respond (sort of legal zone) and when someone is demanding lawful money he is considered out of the FR System. The IRS is creating a special file and that person's activities are being scrutinized by them.


I thought maybe this would go better in Success Stories but believe it reflects better, How an IRS agent thinks.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
03-31-11, 03:24 PM
These images if you think about it, are more convincing than the actual Refund Check! This one is special because it shows contemplation by the NY State DoR:


http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=194&d=1301585032

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

That demonstrates that the State revenue agent considered the Return carefully enough to realize our suitor failed to put his $125 school tax credit on there.


http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

Lines 18 and 33 make a very important statement, especially in light of the first image. Contemplation. After contemplation, the State agents have deduced that because there is no federal tax liability, there is no State liability. Line 46 in light of lines 72,73 and especially 78 reveal the rest of this redemption of lawful money story. There it shows that this fellow has for whatever reason been sending thousands of $$$$ to the State in Withholdings, yet he does not owe any taxes; so he gets it all back, and even an additional Credit of $125.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Brian
04-01-11, 09:52 PM
David, These are some very significant pieces of evidence you have provided here and elsewhere! I am curious however. Does this friend of yours receive a W-2 or other info return purporting that monies he receives are income? If so does he just ignore them and not even mention them. Does he file a zero or near zero return with an explanation of the amounts and then a lawful money clarification affidavit? I ask only to clarify what should be done, as one misstep will more then likely be met with the full force of our favorite alphabet agency. I ask for no legal advice only an honest lawful opinion. Can this friend provide any other documents to show his path? Thank you so much for exposing this remedy it fills in many gaps left by others!

David Merrill
04-02-11, 01:34 AM
David, These are some very significant pieces of evidence you have provided here and elsewhere! I am curious however. Does this friend of yours receive a W-2 or other info return purporting that monies he receives are income? If so does he just ignore them and not even mention them. Does he file a zero or near zero return with an explanation of the amounts and then a lawful money clarification affidavit? I ask only to clarify what should be done, as one misstep will more then likely be met with the full force of our favorite alphabet agency. I ask for no legal advice only an honest lawful opinion. Can this friend provide any other documents to show his path? Thank you so much for exposing this remedy it fills in many gaps left by others!

Get a look around for the videos. This suitor signs his W-2 Exemptions form, and you see where I sanitized his exemptions amount because that disclosed too much information for privacy. I could show you a 1040 Form but it would be so sanitized that I might as well just show you a blank one. My point is that he simply fills out his 1040 Form truthfully and includes a smattering sample of his paycheck demands.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

So, Yes. It is a Zero Income Return in the same flavor as Cracking the Code - HENDRICKSON. However it utilizes the law rather than various logical interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code. [Pete is in prison because his interpretations differed from the judge and prosecutor's.]


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Thank you! I was hoping somebody would comment on the significance of the images.

Brian
04-02-11, 10:05 PM
Thanks for that David!, I can understand the need for privacy in these matters. Pete while doing great work to explain a system that is nearly incomprehensible failed to realize he was going to get railroaded. After that fiasco it seemed all was lost. Your revealing the lawful money remedy filled in what CtC missed. I am surprised it took me as long as it did to come across your early videos. It really does help to fall back on the basics of money, its origins, progressions and mutations. The Proverbs 11:1 quote says it all.

David Merrill
04-02-11, 10:19 PM
Thanks for that David!, I can understand the need for privacy in these matters. Pete while doing great work to explain a system that is nearly incomprehensible failed to realize he was going to get railroaded. After that fiasco it seemed all was lost. Your revealing the lawful money remedy filled in what CtC missed. I am surprised it took me as long as it did to come across your early videos. It really does help to fall back on the basics of money, its origins, progressions and mutations. The Proverbs 11:1 quote says it all.

Privacy is a consideration but the simplicity of it negates the need for you to look over this fellow's 1040 Form.

I remember last year this time, he was calling me to basically do his taxes for him. This fellow is a banker at a large international bank and he is licensed to prepare people's Income Tax Forms and he wanted me to do his taxes over the phone for him? I was on my phone in a sporting goods store browsing for a backpacking trip, I remember with my photographic memory. He began redeeming lawful money midway through 2009. So I told him that any paycheck's withholdings for the first half, before he began redeeming by demand, he should not claim those funds on the 1040, but all the paycheck amount total for the latter half he should write that on there for his Refund. I recommend that you leave the SSI and other bennies alone. Treat that like an insurance policy and you are paying premiums.

It is that easy. And maybe I am lazy but the suitor understood and the IRS gave him the Refund. Both states he worked in during 2009 gave him full state Refunds too.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Brian
04-03-11, 12:38 AM
So essentially the prior years where I was not aware of this remedy should be written off and filed/paid as "normal". I'm not really interested in SSA or Medicare at this time, so no worries there (one thing at a time). Claiming previous years as "redeemed lawful money" is asking for a fight? Even though it is essentially fraud?

David Merrill
04-03-11, 03:47 AM
So essentially the prior years where I was not aware of this remedy should be written off and filed/paid as "normal". I'm not really interested in SSA or Medicare at this time, so no worries there (one thing at a time). Claiming previous years as "redeemed lawful money" is asking for a fight? Even though it is essentially fraud?


The accusation would be fraud by omission. It is not quite valid because you cannot blame anybody for not teaching you something. You can only blame yourself.

The presumption is that you have been signing the backside of your paychecks for quite some while now and that signature is worth something. The bankers (including you) have been banking on that signature so it makes no sense to really follow through with that indictment proactively. You might use it for a defense though, if you are being prosecuted.

I explain this to people all day long it would seem. Like a career. So I could be quite convincing in front of a jury. Maybe you could too. There are all sorts of rules though and they tried to destroy my mind with psychotropic pharmaceuticals. The suitors saved my life! One suitor wrote an email telling me not to sign anything. His parents were both in state-sponsored psychiatry - it is all an eloquent ballet. He was there when I needed him and it seems that I am there when people need me too. I cannot describe it, really. Indescribable. English fails me. I call it advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics.

It's like static/noise. I am trained in electronics (http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5312/transcript1.jpg). It was not all at once but the epiphany was gradual - noise is just anything too complex for me to understand. So to a technician, noise is nothing. But you can have noise now, and noise in the future and you can subtract the now from the future and you have something - the difference. If you wait too long, the difference is so complex it is only more noise. I was with RAMTRON when they furnished the Microelectronics Research Laboratory for UCCS working on the first FRAM (Ferroelectric Random Access Memory) slides. And I went over to OSI, later called LMSI (Laser Magnetic Storage International) to develop the CDs and DVDs too. When I see a micro-SD-Card holding 16Gbytes of data I know how that can happen because I was there birthing it from the womb in a few men's minds. It's not rambling believe it or not - there is a Groove.

The moment I was taught my Signature is worth something; that it contains something called Honor was on or around March 11th, 1971:

See how my name changed from David Merrill to DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT?

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification3.jpg

The bottom of the last image there - that's when I got a SSN. I did that. My Dad gave me a brief lecture about scribing a signature and sticking with that. What he did not tell me was that I had made something that was mine - it does not belong to the government. And he did not tell me about honor, honorable as he was; that it is the only thing you can possess, property is use in trust - but you can die with honor. You cannot die with property.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
04-12-11, 11:02 PM
These images if you think about it, are more convincing than the actual Refund Check! This one is special because it shows contemplation by the NY State DoR:


http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=194&d=1301585032

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

That demonstrates that the State revenue agent considered the Return carefully enough to realize our suitor failed to put his $125 school tax credit on there.


http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

Lines 18 and 33 make a very important statement, especially in light of the first image. Contemplation. After contemplation, the State agents have deduced that because there is no federal tax liability, there is no State liability. Line 46 in light of lines 72,73 and especially 78 reveal the rest of this redemption of lawful money story. There it shows that this fellow has for whatever reason been sending thousands of $$$$ to the State in Withholdings, yet he does not owe any taxes; so he gets it all back, and even an additional Credit of $125.


Regards,

David Merrill.


I am trying to align these sanitized images up so that they are most convincing.


http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6220/nystatusreport2010.png

Firstly, the suitor was promised a full Refund.

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7716/nystatusreport2010asses.png

Then he was notified that there would be an adjustment, which turned out to be the NY School Tax Credit of $125 added to his Refund. Sweet!
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5241/staterefundnydepositrec.jpg


The funds have been deposited for the suitor.


Note especially the comments above the deposit screen. The remedy extends electronically as well.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
04-13-11, 09:42 AM
Here is an interesting addition to our compendium of IRS Agent thought:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=238262,00.html

Frederick Burrell
04-13-11, 03:49 PM
Great stuff David, thanks for posting it. KISS. fB

David Merrill
04-13-11, 03:55 PM
Thank you fB.

Anthony Joseph
04-13-11, 06:05 PM
I scanned through and read that "2011 Dirty Dozen Tax Scam" posting and it further reinforced how powerful and lawful the TRUE remedy is...

"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."

There is ZERO mention of "frivolousness" upon those who demand lawful money rather than engage in signature endorsed contract with the FED, in their own right and by the operation of law found at §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 now codified at Title 12 U.S.C. §411 which is binding law upon the IRS, and any other United States claiming entity, to accept and recognize the non-taxable nature of lawful money of exchange.

Let me repeat... ZERO MENTION OF THIS EXERCISE OF TRUE REMEDY ANYWHERE ON THEIR "WARNING" POSTING.

I would like to thank David Merrill, again, for being God's "conduit of truth" for those who truly seek it out. I am not aware of anyone else who openly and freely teaches this specific remedy to more people than him and for as long as he has been doing it. I for one am grateful.

Richard Earl
04-13-11, 08:19 PM
I'm still having trouble though. I notice that citizens were paying income taxes well before 1933.

"In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_States

I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the redemption as per 12 USC 411 and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution:

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Although I think the Amendment was made in 1913 (first 20 year charter?)

David Merrill
04-13-11, 09:41 PM
I scanned through and read that "2011 Dirty Dozen Tax Scam" posting and it further reinforced how powerful and lawful the TRUE remedy is...

"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."

There is ZERO mention of "frivolousness" upon those who demand lawful money rather than engage in signature endorsed contract with the FED, in their own right and by the operation of law found at §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 now codified at Title 12 U.S.C. §411 which is binding law upon the IRS, and any other United States claiming entity, to accept and recognize the non-taxable nature of lawful money of exchange.

Let me repeat... ZERO MENTION OF THIS EXERCISE OF TRUE REMEDY ANYWHERE ON THEIR "WARNING" POSTING.

I would like to thank David Merrill, again, for being God's "conduit of truth" for those who truly seek it out. I am not aware of anyone else who openly and freely teaches this specific remedy to more people than him and for as long as he has been doing it. I for one am grateful.

That is some high praise indeed! - A servant of the Most High...

That sure explains the consistency! Thanks AJ, for honorable mention. I recall one moonless summer night I was playing around with night vision and was going through a pitch black field. Passing some bushes I found a rolled up carpet with feet protruding from the end. I approached figuring I had discovered a discarded body. After closer study though if found breathing. The drunken fellow apparently had rolled himself up in the carpet and then fell down in it for a nap. I was heading for the grocery anyway so I prepared a bag of snacks and $20 with some cheap sandals too and dropped them off to him on the way back. I woke him and gave him the charity bag. He said, God bless you.

I walked away thinking that the highest treasure ever! It seems a little silly now. But for my charity, I received a genuine blessing from the Creator of the entire Universe! [The next time I walked by I found an empty bottle of vodka... hmm.]



I'm still having trouble though. I notice that citizens were paying income taxes well before 1933.

"In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_States

I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the redemption as per 12 USC 411 and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution:


Although I think the Amendment was made in 1913 (first 20 year charter?)

That is an interesting observation. I recall mention of this earlier, in the article (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) I produced the first video (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?17-Public-Money-v.-Private-Credit-video) about.


In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution...

The fiat currency began around 1863 and there is some history of fractional lending (reserve banking) beginning in Canada (http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/3474/goldrequirements.pdf) at that time with Crown Dominion Notes. I believe that was shock testing in preparation for the same dishonest (elastic) currency practices here in America.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Brian
04-13-11, 11:20 PM
I'm still having trouble though. I notice that citizens were paying income taxes well before 1933.

"In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_States

I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the redemption as per 12 USC 411 and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution:


Although I think the Amendment was made in 1913 (first 20 year charter?)

Pages 12-17 might yield some historical context to your questions. Good book...but incomplete.
http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf

Note the time frame where the overall trend turns up. Hmmm
http://www.taxhistory.com/graphs/14a.html

Here is my understanding of this. Pollock was about the direct taxation of "income" from government sponsored bonds, notes, funds, etc that were personally owned "real property" by the people involved in the suit. The SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. The 16th amendment was designed to overturn this ruling and allow the Gov to direct tax "income" aka gain or profit from Gov sponsored entities/privileged activities. It was also sold as an amendment to tax the rich. Brushaber essentially confirmed this saying the 16th conferred no NEW taxing power but returned the Pollock issue back to an excise, or a tax on an activity or privilege.

So now turning to Title12/411. Congress gave the FED an enormous privilege to create private credit with CONgresses blessing. A massive coup occurred that no one realized. Most people's revenue back then was way less then the exemptions aka no filing. There were also many other alternative flavors of money in competition with the FRN. The Fed managed to drive the competing forms of money out of existence and inflate the common person's revenue up into the taxing range (greater then the exemption level). Add the depression and WW2 into the mix (victory tax/withholding) and we are left where we are today.

However that one section 411 leaves a choice. It has too or this whole system WOULD be unconstitutional. They had to leave one very narrow path with a cliff on one side and an abyss on the other. The statutory language regarding issuance USN's is still in effect. The treasury says that a FRN can perform as either. It all boils down to the nature of the money. Private or Public?

One more thing: Ron Paul's new bill has this section in it.
(2) no State may assess any tax or fee on any currency, or any other monetary instrument, which is used in the transaction of interstate commerce or commerce with a foreign country, and which is subject to the enjoyment of legal tender status under article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution.

Why put that there if there is not already something to that effect in action now?

Richard Earl
04-14-11, 12:04 AM
thank you David & Brian!

David Merrill
04-14-11, 02:09 AM
More like; Thank You Brian!

That is very enlightening.

The warning I always give with Pete's CtC though is that without remedy written in the law, he leaves people hoping to argue certain interpretations of the IR Code. Fatal!


P.S. Please link us to PAUL's new bill.

stoneFree
04-14-11, 04:43 AM
I already did here:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?202-H.R.-1098-Free-Competition-in-Currency-Act-of-2011

David Merrill
04-14-11, 10:16 AM
Thank you for the links. I am really quite happy that StSC is growing and busy so that I cannot even keep up. The content, like that link though - icing on the cake!

Brian
04-14-11, 04:16 PM
I already did here:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?202-H.R.-1098-Free-Competition-in-Currency-Act-of-2011

Thanks stone! Your other thread clued me to that bill. I actually drafted a letter to RP the other night. Curious to see if i'll get a response. Need to mail it today.

David Merrill
04-14-11, 05:21 PM
Thanks stone! Your other thread clued me to that bill. I actually drafted a letter to RP the other night. Curious to see if i'll get a response. Need to mail it today.


Give us some SAS! (Sanitize and Share).



http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/275/00covertostate.jpg


Note I founded this bond on one of Ronald Earnest PAUL's many failed attempts to move without constitutency:

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement1.gif www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement2.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement3.gif www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement4.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavitofservice.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant1.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant2.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/1-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/2-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/3-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/4-HR3812.jpg



BTW:

Instead of paying the bond, or having the US arrested they gave Ronald Dean back his money.

David Merrill
04-29-11, 11:52 PM
About a week after filing the Certificate Ron was at the bank's drivethru and got the message he had to come inside. He thought that the little funds he had were again, swept on the same seizure. He got inside to hear the wonderful news that his entire life's savings had been fully restored!

He called me up to celebrate and share that they only had one hitch - they wanted him to sign a Waiver of Indemnity that meant he could not sue US Bank for the damages they had caused him. We got a laugh out of that and US Bank instead wrote letters of apology to any and all people who had received rubber checks because of the seizure.

David Merrill
05-15-11, 11:53 PM
Doing some research for a suitor, I found this citation.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf

Brian
05-16-11, 12:48 AM
Doing some research for a suitor, I found this citation.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf

David, So what part of that is of interest to you? Is there a specific line in there?

David Merrill
05-16-11, 02:00 AM
David, So what part of that is of interest to you? Is there a specific line in there?


Not in particular. I concentrate on redemption of lawful money and the subtle read-in of silver and gold (coin). That is where it encroaches on remedy by misleading IRS agents into thinking that the taxpayer person is saying that FRNs are not lawful money because they are not silver or gold-backed currency.


http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4249/frivolouspositionnotice.jpg
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4249/frivolouspositionnotice.jpg

I found that publication on page one of that very recently styled Frivolous Filing notice. Presuming rhyme and reason, that the Return was examined carefully, the suitor included my citations:




In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and




United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

As planned by the drafters of the January 1, 2011 Notice (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf), found on the opening post of this thread - an IRS agent spotted the citation of Rickman and hoisted that advisement out of context. See that Notice cited in the same paragraph above?

They are hoisting it to see how it flies - as expected. The wise suitor is adept with his evidence repository in the federal courthouse so the response as you see in the attachment is to R4C timely attaching the same Return but with a Memorandum of Law as Notice to any IRS attorney to examine. There is evidence by the changes in the notes found on the Internet Notification site that the IRS bounced the Return around campuses until a low level IRS agent spotted Rickman. Get my drift?



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
05-16-11, 12:30 PM
To help make this plain for all readers:



Notice - Memorandum of Law
[Supplemental to Page 1 of Doc XX Demand for Lawful Money]
Please bring this notice to the attention of an IRS attorney;

This presentment is Refused for Cause timely and a copy is filed in my evidence repository in the USDC State Case Number 10-XXXX. It has come to my attention that the Rickman case has been mentioned in the Notice about frivolous guidelines of 1/1/11 cited in your letter - http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf.


United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) – the court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer’s argument that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”

I am in agreement with the court – which is to say that because Gary RICKMAN endorsed private credit from the Federal Reserve he bonded the notes and they were therefore bonded lawful money. If the money is not fully bonded it is not lawful money.

The title sentence of the Federal Reserve Act states …to furnish an elastic currency. The additional notes created by fractional lending are what require endorsement as bond. I have not been endorsing private credit from the Federal Reserve since mid-2009 like stated in my original notice. It is optional and my bank agrees. They have been accepting my non-endorsement (restricted endorsement) of the Fed’s private credit and as far as I am aware, have been avoiding the fractional lending upon any funds of mine in repository with them. It is not up to me to police my bank - that is up to the attorney general. My lack of endorsement has produced no benefit of private credit from the Fed, and therefore I owe no return on my income.

The Rickman case and the Ware case I cited on my initial notice suggest nothing about silver or gold and imply nothing against the Congress being able to define money in America. Both cases do describe however this subtle difference between Federal Reserve Notes and currency that is not elastic – US notes according to Title 31 U.S.C. §5115. I have not been involved with the Fed’s elastic currency system since mid-2009.

To avoid any friction with my employer, I have been allowing withholdings to be sent regularly to the IRS on the presumption that you will understand my filing of return according to the law and refund my withholdings fully. Please review my Return again and promptly send me back my Withholdings.

Sincerely,

____________________________________
True Name of the SURNAME family.


This is the quote from the 1/1/11 Notice (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf)mentioning Rickman.


United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) – the court
affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the
taxpayer’s argument that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was
paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United
States Constitution.”

This post, that post (United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) – the court)and that one too (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?205-The-US-Government-has-(nearly)-Defaulted-on-the-National-Debt!&p=2669&viewfull=1#post2669) should all be read together for a glimpse of current events as they both unfold and enfold with regulations decompressing the highly compressed information infrastructure generally known as "money".

David Merrill
05-25-11, 08:00 PM
Here is an update about this particular suitor's IRS Refund. The more local campus is offering to pay him about half of his Refund. But they did not just deposit it so it is an offer. The attorneys at the IRS are probably hoping he will acquiesce and accept it, admitting that he owes them something from all that Withholding sum amount. He does not.

Being an offer, he is R4C timely. He will keep the IRS attorney honest.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
06-23-11, 05:45 PM
Another update - silence. The IRS offered half a refund - which can only be interpreted as hoping he is hard up enough to be quiet and let them transfer the funds into his bank account. He refused for cause the offer, meaning he did not want them to keep half of the Withholdings they owe him by law...

Silence.

Chex
06-23-11, 08:32 PM
To avoid any friction with my employer, I have been allowing withholdings to be sent regularly to the IRS on the presumption that you will understand my filing of return according to the law and refund my withholdings fully. Please review my Return again and promptly send me back my Withholdings.

Should a new form (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf)be sent in with the stamp (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?120-Where-to-stamp-a-FRN&highlight=stamp)on it?

David Merrill
06-23-11, 10:53 PM
You shift tense and person. I do not know how to answer - or if you are directing your question at me.

Chex
06-24-11, 02:17 PM
shift tense and person, learn something new everyday, thank you

I put that question out there because some person authorized deductions from a friend’s paycheck without this personam signing a w4 form.

Therefore if you non-endorse the paycheck why not the w4 form as confirmation?

I’m taking a shot at this, so is this "against the person (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_personam)" similar to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure- Rule B (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/RuleB.htm)(1)(a)? This might have no relationship at all it’s just the way I associated it.

I don’t understand what the meaning of “contain a prayer for process” suggests.

After I read Rule C(3)(a)(ii) from this (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?315-Citizen-Sues-Atlanta-Fed&p=3354#post3354)I wanted to know if exigent circumstance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law)exists and again if its related.

I’ve also noticed that the paycheck is always addressed to the true name of the recipient not to the corporate person (http://www.google.com/search?q=means&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#sclient=psy&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&source=hp&q=corporate+person+definition&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b).

David Merrill
06-24-11, 03:04 PM
shift tense and person, learn something new everyday, thank you

I put that question out there because some person authorized deductions from a friend’s paycheck without this personam signing a w4 form.

Therefore if you non-endorse the paycheck why not the w4 form as confirmation?

I’m taking a shot at this, so is this "against the person (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_personam)" similar to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure- Rule B (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/RuleB.htm)(1)(a)? This might have no relationship at all it’s just the way I associated it.

I don’t understand what the meaning of “contain a prayer for process” suggests.

After I read Rule C(3)(a)(ii) from this (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?315-Citizen-Sues-Atlanta-Fed&p=3354#post3354)I wanted to know if exigent circumstance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law)exists and again if its related.

I’ve also noticed that the paycheck is always addressed to the true name of the recipient not to the corporate person (http://www.google.com/search?q=means&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#sclient=psy&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&source=hp&q=corporate+person+definition&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b).

Buy a stamp - put it on your signature as part of your signature. W-4 included.

That last sentence does not jibe for me. The paycheck is almost always written to the legal or full name.

"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."


If you want to integrate that into the Admiralty Rules go ahead. That sounds like a fun academic experience but you may create some complicated mental models that are more a headache than practicable. If you execute simply you probably will need not explore into such sophisticated elaboration.


Regards,

David Merrill.

allodial
06-25-11, 01:53 AM
Perhaps he is mistaking John Henry Doe as "true name" vs JOHN HENRY DOE or JOHN H DOE.

earthshake
07-03-11, 10:44 PM
More like; Thank You Brian!

That is very enlightening.

The warning I always give with Pete's CtC though is that without remedy written in the law, he leaves people hoping to argue certain interpretations of the IR Code. Fatal!


P.S. Please link us to PAUL's new bill.

Hi David,

I'm new to the forum as of today, directed here from the CtC forum - not by anyone in particular, just found a thread that linked to this forum.

I am in the situation you mention above, with our state DOR (MA). We are to the point of having filed a petition after they rejected or ctc filing for 2006. In response (though months late) they have submitted a motion for summary judgment. We have about 30 days to respond to it (unusual to have so much time, but we asked for an extension).

I have sent for our transcripts from auntie, which should arrive in about 10 days. We have a doc from auntie showing $0 taxable income for 06. I'll stop there in for now. Thanks in advance for any insight and hope you all have a great "Independence" Day:-)

earthshake

David Merrill
07-03-11, 11:18 PM
Hi David,

I'm new to the forum as of today, directed here from the CtC forum - not by anyone in particular, just found a thread that linked to this forum.

I am in the situation you mention above, with our state DOR (MA). We are to the point of having filed a petition after they rejected or ctc filing for 2006. In response (though months late) they have submitted a motion for summary judgment. We have about 30 days to respond to it (unusual to have so much time, but we asked for an extension).

I have sent for our transcripts from auntie, which should arrive in about 10 days. We have a doc from auntie showing $0 taxable income for 06. I'll stop there in for now. Thanks in advance for any insight and hope you all have a great "Independence" Day:-)

earthshake

You seem to have almost given me enough to start getting a picture. Are you in civil, administrative or criminal trouble?

earthshake
07-03-11, 11:30 PM
You seem to have almost given me enough to start getting a picture. Are you in civil, administrative or criminal trouble?

Feeling dense at this moment, lol! Not criminal. Our petition was filed with the Appellate Tax Board, so I am thinking that is administrative?

powder
07-04-11, 03:35 AM
Funny thing.

Every TAXPAYER volunteers to hold the status of TAXPAYER.

The rules of administrative law govern - if you keep the paper you own the liability...

David Merrill
07-08-11, 09:20 AM
The suitor strategy is to become judicial. Since all the "judges" are taxpayers, they cannot be judicial (unless you stamp them so).

These are true judgments (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImOGFiNzI4YTMtZmY2NC00NTM0LTlmN TQtZTRmZDBjMTNhNDYz&hl=en_US).

hvncb
07-10-11, 10:50 PM
I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy? Hbert

I am new as well. I have already endorsed two checks via 12.411 and have the same questions to 'correct' previous redemptions to lawful money. Having read Mr. Merrill's comment that 'bank relied on our signature, etc' and part of me agrees it may be "water over the bridge" Nonetheless, question remains in my mind how UCS 12.411 applies ONLY at time of endorsement: "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..." this is open ended; ie, it does not state a specific time, event (endorsement) or has expiration period. Why not deposit a check w/ naked endorsement, take Fed Res notes and then demand 'lawful money'...who will say "oops, sorry, too late!".......also saw part of another post "By the time you are holding cash, you have already made your demand.." again...why is it too late?...not clear. regards!

David Merrill
07-11-11, 12:17 AM
I am new as well. I have already endorsed two checks via 12.411 and have the same questions to 'correct' previous redemptions to lawful money. Having read Mr. Merrill's comment that 'bank relied on our signature, etc' and part of me agrees it may be "water over the bridge" Nonetheless, question remains in my mind how UCS 12.411 applies ONLY at time of endorsement: "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..." this is open ended; ie, it does not state a specific time, event (endorsement) or has expiration period. Why not deposit a check w/ naked endorsement, take Fed Res notes and then demand 'lawful money'...who will say "oops, sorry, too late!".......also saw part of another post "By the time you are holding cash, you have already made your demand.." again...why is it too late?...not clear. regards!


There are a couple suitors who have no choice but to try it. They just cannot submit to a payment plan for the remainder of their days. So I am helping give them a shot at it. The sad part about it is that if you have been endorsing private credit from the Fed, that is your signature bond. All you have is ignorance of the law to plead in order to get your money back. If they are penalizing you though; the new $5K frivolous penalty fines, I feel that there is some good chance you can shut that up. You really don't owe them a penalty when you are the victim of fraud by omission!

So get straight about making your demand for lawful money first. There is no harm whatsoever and you do not need to be very brave to start writing a non-endorsement on your paychecks and Signature Card. It is not until April 15th that you have to decide if you are going to be brave.


Regards,

David Merrill.

hvncb
07-11-11, 03:16 AM
sorry, hard to understand....whose 'fraud by omission'? No, not April 15, I mean demand lawful money to the beginning of IRS filings. These are obligations of the United States...for taxes, customs and....dues. As I read it, nothing about OUR obligations. Why can't a demand for lawful money be made back to the beginning of one's earnings and IRS filings?

David Merrill
07-11-11, 04:03 AM
sorry, hard to understand....whose 'fraud by omission'? No, not April 15, I mean demand lawful money to the beginning of IRS filings. These are obligations of the United States...for taxes, customs and....dues. As I read it, nothing about OUR obligations. Why can't a demand for lawful money be made back to the beginning of one's earnings and IRS filings?


Because they (international bankers/central bankers/fellow Americans endorsing) have been banking on your signature bond - fractional lending. The currency on your bond has already been created. It is all created off loans - all currency in circulation was created by lending. Look at the first sentence:


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7039/12usc411.jpg

You as a typical borrower/debtor have been operating as a Fed bank. Right up until the moment you started non-endorsing by demanding lawful money.

It is defensive at best - suppose the IRS is after you for $5K for saying you filed frivolous with Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code plan. Now you are demanding lawful money and you will get your Refund of Withholdings but the best you might hope for by exposing the fraud by omission is for them to back off about before with Pete.

The fraud by omission is that you cannot be expected to sue everybody who led you to believe endorsement was the only option.

If I had known in good faith that I could have redeemed lawful money I would have been doing so since my first paycheck ever!

David Merrill
08-24-11, 02:03 PM
Post August 2nd, I feel this thread deserves a bump.

Potential Candidate informally accuses the Fed of Treason (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNzk5MGY0NzQtMDA4Mi00MmFlLWEwN mYtNjdmNDEyYzBiZGJi&hl=en_US).

David Merrill
11-16-11, 02:55 PM
Here is an update about this particular suitor's IRS Refund. The more local campus is offering to pay him about half of his Refund. But they did not just deposit it so it is an offer. The attorneys at the IRS are probably hoping he will acquiesce and accept it, admitting that he owes them something from all that Withholding sum amount. He does not.

Being an offer, he is R4C timely. He will keep the IRS attorney honest.



Regards,

David Merrill.



Updating you all.


This fellow got a latter about 45 days ago saying the IRS would be considering his Return for another 45 days. He sounded optimistic that the IRS will be sending his full Refund, however late.

I noticed how long the IRS contemplated sending him his Refund for the latter half of 2009:



http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/1148/irs2010.png

LostPosterity
11-17-11, 07:15 AM
Check out the handbook link on this page. (scroll down a little) Very interesting.

http://rayservers.com/blog

Here are a couple other interesting things...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmwQTAA8H7Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QKD1ivLJfo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYviBBV3Qj8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcQElYhRvpY

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

On February 15, 1791 Jefferson wrote Washington to tell him his
objections of the establishment of a National Bank.

The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:
1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants
of land; and so far is against the laws of mortmain.
3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far
is against the laws of alienage.
4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a
certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of
descents.
5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat;
and so far is against the laws of forfeiture and escheat.
6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line;
and so far is against the laws of distribution.
7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the
national authority; and so far is against the laws of monopoly.
8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the
laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the
institutions from the control of the State legislatures; and so,
probably, they will be construed.


-----

Isn't it great how they prey upon peoples desire to do the right thing? Look at the big print on top of the return that Donald is filling out. Too Funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrB2kz7SIIw

Faithless Public Officials

While I am at it..might as well post this one too...for those of you seeking the truth.

http://www.drdino.com/seminar-part-1-the-age-of-the-earth/

David Merrill
11-27-11, 12:27 AM
To avoid any friction with my employer, I have been allowing withholdings to be sent regularly to the IRS on the presumption that you will understand my filing of return according to the law and refund my withholdings fully. Please review my Return again and promptly send me back my Withholdings.

Should a new form (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf)be sent in with the stamp (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?120-Where-to-stamp-a-FRN&highlight=stamp)on it?

That might be a good idea. It depends though; did the IRS respond or have you just gotten silence? Did you file your return by April 15?

David Merrill
05-28-12, 10:15 PM
The best way to discern how an IRS agent is going to interpret your Zero-Income Return based on Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is to study his Required Reading. His boss tells him what he has to read, to train him about the guidelines about when to issue a warning or $5K penalty for a frivolous filing.

I invite even the most skeptical readers to find a directive about redeeming lawful money as framed in the Fed Act and Title 12.

http://www.irs.gov/taxexemptbond/20k/0,,id=134362,00.html - notices


http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=168637,00.html

Notice 2007-61

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2007-30

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2008-14

http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-33.pdf
http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2010-33

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-ccdm/cc-2011-004.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

Notice 2011-004


To save time I suggest keywords to search:


lawful
redeem
redemption
Title 12
411



Here is an update to the Notices.

Click Here (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf).


With a little looking I found the manual that was updated February 23, 2012:

Click Here (http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-012r.html).


It has 50 points and I noticed there is no reference to "lawful", "redeem" or "Rickman". I find that interesting indeed.

David Merrill
06-14-12, 02:06 PM
Here is another interesting memorandum to IRS Agents!


Click Here (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicf97.pdf).

David Merrill
07-23-12, 02:34 PM
In the above posts I have cited the recent memorandums and manual that the IRS agent is to utilize in judging any Return as frivolous. One suitor filed for 2010 and had no evidence repository - too much confidence in the law - and received a $5K penalty notice. He published his Libel of Review and things let up on that billing. When he filed for 2011 though, he got a new styled Letter.




The only thing I can think why the $10K is because $5K is for the actual "filing" while the other $5K was from my stupidity of calling in to follow up on the refund due and to talk to those people you have to give your social and name. Stupid me. But again, remember that I am the suitor who has the Notice CP 12 where their own form for calendar year 2010 says they owe the account $10,680.


This has been R4C'd properly using his Libel of Review for evidence repository but I had to pay attention to detail and found the citation is slightly altered. You have to pay attention carefully too, to get this affirmation.

On top is a photo of a Letter from May (2012) with a citation of the friv_tax.pdf file found above and which has no reference to redeeming lawful money as frivolous. But the recent Letter cites a Memo from 2010 in which the letters "redeem" occur three times.

Here is 2010-33 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf) (Page 9).






(6) A taxpayer has been untaxed, detaxed,

or removed or redeemed from the

Federal tax system though the taxpayer remains

a United States citizen or resident, or

similar arguments described as frivolous in

Rev. Rul. 2004?31, 2004?1 C.B. 617.


(12) Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable

income when paid to a taxpayer because

they are not gold or silver and may

not be redeemed for gold or silver.



(21) A taxpayer may use a Form 1099-

OID, Original Issue Discount, (or another

Form 1099 Series information return) as a

financial or other instrument to obtain or

redeem (under a theory of ?redemption?

or ?commercial redemption?) a monetary

payment out of the United States Treasury

or for a refund of tax?

In the recent Letter the agent has resorted to a 2010 citation that seems similar (to the layman/agent anyway) to what we are doing here.

By studying the citations provided in any rendition of the Letter, a suitor can surmise:


Said quote hereinbefore looks to time when I reached the age of majority; and, I have carefully read your Notice and I cannot find that demanding Lawful Money is a Frivolous Argument; and, it comes down to this simple principle, what is my intent; and, It is my express intent to operate [the] FIRST M. SURNAME in honor...

Resulting in:


They garnished my wifes wages. I wrote a one page letter to the agent. In twenty seven days they zeroed out the balance. This year we received one hundred percent of our increase from state and feds.



I don't buy any of this [IMF Decode conversation context] rhetoric. But then again I am not in the market [to buy into fear].

David Merrill
10-14-12, 10:40 AM
I find it worth bumping that the brain trust of suitors having these two recent letters to share with each other may be an unprecedented weapon of intelligence in the arsenal. - That we share IRS responses with one another!

With the IMF Head blaming burgeoning national debt (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VIma2JJelZlRVc1YmM/edit) for loss of interest in China buying up more American debt, can we frame a valid accusation against GEITHNER for being irresponsible as fiduciary if he continues to interfere with the redemption of lawful money?

David Merrill
10-15-12, 04:11 PM
Here is a glimpse of the new "Libel of Review" - in the rough.

Gdude was asking about help setting up an evidence repository. Find the example clerk instruction in the LoR (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf) and that should offer some explanation. Furthermore though there is a brain trust of suitors operating to critique the new form and template. Now with this post though, that editing process has opened up to you too Gdude. I call this an echo chamber and it is among several echo chambers. The brain trust is an echo chamber too.


Awesome job DM!


My only suggestion is to add the word "contract" into the civil action, since a Claim rests on violation of a contract which then caused an injury by the violator.

Steel sharpens steel.


I feel the use of the word trust in the opening paragraph as a synonym to contract is adaquate but discussion may change that word.


P.S. A new suitor contributed just this morning:



IRS FORM 843 - Redeeming Lawful Money

Although IRS Form 843 cannot be used for claiming back income tax, it can be used for an abatement of the fee paid for the presumed use of private credit in the form of Federal Reserve Notes that is based on the amount of income denominated thereby, when said presumed use has been consistently rebutted by lawful money being demanded for all transactions per 12 USC 411, with a substantive record of same created as admissible evidence by all related financial institutions in their normal course of business documentation. This IRS Form 843 is a good tool to further expose the unspoken legal foundation of the “income tax” – that it is a legitimate usage fee for the use of the private credit and script of the Federal Reserve System.

That looks like the Informer to me and I hope my inquiring where it came from works a worthwhile lesson about rules of evidence.

Chex
11-12-12, 10:33 PM
Part

500 [Reserved]
501 Australia ..........................
502 Greece ............................x
503 Germany .........................x
504 Belgium ...........................
505 Netherlands ....................
506 Japan ...............................
507 United Kingdom .............
509 Switzerland .....................x
510 Norway ............................
511 Finland ...........................
512 Italy .................................
513 Ireland............................x
514 France ...........................x
515 Honduras .....................
516 Austria ...........................x
517 Pakistan ........................x
518 New Zealand ..................
519 Canada ........................
520 Sweden .........................x
521 Denmark.........................x

My oh my has times changed http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/chapter-I/subchapter-G

David Merrill
01-01-13, 12:25 AM
I am bumping this thread with the intention to update the links to the latest memorandums. I do not have any dealings at all with the IRS and so have been neglecting to stay abreast of the memorandums.


This page is no longer helpful. (http://www.irs.gov/taxexemptbond/20k/0,,id=134362,00.html)

As with this link. (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=168637,00.html)


I am working from this post on Page 6 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145-Exactly-what-does-the-IRS-agent-think&p=7194&viewfull=1#post7194). It is starting to look as though we, the commoners, no longer get to read the IRS agent's memorandums. - At least that we no longer get to read the directories that include the recent Memos, if there are any?


The reason I am looking around for the new memorandums is that there is a report:


David – IRS called my 2011 LM money filing frivolous (most likely as it was based on the LOR and the Notice and Demand.

In any event I have come to see that there may be an EXACT method of filing a LM return BUT simply making demand for LM is not sufficient.

In addition redeeming LM does not protect your accounts, the LOR does not stop them and R4C while effective in some ways ultimately just infuriates them and makes them more determined to find “ways to encourage voluntary compliance” as one revenue office said to me a couple of years ago before he retired.



So it makes sense that they are keeping the new memorandum about Redeeming Lawful Money from my view so I cannnot link it here. If anybody knows how to find any newer memorandums to update I hope you will update this thread.

On the other hand we have plenty of good testimony but as indicated people do not want to agitate the attorneys and when they have the good fortune of full refunds they hope not to be made an example of:


I wanted to pass along the information that I received refunds in full from the US Treasury and the Treasurer of the State of XXXXXX.

A few points to note:

Each form was novated by striking "Under penalties of perjury" and "under penalty of perjury" within the Federal and State signature block, respectively



Occupation listed on the Federal form was "DEMANDER OF LAWFUL MONEY"
I truthfully provided 'Your Signature' with the one I use, or, True Name, not First M SURNAME


I have attached a copy of the refund and signature sections of each Form, along with the Federal Statement I used to provide an explanation in regard to the corresponding reductions throughout the Federal Forms. Also included is a copy of the checks I received. Several interesting details with the checks are how the US Treasury check is written "Pay to the order of" while the check from the Treasurer of the State of XXXXX is written "Pay," and the endorsement instructions/notices on the backside of each check.

With the prior experience I had, through the person I use in capacity of CPA, working with the IRS and other State tax authorities, I understand that these refunds were most likely sent without a review of the actual tax return. The Tax Agencies operate behind, to say the least, and it could be several years before any type of review is completed, if ever. And if either agency decides, or automatically sends out any kind of notice related to these filings, I know that my faith and trust in God will show me the way to testify to them so they can see and understand what has taken place.

Finally, this information and attachment can be shared with the Brain Trust, if you wish, but I do not want any part of the attachment to be posted, in any form, on the greater internet.

Thanks,

True Name

Another suitor, experienced in such capacity like CPA wrote that any review would come within six months - which may be the case. So mark this on your calendars. Keep in mind please that there are many good reports and success stories that you will never see. The IRS might feel compelled to change their mind about refunds and I will not supply the IRS agent specific targets here.


Here is the complete redacted Complaint and the Response from the FDIC.

I am contemplating writing a response to the bank I use which would in as many words state:

"I appreciate your testimony to the FDIC that I have used 'Demand for lawful money in accord with 12 U.S.C. 411' on checks I have tried to deposit. You have helped me form a more complete record that I have made a Demand for lawful money all while showing you, the bank, is cognizant of that fact."

This approach, Notice and Demand to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank was found independently in 1999 by a couple who had never heard of me until recently. They show the cards at every transaction and the tellers and other bank employees enjoy the running joke - [I]Get out the Good Stuff! or Open up the Lawful Money safe! So this joviality keeps the couple loaded with witnesses to their demand.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Chex
01-01-13, 07:17 PM
It coincidental that you mentioned the FDIC in this post. I was looking to see what the real differences were in Public and private sectors.

I found this one from Canada. If personal information is collected and an organization finds a new purpose for it, unless the new purpose is required by law, an organization cannot use that personal information for another purpose without consent. http://www.privacysense.net/10-privacy-principles-of-pipeda-identifying-purposes/

The 10 Privacy Principles of PIPEDA, also known as the 10 Fair Information Principles, come from a national standard called the CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. http://www.privacysense.net/10-privacy-principles-of-pipeda/

So did the United States have to say?

This is the GAO opinion: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-674

Personal Information required by law. IBM said In addition, we reserve the right to disclose your personal information as required by law and when we believe that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, ...where then are my rights?

Link (http://www.google.com/search?q=Personal+Information&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7MEDA#hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7MEDA&sclient=psy-ab&q=Personal+Information+required+by+law&oq=&fp=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&cad=b&sei=UjzjUKblLcKi2wXj2YHoCA)

It started from here right of privacy: access to personal information Personal Information required by law

United States. 5 USC § 552a - Records maintained on individuals | LII / Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a

Of course it would be better posted under the identity portion of the forum although some significance of the post is relevant to this post such as this legal term:

(1 ) the term “agency” means agency as defined in section 552(e) [1] of this title;

(1) “agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include—http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552#e

(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a#FN-1REF

But you have this term person again and I have read all over the internet that I am not a person.
So what exactly who is this person they say without respect to persons?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453 except for here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii for this
http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/swearing-in/bibles

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

So is this vice president going to back (me) the “individual” or “person” up when the law says redeem?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/53375.html

Note that there is no such prohibition against Congress, or any delegated power to make anything legal tender. Congress was originally understood to have no power to make anything legal tender outside of federal territories, under Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17and Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2, but in 1868 a Supreme Court packed by Pres. Ulysses S. Grant, in the Legal Tender Cases, allowed Congress to make paper currency issued by the U.S. Treasury, backed by gold, legal tender on state territory, a precedent that remains controversial to this day, when courts allow paper currency not backed by anything to be considered "legal tender".

John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html

So why is it that commerce is unfair to this "PERSON"?
(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
(2)The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
(11)The term “commerce” means commerce between any State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, and any place outside thereof; or between points within the same State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, but through any place outside thereof; or within any Territory or possession, or the District of Columbia. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/182

Vieira Delivers (http://www.dailypaul.com/188551/ed-vieira-delivers-the-ron-paul-lecture-on-constitutional-money)

And why is it then so difficult to redeem:

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes—

(1) are payable to bearer; and

(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.

(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—

(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and

(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

Dept of Commerce, Independent agency, Internal Revenue Service http://www.fedstats.gov/agencies/

Use this page to find bills and resolutions in the U.S. Congress going back to 1973. You Searched for “USC Title 12 411 ”, but you have a choice... http://www.govtrack.us/start

So now that I am off topic again because I was looking to be in the private and go into the courts as private looks like I have to find the protocol to do it.

Not only that but this is what I am talking about: http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0157.pdf

David Merrill
01-02-13, 02:24 PM
The insideous part of all that is the US Supreme Court has ruled there to be three viable definitions for the United States.

Importing RIVERA's work here might be best with this warning, for what it is worth. I have not seen any results or delivery - but then because he is an attorney (or was before he was disbarred?) and three definitions for the US, I have not spent any time looking at his school and lesson plan.

When he started telling people that Hawaii had Article III courts I inquired by email if they had ever terminated the Article I employees. He went silent and never answered, except that he did seem to quit preaching it...



http://imageshack.us/a/img829/6238/terminatethearticleijud.jpg


If he had been courteous enough to email me back with some kind of acknowledgement I might be more inclined to follow his work.

Chex
01-02-13, 03:13 PM
Do your own due diligence.


“Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.”


Q: Who appoints federal judges?
Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential nominees are often recommended by senators or sometimes by members of the House who are of the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary Committee typically conducts confirmation hearings for each nominee. Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term. The federal Judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts play no role in the nomination and confirmation process. http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx

Our Founding Fathers understood the need for an independent Judiciary, which was created under Article III of the United States Constitution. The Judicial Branch is one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. The other two are the legislative and executive branches. http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts.aspx

The Constitution describes what cases may be decided in the federal courts. Congress may and has determined that some of these cases also may be tried in state courts, giving federal and state courts concurrent jurisdiction.

Congress has provided that suits between citizens of different states may be heard in the federal courts or the state courts, but they may be heard in the federal courts only if the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.

Congress also has provided that maritime cases and suits against consuls may be tried only in the federal courts. When a state court decides a case involving federal law, it in a sense acts as a federal court, and its decisions on federal law may be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a149.htm

Before a federal court can hear a case, or "exercise its jurisdiction," certain conditions must be met. First, under the Constitution, federal courts exercise only "judicial" powers. This means that federal judges may interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes, referred to in Article III of the Constitution as "Cases or Controversies." A court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative, or to answer a hypothetical legal question.

Second, assuming there is an actual case or controversy, the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit also must have legal "standing" to ask the court for a decision. That means the plaintiff must have been aggrieved, or legally harmed in some way, by the defendant. http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/Jurisdiction.aspx

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency (http://www.christianforums.com/t5778560/)is applicable?

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest.

I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.

To speak practically (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau))and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

You can find a whole slew of Article III federal judges
http://judgepedia.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Article+III+federal+judges+&go=Go

David Merrill
01-02-13, 03:42 PM
That is preaching to the choir. Every suitor who has filed a Libel of Review (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf) inquires upon judge appointment, Is this an Article III Judge? The clerk's affirmation to a falsity is where the new suitor is understanding his or her authority to sign and seal the resulting judgment.

I think that you understood my point about acknowledging my question about Hawaii.

stoneFree
01-02-13, 04:01 PM
Hmm, I don't see any Ed RIVERA (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/article-iii-court-by-ed-rivera.html) work here. I do see Chex has linked to Edwin VIEIRA (http://www.dailypaul.com/188551/ed-vieira-delivers-the-ron-paul-lecture-on-constitutional-money), a different attorney altogether.

David Merrill
01-03-13, 02:44 AM
Hmm, I don't see any Ed RIVERA (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/article-iii-court-by-ed-rivera.html) work here. I do see Chex has linked to Edwin VIEIRA (http://www.dailypaul.com/188551/ed-vieira-delivers-the-ron-paul-lecture-on-constitutional-money), a different attorney altogether.

Ooops! My bad!

I wonder how many times I have done that?

LearnTheLaw
01-04-13, 04:00 AM
The insideous part of all that is the US Supreme Court has ruled there to be three viable definitions for the United States.

Importing RIVERA's work here might be best with this warning, for what it is worth. I have not seen any results or delivery - but then because he is an attorney (or was before he was disbarred?) and three definitions for the US, I have not spent any time looking at his school and lesson plan.

When he started telling people that Hawaii had Article III courts I inquired by email if they had ever terminated the Article I employees. He went silent and never answered, except that he did seem to quit preaching it...



http://imageshack.us/a/img829/6238/terminatethearticleijud.jpg


If he had been courteous enough to email me back with some kind of acknowledgement I might be more inclined to follow his work.



Chapter 4:*
The Three United States


By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall's singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:




The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.

[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]


This same Court authority is cited by Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of "United States":

United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.

[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]

In the first sense, the term "United States*" can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The "United States*" is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where "U.S.*" refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this "United States*" as follows:

1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a "Citizen of the United States*." This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital "C" in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]


Secondly, the term "United States**" can also refer to "the federal zone", which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term "United States**" is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, "The United States** is ..." or "Its jurisdiction is ..." and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:



2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the "United States**" the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]


Thirdly, the term "United States***" can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term "United States***" does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term "United States***" is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, "These United States***" or "The United States*** are ..." and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these "United States***" as follows:

3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.
[Which One Are You?, pages 11-12]
[emphasis added]


Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:

It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and sovereign states of the United States*** of America are NOT joined under the title of "United States." The president represents the sovereign United States* in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States** in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States*** united by and under the Constitution .... After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term "United States**" is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends.

[A Ticket to Liberty, Nov. 1990, pages 22-23]
[emphasis added, italics in original]


http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/chapter4.pdf



You should explore this site at some point:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

BAMAJiPS
01-07-13, 04:47 AM
Give us some SAS! (Sanitize and Share).



http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/275/00covertostate.jpg


Note I founded this bond on one of Ronald Earnest PAUL's many failed attempts to move without constitutency:

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement1.gif www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement2.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement3.gif www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement4.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavitofservice.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant1.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant2.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/1-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/2-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/3-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/4-HR3812.jpg



BTW:

Instead of paying the bond, or having the US arrested they gave Ronald Dean back his money.

Am I reading this right?? Do my eyes deceive me??? UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a foreign entity that operates in admiralty court under the guise of the legitimate government of these united states of America? Do I have that right?

David Merrill
01-07-13, 09:25 AM
What fails to be typical about me (apparently) is that my perceptions and conclusions change in time by allowing my understanding of Rules of Evidence to process new information (once verified) into new perceptions. In other words please take note of the date I wrote that paper. It got Ron's money and recently I learned that the entire action seizing all those accounts was completely reversed, I think with Ron being about the only one who got any money back. That does not mean that everything I wrote in the paper is factual.

Many of the assertions might just be my perceptions at the time. Ron being restored of his life savings does not prove that all my perceptions were factual.

shikamaru
01-07-13, 09:03 PM
Am I reading this right?? Do my eyes deceive me??? UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a foreign entity that operates in admiralty court under the guise of the legitimate government of these united states of America? Do I have that right?

The United States of America is an association composed of States only.
The government of the United States is a public corporation.
The government of the United States is private international law.

Government of the United States is foreign to the several (individual States).

Government of the United States operates on Roman Civil Law.
The law of the District of Columbia is Lex Fori.

Chex
02-07-13, 07:41 PM
Recommendation: Acquiescence (http://www.google.com/search?q=Acquiescence&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7MEDA).
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-aod/mccorm.pdf

David Merrill
02-09-13, 12:25 AM
Excellent find! Thank you.

allodial
02-09-13, 01:33 AM
Why must the form be made under penalties of perjury? Why cant it just be a declaration. If the information matches the record what is the need to 'ceremonialize' it to such an extent? Is it because you have to 'risk' something to make the return 'valid'?



In the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure is the following section:

§ 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury.

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

(Signature)".

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

(Signature)".

(Added Pub.L. 94-550, § 1(a), Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534.)

David Merrill
02-09-13, 05:01 AM
My theory of the week is that swearing subjegates one to government - which government can take on many different forms in life. It is the means to become a government servant. Jesus was awarded upon birth (gold) funds for the family tomb (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImXzFHZF9xOXZnZWM/edit), starting with his generation and also a scholarship, giving him access to all the mystery schools in Egypt, Israel and Babylon. Jesus never, in other words swore in to the government of any Lodge.



http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/8444/philipjesusnotinitiateu.jpg

There is more to this though. There was a mountain man living in leathers (in exile). The King of Israel had been in exile for over twenty years - his name was Archelaus HEROD. The HEROD who took John's head (after John spoke out against him as ruler) was Antipater HEROD and was never King - but remained Tetrarch. There was another brother Philip HEROD but that was in another province so he never really got into the Bible Story. Archelaus was exiled in about 6 AD or when Jesus was about ten.

Upon Archelaus dying the title had a Vacancy and finally Jesus took an oath of office. The dunking in the Jordan really has very little explanation so please accept that Planet Merrill abhors a void. This fits so nicely.

However the Gospels carry two firm admonishions against swearing at all. - Not by heaven or earth.

When you are sworn in even to testify are you not giving that Lodge permission to punish you for perjury? Does this bring you into position as a party in interest to the court? How about the 1040 Form? What about anything you swear to?

David Merrill
02-09-13, 11:47 AM
Recommendation: Acquiescence (http://www.google.com/search?q=Acquiescence&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7MEDA).
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-aod/mccorm.pdf

Chex;

Thank you again - the brain trust offers insight too about how the IRS agent/attorneys think!



Crosstalk: Did anyone else besides me notice the glaring typo in the closing sentence of this document?


We now agree with the court that adding the words "under protest" without modifying the words of the jurat does not cast doubt on the validity of the jurat and, accordingly, does invalidate the document as a return.



That sentence is missing the “not” in the final clause!

The last sentence says the opposite of the court opinion being talked about in the IRS memorandum - instructing the IRS agents to consider the Return invalid. This might be sleezy attorney artistry. But writing about it here brings some insight for the brain trust! (Echo chamber return.)

The IRS attorneys may be instructing the IRS agents that while they cannot charge a frivolous fine - when the taxpayer declares the signature under protest, the Return is indeed invalid because it is "unvoluntary".

Furthermore notice how the IRS attorneys filed an immediate Notice of Appeal into the Second Circuit. The USCA was notified - meaning the United States Code Annotated and quickly the IRS decided they did not want the justices opining about this at all so it was withdrawn.

Chex;

Please show us your search engine path leading you to this memorandum. Are there other memos that I am missing for this thread?

David Merrill
02-09-13, 12:05 PM
P.S. Some more Crosstalk:


While relaying this to the members and readers on StSC it struck me that it is not a typo. – An echo chamber Return if you will.


We now agree with the court that adding the words "under protest" without modifying the words of the jurat does not cast doubt on the validity of the jurat and, accordingly, does invalidate the document as a return.

This sentence in the context of an internal memorandum to IRS agents might mean exactly what it says. Although the IRS agent cannot call it frivolous, the “under protest” does indeed invalidate the tax return because it is no longer voluntary compliance.

The main reason that this struck me as significant at all is that it opens up the availability to us, should we be compelled to submit IRS forms at all, to put the Non-Endorsement stamp (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6742/redeemedbills.jpg) on our Jurat, or Signature Line. The USDC NY is saying that any alterations do not affect the validity of the document so long as the taxpayer does not affect the validity of swearing and the IRS attorneys say that for the internal purposes of the Form, they do indeed have to listen to the additions/stipulations to the Signature itself, on the Signature Line.

Meaning that a tax return for a full refund of withholdings should also include the Redeeming Lawful Money stamp on the signature line and that the IRS has to recognize that stipulation added to the signature itself.




http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6742/redeemedbills.jpg

Chex
02-09-13, 05:44 PM
'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own."


This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law.


The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return.


If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

LearnTheLaw
02-09-13, 10:32 PM
'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own."


This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law.


The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return.


If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

Did you know you had a constitutional right to "Lawful Money"??

Did anyone ever disclose the fact that FRN's were "Private Credit"??

Did you "Voluntarily" waive your rights?

Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.

[Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)]

David Merrill
02-10-13, 12:10 AM
I just want to share something I learned from the echo chamber about common law. The IRS lost the case and immediately gave Notice of Appeal and the clerk immediately mandated that the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) be notified too. Then the IRS got scared that this case revealed way too much about the voluntary nature of the 1040 Form.

If you take that last sentence not to contain a typo then that means when you alter the jurat you might get into trouble for a frivolous filing - even criminal Failure to File. However you can put your demand for lawful money right there on your Signature Line and you swear to your demand under the penalty of perjury!

martin earl
02-10-13, 04:07 AM
I just want to share something I learned from the echo chamber about common law. The IRS lost the case and immediately gave Notice of Appeal and the clerk immediately mandated that the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) be notified too. Then the IRS got scared that this case revealed way too much about the voluntary nature of the 1040 Form.

If you take that last sentence not to contain a typo then that means when you alter the jurat you might get into trouble for a frivolous filing - even criminal Failure to File. However you can put your demand for lawful money right there on your Signature Line and you swear to your demand under the penalty of perjury!

I agree David, the 1040 filed after a year of recorded Demands per 12 USC 411 becomes your official notice of demand issued directly to the IRS itself, all nice and neat "under penalty of perjury". What better way to "witness" my demand and use of lawful money but by JURY??

Let their own law be the sword they fall on.

David Merrill
02-10-13, 10:16 AM
I just want to share something I learned from the echo chamber about common law. The IRS lost the case and immediately gave Notice of Appeal and the clerk immediately mandated that the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) be notified too. Then the IRS got scared that this case revealed way too much about the voluntary nature of the 1040 Form.

If you take that last sentence not to contain a typo then that means when you alter the jurat you might get into trouble for a frivolous filing - even criminal Failure to File. However you can put your demand for lawful money right there on your Signature Line and you swear to your demand under the penalty of perjury!

Some more Crosstalk:


What a blessing that SUITOR NICKNAME took off on a different thread and I wrote a deeper explanation on that one, that is in agreement with your take here.

It would seem that the IRS then (accordingly) is pleased to offer a court opinion that when a taxpayer signs a 1040 Form “under protest” the form is invalid and they do not have to send a Treasury check refund! They cannot charge a frivolous fine but just the same, they are not in dishonor if the 1040 Form has been rendered invalid.

Still what strikes me prominent is the Notice that was Mandated to the USCA (United States Codes Annotated). If you look in the Codes Annotated you find all sorts of significant quotes – like WestLaw’s publication service but what I learned is that this government publication service of Authorities is sacrosanct. There is a clerk of court-and federal rules procedure requiring that the USCA be accurate to the appeals justices’ opinions.

It almost makes me regret no suitors will ever be held to answer for criminal charges! If somebody were to get into trouble like this for putting the Demand Stamp with their legal signature it would be interesting to hear how the court and IRS attorneys might try to say the 1040 is “accordingly invalid”; keeping in mind that probably means that the IRS will ignore processing a refund. Yes, keep in mind that last sentence likely means the IRS attorneys admit they cannot charge a taxpayer a FrivPen but on the other hand they are not obligated to process invalid returns.

-----Original Message-----
From: True Name [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 10:39 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Excellent find about Signature Line on 1040 Form

Dear Brain Trust,

Bear with me if you will as this has spawned an idea that I think is one to look at closer. Under Protest is the theme here. I am sure most of us here have come across this one many times in the past. I find it has many meanings but centers around rights and demands. I found "under protest" back in the UCC days and never fully grasped its real ability, well lets see what the UCC has to say,


§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "underprotest," or the like are sufficient.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

So it looks like "under protest" from the Merchant Law view is explicitly reserving a parties rights while still performing in a manner to a demand or offer. I feel that the 1040 is a demand to be filed on a trust that is using Fed credit or credit money opposed to redemptive money. Simply putting under protest after your name is a demand for reservation of rights, one of those being lawful money. Now, I did not forget about subsection (b) does not apply to accord and satisfaction. Hmm...is that a 1040 form? Lets see:

ACCORD, in contracts. A satisfaction agreed upon between the party injuring and the party injured, which when performed is a bar to all actions upon this account. 3 Bl. Com. 15; Bac. Abr, Accord.

SATISFACTION, construction by courts of equity. Satisfaction is defined to be the donation of a thing, with the intention, express or implied, that such donation is to be an extinguishment of some existing right or claim in the donee.

This is a tough one, as donee it looks like this is a catch 22. If the 1040 form is an accord (it is a contract, a unilateral contract but still a contract) satisfaction can be restricteed by use of the term under protest thus keeping 1-308 valid. If you allow satisfaction without "under protest" goodbye rights or claim.

Now lets look at the only other mention of protest in the UCC:


§ 3-505. EVIDENCE OF DISHONOR.

(a) The following are admissible as evidence and create a presumption of dishonor and of any notice of dishonor stated:
(1) a document regular in form as provided in subsection (b) which purports to be a protest;
(2) a purported stamp or writing of the drawee, payor bank, or presenting bank on or accompanying the instrument stating that acceptance or payment has been refused unless reasons for the refusal are stated and the reasons are not consistent with dishonor;
(3) a book or record of the drawee, payor bank, or collecting bank, kept in the usual course of business which shows dishonor, even if there is no evidence of who made the entry.
(b) A protest is a certificate of dishonor made by a United States consul or vice consul, or a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths by the law of the place where dishonor occurs. It may be made upon information satisfactory to that person. The protest must identify the instrument and certify either that presentment has been made or, if not made, the reason why it was not made, and that the instrument has been dishonored by nonacceptance or nonpayment. The protest may also certify that notice of dishonor has been given to some or all parties.

SUITOR comments: I find (b) to be rather interesting. A certificate of DISHONOR made by a United States consul...whoa a what??

David Merrill comments: This is found in the footnotes (http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/6862/savingtosuitors.jpg) of the 'saving to suitors' clause, in the Statutes at Large!

Continued...

David Merrill
02-10-13, 10:17 AM
Continued from above...


CONSUETUDINES FEUDORUM. The name of an institute of the feudal system and usages, compiled about the year 1170, by authority of the emperor Frederic, surnamed Barbarossa. Ersk. Inst. B. 2, t. 3, n. 5. CONSUL, government, commerce. Consuls are commercial agent's appointed by a government to reside in the seaports of a foreign country, and commissioned to watch over the commercial rights and privileges of the nation deputing them. A vice-consul is one acting in the place of a consul.

2. Consuls have been greatly multiplied. Their duties and privileges are now generally limited, defined and secured by commercial treaties, or by the laws of the countries they represent. As a general rule, it may be laid down that they represent the subjects or citizens of their own nation, not otherwise represented. Bee, R. 209 3 Wheat. R. 435; 6. Wheat. R., 152; 10 Wheat. 66; 1 Mason's R. 14.

3. This subject will be considered by a view, first, of the appointment, duties, powers, rights, and liabilities of American consuls; and secondly, of the recognition, duties, rights, and liabilities of foreign consuls.

4. - 1. Of American consuls. First. The president authorized by the Constitution of the United States, art. 2, s. 2, el. 3, to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, appoint consuls.

5. - Secondly. Each consul and vice-consul is required, before he enters on the execution of his office, to give bond, with such sureties as shall be approved by the secretary of state, in a sum not less than two thousand nor more than ten thousand dollars, conditioned for the true and faithful discharge of the duties of his office, and also for truly accounting for all moneys, goods and effects which may come into his possession by virtue of the act of 14th April, 1792, which bond is to be lodged in the office of the secretary of State. Act of April 14, 1792, sect. 6.

6. - Thirdly. They have the power and are required to perform many duties in relation to the commerce of the United States and towards masters of ships, mariners, and other citizens of the United States; among these are the authority to receive protests or declarations which captains, masters, crews, passengers, merchants, and others make relating to American commerce; they are required to administer on the estate of American citizens, dying within their consulate, and leaving no legal representatives, when the laws of the country permit it; [see 2 Curt. Ecc. R. 241] to take charge and secure the effects of stranded American vessels in the absence of the master, owner or consignee; to settle disputes between masters of vessels and the mariners; to provide for destitute seamen within their consulate, and send them to the United States, at the public expense. See Act of 14th April, 1792; Act of 28th February, 1803, ch. 62; Act of 20th July, 1840, Ch. 23. The consuls are also authorized to make certificates of certain facts in certain cases, which receive faith and credit in the courts of the United States. But those consular certificates are not to be received in evidence, unless they are given in the performance of a consular function; 2 Cranch, R. 187; Paine, R. 594; 2 Wash. C. C. R. 478; 1 Litt. R. 71; nor are they evidence, between persons not parties or privies to the transaction, of any fact, unless, either expressly or impliedly, made so by statute. 2 Sumn. R. 355.

7. - Fourthly. Their rights are to be protected agreeably to the laws of nations, and of the treaties made between the nation to which they are sent, and the United States. They are entitled, by the act of 14th April, 1792, s. 4, to receive certain fees, which are there enumerated. And the consuls in certain places, as London, Paris, and the Barbary states, receive, besides, a salary.

8. - Fifthly. A consul is liable for negligence or omission to perform, seasonably, the duties imposed upon him, or for any malversation or abuse of power, to any injured person, for all damages occasioned thereby; and for all malversation and corrupt conduct in office, a consul is liable to indictment, and, on conviction by any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be fined not less than one, nor more than ten thousand dollars; and be imprisoned not less than one nor more than five years. Act of July 20, 1840, ch. 23, cl. 18. The act of February 28, 1803, ss. 7 and 8, imposes heavy penalties for falsely and knowingly certifying that property belonging to foreigners is the property of citizens of the United States; or for granting a passport, or other paper, certifying that any alien, knowing him or her to be such, is a citizen of the United States.

SUITOR comments: Is it possible our persons are US consuls? If you read into it a little it looks like they may be and if that is the case they certainly use a protest or "under protest". I follow this logic to this conclusion also as a dishonor (protest) would invalidate a return but the jurat would still be good.


Here is the last tid bit I could find on "under protest" in the IRS codes. It is the only cite found. It looks like you can still take civil action for a refund if you use "under protest" they can't bar you for it.


26 USC Sec. 7422 01/03/2012 (112-90)
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 76 - JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Subchapter B - Proceedings by Taxpayers and Third Parties
-HEAD-
Sec. 7422. Civil actions for refund
-STATUTE-
(a) No suit prior to filing claim for refund
No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the
recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been
erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty
claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum
alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully
collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed
with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that
regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in
pursuance thereof.
(b) Protest or duress
Such suit or proceeding may be maintained whether or not such
tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress.

So I hope this was helpful, weird though only 3 cites of this phrase between the UCC and title 26. Powerful words often do not need much explaination. the utterance of Yehoshuah can drive out the wickedest of beast, if you TRUST in Him. Just a thought and an alternative.


Be well and blessings

Nickname


This issue and interpretation is so complicated that it would seem the initial attorney on the case was perplexed when he Notified the USDC of appeal, which in keeping the Annotations sacrosanct caused the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) to be Notified by Mandate of the clerk. Then the IRS attorneys began to study more carefully and discovered this was best left as an internal quasi-public memorandum as linked by Chex here.

Notice at the bottom:


THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON OR
OTHERWISE CITED AS PRECEDENT BY TAXPAYERS



How about that comment!


I agree David, the 1040 filed after a year of recorded Demands per 12 USC 411 becomes your official notice of demand issued directly to the IRS itself, all nice and neat "under penalty of perjury". What better way to "witness" my demand and use of lawful money but by JURY??

Let their own law be the sword they fall on.

Poetic irony in motion!


P.S. The PACER images and docket report are available HERE (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145-Exactly-what-does-the-IRS-agent-think&p=9839&viewfull=1#post9839). Unfortunately one needs to request 1993 documents be digitized and the clerk can charge for the time.

shikamaru
02-10-13, 11:20 AM
Did you know you had a constitutional right to "Lawful Money"??

Did anyone ever disclose the fact that FRN's were "Private Credit"??

Did you "Voluntarily" waive your rights?

Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.

[Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)]

Claiming rights under the Constitution is a loser, IMHO.
All the research I'm coming across is strongly indicating that that treaty was never intended for the common man.

One does better to claim right under their Creator rather than a private agreement between the States, King of England, Bank of England, and the Pope ......

David Merrill
02-10-13, 02:52 PM
Claiming rights under the Constitution is a loser, IMHO.
All the research I'm coming across is strongly indicating that that treaty was never intended for the common man.

One does better to claim right under their Creator rather than a private agreement between the States, King of England, Bank of England, and the Pope ......

www.savingtosuitorsclub.net

The Judiciary Act of 1789 guarantees that the common law remedy is available wherever the common law is competentent. A suitor with good trust law research and practice adheres to declaring the original printed Bible (http://www.loc.gov/rr/microform/relmicro.html). He calls it by the Library of Congress # Gutenberg Bible incun.1454.b5 (http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2007/04/the-library-and-the-good-book/gutenberg-bible-at-the-library-of-congress-2/).

David Merrill
02-10-13, 03:22 PM
P.S. It gets better:



There is a clerk of court-and federal rules procedure requiring that the USCA be accurate to the appeals justices’ opinions.

Appeal decisions reflect an equitable flavour. Equity moderates the harshenss of the Common Law.

What law is common to the citizens of today? Statutes and Codes.

Statutes and Codes are for the great unwashed - General Public

Annotated are "unwritten law" that guides the guides based on former guides experiences.

Unwritten and private to the inner sanctum, as David put it, sacrosant.

Appeals are paper-based, no hearing of spoken word.

Equity is not heard, but seen. The scales of justice lady out in the general public's view - blind eh?

Chex
02-10-13, 06:06 PM
I agree David, the 1040 filed after a year of recorded Demands per 12 USC 411 becomes your official notice of demand issued directly to the IRS itself, all nice and neat "under penalty of perjury". What better way to "witness" my demand and use of lawful money but by JURY?? Let their own law be the sword they fall on.

In the United States, a federal juror's oath usually states something to the effect of:

"Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God?"

Jury instructions sometimes make reference to the juror's oath. For example, the Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions developed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit for use by U.S. District Courts state:[1]


“You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened–that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts–it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you.

You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you.

You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be.

It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences.

However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be.

That is entirely up to you.

It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy.

That was the promise you made and the oath you took.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath

Has anyone ever read a jury handbook?

The voir dire process.

gdude
02-11-13, 05:04 AM
OMG! Unbelievable, so sad.


“You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened–that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts–it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you.

You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you.

You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be.

It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences.

However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be.

That is entirely up to you.


Wow, this explains Hendrickson's conviction. I believe some of the juror's wanted to see the original statute, but the judge refused them! Citing it might confuse them...just listen to my instructions! We are #$%^%^

Michael Joseph
02-11-13, 05:23 AM
However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be.

That is entirely up to you.

The Jury does not have to listen to one word the Judge says. See now N.L.P. at its worst! This is why these cases form the Common Law. The Jury decides what will be common to their Venue. But lets be practical, when you got 12 men and women who are degreed within a Public School System, well they are TRAINED to conform to the Demands of the Authorities! This of course starts in the first grade when Johnny is introduced to the Police Officer and Fire Fighter and told IF YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY - CALL US.

Which is a slick way of embedding a thought in a child's mind - I am incompetent to handle my own affairs - I need others to help me!

A mind needs to be exercised.

Jury Nullification (http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jury-nullification/)


Shalom,
MJ

allodial
02-12-13, 03:41 PM
Importing RIVERA's work ....

Seems following RIVERA's advice resulted in some guy out in California getting his physical therapy license suspended with a berating from the responsible tribunal regarding psychological problems. RIVERA's theories seem to be missing this "Civil War" thing. To spare the guy embarrassment I wont post links. RIVERA doesn't seem to quite completely know what he's talking about. I get the impression of DALE LIVINGSTON + 5/16th Red Amendment.

David Merrill
09-23-13, 03:05 PM
Seems following RIVERA's advice resulted in some guy out in California getting his physical therapy license suspended with a berating from the responsible tribunal regarding psychological problems. RIVERA's theories seem to be missing this "Civil War" thing. To spare the guy embarrassment I wont post links. RIVERA doesn't seem to quite completely know what he's talking about. I get the impression of DALE LIVINGSTON + 5/16th Red Amendment.


Both of these pundits do seem to be a bit stuck pre-revolution. I attempted to convince LIVINGSTON one evening but he just could not stay on my track and felt attacked as soon as I brought up his attempts to air his cause on the Tim TURNER network. That was my mistake.

I could have avoided that and maybe gotten my point across.

allodial
09-23-13, 04:15 PM
Both of these pundits do seem to be a bit stuck pre-revolution. I attempted to convince LIVINGSTON one evening but he just could not stay on my track and felt attacked as soon as I brought up his attempts to air his cause on the Tim TURNER network. That was my mistake.

I could have avoided that and maybe gotten my point across.

If they were seeking or promoting truth you'd figure they'd have been open-minded. Could they possibly, instead, be literally seeking to procure a 'captive audience (http://deadwrite.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/img_6415.jpg)'? To reiterate, while I would tend to appreciate sincere scholarship, LIVINGSTON's writing style (i.e. lack of complete sentences and pUZzLiNG Abuse of, PUNCTUATION, and Case) throws off some serious bright, red flags. To be stuck in pre-revolution or in a pre-Civil-War modality could be simply due to some innocent oversight or lack of comprehension or part and parcel of deliberate and intentional misinformation.

1328

The above graphic is a snapshop of one of LIVINGSTON's documents (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/livingston/tests/12-the_commander_in_chief_test.pdf). Taken on its own merit, what serious legal scholar writes like that? Seriously? Is that even a sentence? (IMHO, The "called into service" issue comes into clear view and focus if viewed in the light of post-revolution U.S. history (http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/whiskey/).)

1330

1329

1331

Just to get a point across, I have included the above snapshots from the California Style Manual, 4th Edition: A Handbook of Legal Style for California Courts and Lawyers by Edward D. Jessen Reporter of Decisions for the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal.

P.S. According to the California Manual of Style, 4th. Edition underscoring should avoided for showing emphasis unless you are, say, using a 1930s typewriter--but, if you have ulterior motives..... :)

1332
Coincidentally, ransom letters also pertain to captive audiences (www.shyzer.com/images/note.jpg).

allodial
09-23-13, 04:58 PM
Perhaps LIVINGSTON lacks familiarity with the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Korea_Treaty_of_1910) and the potential significance of thereof and the law of conquest as pertains to Japan circa 1945?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Surrender_of_Japan_-_USS_Missouri.jpg

David Merrill
09-23-13, 10:21 PM
I only have one or two snapshots (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImMDhjZGRhODctMDdiOS00ODRmLTljNTMtZDAxN jQ2ZTFkMjJj/edit?usp=sharing) of LIVINGSTON to go on. You do remind me how intent he gets that there was some big evil conspiracy going on around the formation of our nation. I have acquired a bit of his utterances - The Nation that Never Was (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImWi1aWHFBSU1FVnM/edit).

I have to agree that his material is skewed so much by either paranoia or delirium that it is not really worth the effort to understand. That was my objective in speaking with him - to show how the whole scenario about WASHINGTON and New York can be explained away through Freemasonry (http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6315/nyfreemasonry.pdf).


Take a careful look at this one book! With a few minimal keys one can unlock a lot:



http://imageshack.us/a/img18/3177/nyfreemasonry.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img513/7973/nyfreemasonrybackcover.jpg

Chex
09-24-13, 01:31 AM
Since we are in the R’s here is one from Michael Rivero.

All Wars Are Bankers Wars. ForbiddenKnowledgeTV, Alexandra Bruce, September 17, 2013

Transcript of Introduction of Michael Rivero's speech on his Radio show, WhatReallyHappened?:: "All Wars Are Bankers Wars", on January 14th, 2013:

Semore at: http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/911--false-flags/all-wars-are-bankers-wars-1.html#sthash.HywvLh7Q.dpuf

David Merrill
09-24-13, 10:01 AM
Since we are in the R’s here is one from Michael Rivero.

All Wars Are Bankers Wars. ForbiddenKnowledgeTV, Alexandra Bruce, September 17, 2013

Transcript of Introduction of Michael Rivero's speech on his Radio show, WhatReallyHappened?:: "All Wars Are Bankers Wars", on January 14th, 2013:

Semore at: http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/911--false-flags/all-wars-are-bankers-wars-1.html#sthash.HywvLh7Q.dpuf


That link holds a very lucid explanation but I want to focus on perceptions gained from having the Mason Library (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Freemason_library.jpg) and Museum (http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1628/masonmuseum.jpg)available. Also take to heart dreams and visions (http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4255/monumentsfibonaccispira.jpg) granted from whatever term you apply to God, or in my case the Holy Spirit. I direct your attention to the way the video jumps directly into the known portions of currency at the federal level at minute mark 7:00 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2JpYjxxfHyg#t=352).

Along the lines of my recent postings here what I am speaking of is the granting of license from a higher authority (court of record) to a lower authority - criminal. Remember that all licensing is for the purpose to allow criminal behavior for the common good. On the macrocosm we find a Levitical priesthood in full support and wearing the mantle of authority to grant license to governments so that the central banks can have more currency in circulation than they have redeemable in value (gold).

Right here in the Fourth Judicial District (http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/6352/20mlien1.jpg)only hours after I perfected my $20M lien (http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7398/20mlienoriginalreturn.jpg) we find another hologram (fractal) of the FDIC in Traveler's Insurance covering Dan MAY for $5K (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7770/danmaydaoathandinsuranc.pdf) rather than the Comptroller of the State Treasury on a valid fidelity bond only hours before. It helps to watch how John William's allegiances evolve over the years, from way back when he was District Attorney over the Golden Rectangle, where the fiat really began...


Bogus Oath from 2005 (no mention of God). (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg)
Valid Oath (http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/7421/suthersagsos07god.jpg) at the time I perfected my $20M lien (http://img858.imageshack.us/img858/9650/20mliendateofpublicatio.jpg) against the State of Colorado Capital Finance Corporation (http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6443/purposescapitalfinancec.jpg).

[That last link - Do you see the license I was revoking? The State of Colorado Capital Finance Corporation was soon dissolved.]

Finally John William evolved to what is plainly a stock certificate like a blank check with the State Comptroller:


http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6152/suthersfungiblefidelity.jpg

The Levite methodology (as opposed to Melchizedek) is to insure (bottomry) in admiralty rather than to hold the value, or at least grant redemption in value; the Federal Reserve Note is as I have been saying all along (http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/55/pl945643.jpg) backed by $42.22/troy ounce in gold. [This is why we sue (LoR (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf)) Jack LEW as the US Governor for the International Monetary Fund, not as a US Government Employee.]


http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9579/templestonesmogandavid.jpg

The Levite license through Congress Masonry has allowed that albeit the FRN is backed by gold, only Melchizedek can actually own the wealth (http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8445/billofexchange.pdf). Notice how the Original was served on the NYSE and the 30-Day Judgment fell exactly on September 11, 2001. All the rest, the Central Banking Wars is only the trustees trying to behave like Melchizedek.

David Merrill
09-24-13, 10:22 AM
P.S. In other words, What good is backing the FRN with gold (US notes too (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbTlZVjBCM081dFE/edit?usp=sharing)) if you cannot access the gold to redeem it?

Chex
09-24-13, 01:21 PM
P.S. In other words, What good is backing the FRN with gold (US notes too (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbTlZVjBCM081dFE/edit?usp=sharing)) if you cannot access the gold to redeem it?

That is a very good question.

The Reserve Bank of India bought 200 metric tonnes of gold from the International Monetary Fund, or the IMF, in September of 2009. The move was a bid to increase the Washington-based financial institution’s capacity to lend to poor nations. http://sandymccollum.hubpages.com/hub/Who-is-the-Richest-Country

Because gold is dispersed widely throughout the geologic world, its discovery occurred to many different groups in many different locales. And nearly everyone who found it was impressed with it, and so was the developing culture in which they lived. http://www.onlygold.com/TutorialPages/HistoryFS.htm

National Mining Association 101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite 500 East Washington, DC 20001. http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/gold_history.pdf

At the time gold was discovered, California was part of the Mexican territory of Alta California, which was ceded to the U.S. after the end of the Mexican-American War with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848, less than two weeks after the discovery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Gold_Rush

The history of the United States dollar refers to more than 200 years since Continental Congress of the United States authorized the issuance of the US dollar on August 8, 1786. The term 'dollar' had already been in common usage since the colonial period when it referred to eight-real coin (Spanish dollar) used by the Spanish throughout New Spain. Although several monetary systems were proposed for the early republic, the dollar was approved by Congress to be released in a variety of denominated coins and currency bills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_dollar



This is all so true

1336

It takes a lot of this to buy even an ounce of gold.

David Merrill
09-25-13, 05:35 AM
I heard somewhere that gold is the stuff of exploding stars?

I sense a lot of the Club de Paris (http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/) in your post.

You stir my mind to recall archetypes of Golden Calf imagery - with gold foil foiling the Israelites to ignore their spiritual leader on the burning mountain nearby communing with God...

Chex
09-25-13, 01:49 PM
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’ “I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” Exodus 32-7.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Golden_Calf

Sidebar. It’s interesting to read the comments people wrote about what the authors have to say in books like this.

Lawful Money Explained written by Gertrude M. Coogan, author of several books on money, the most notable "Money Creators," originally published in 1935 during the Great Depression magnificently details the historical, political, social and economic principles of money, addressing a vast array information on the subject that the reader should become intellectually enriched as a result. A brief overview of topics addressed: Principles of Freedom Explained Our Government a Republic Why Money was Invented GOLD MONEY Private Coinage What the U.S. Constitution provides The President's Silver Proclamation Gold "Stabilization" The Why of Social and Economic Chaos Arbitrary Creation and Destruction of Money What is Lawful Money The Federal Reserve System The Automatic Gold Standard The Debt - Credit Relation of Lawful Money Taxes and Public Debts and much more. Gertrude M. Coogan Bachelor of Science and Commerce with distinction in 1921, Northwestern University; Master of Business Administration, 1922, Northwestern University; Statistician and Securities Analyst for eight years, The Northern Trust Company of Chicago; Since 1930 has conducted her own business- Analyses Money and Economic Trends and Investment Securities; Author of "Money Creators", (1935) popular book now in its eighth printing; Lecturer on American principles of Government and Economics. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974984094/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=24322222555&hvpos=1s2&hvexid=&hvnetw=s&hvrand=877247742274636735&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_3p3vbqhrvh_e

Look in side http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Money-Street-American-Century/dp/3981326318/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Funny how the author uses chapter 13 in his book http://www.amazon.com/They-Own-All-Including-You/dp/1439233616/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_ex#reader_1439233616 to describe the "Behind a fraudulent and corrupt "monetary" system lies a hidden creditor" banking and federal reserve act.

allodial
09-25-13, 10:55 PM
However, even if only gold coins were in circulation in any given state or kingdom or forum, the sovereign or ruler of such is who says and thusly it is that authority that makes it money. If I created crystal containers and stamped $20 on them and filled them with pure water and decreed (http://thefreedictionary.com/fiat)them to be currency in the Land of Me, sure sure the water inside the crystal container has a value itself --BUT THAT IS BESIDES THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT-- being that it is *I* that determines that water contained in such and such a container stamped in such and such a manner to be worth $20 and is good for currency. A state/kingdom/city-state doesn't have an obligation to make gold or silver its currency although it might have to make sure the system is overall just and balanced.

The perceived value of gold or diamonds is 100% separate from the authority or sanction backing its use as a currency (i.e. melt-value is separate from declared value). Clearly gold nuggets and gold bullion isn't coin--it should be easy to comprehend. In the United States it is silver in a certain form that is a dollar per the Coinage Act of 1792.

Per the Coinage Act of 1792, a dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792) is coin containing silver and the Gold Eagle coin's value is defined in terms of the dollar not the other way around. The lawful dollar was not originally defined in terms of gold.

1339

1340

See also: pound sterling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_pound) and Spanish dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieces_of_eight).




1336

It takes a lot of this to buy even an ounce of gold.[/CENTER]

An ounce of gold **is not money* although it may be valued in terms of money. Money has the backing of a sovereign or ruler of its associated forum.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Alaska_Gold_in_pan.jpg

That ain't money.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/2006_AEGold_Proof_Rev.png/220px-2006_AEGold_Proof_Rev.png

That is a photo of official coin/currency of the United States--i.e. money. Certified, stamped and underwritten. The industrial value is separate from its decreed value.

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/world/gold/images/demonocracy-gold-all_gold_in_the_world-reserves-cube.jpg

David Merrill
09-26-13, 10:13 AM
Thank you! I believe that it is useful to think in terms of license. A license is the method by which we make illegal activity legal.

I extend license to the Spiritual Leader in priestcraft (Vatican jurisdiction) over and infiltrating New Thought (teaching Unity) by not exposing him. His license in theory lasts as long as that, presuming any of the congregants care.

Chex
09-26-13, 02:03 PM
However, even if only gold coins were in circulation in any given state or kingdom or forum, the sovereign or ruler of such is who says and thusly it is that authority that makes it money.

According to Webster's Dictionary, "sovereign" is defined as: 1. chief or highest; supreme. 2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction.

Probably no aspect of the American economy has strayed further from the Constitution than the monetary system. W. Cleon Skousen.

Unless you’re calling congress the sovereign or ruler of such it was congress and the Board of Treasury most probably by us the people who in the Constitution stated what money is . This is a constitutional issue. The Constitution is an extraordinary document.

When your great X’s 3 grandparents fought the Revolutionary War, two things almost led to the defeat of the struggle for American independence. One the inadequate system of constitutional government, and the other was unsound money. Congress issued about $240 million in “Continentals” referring to money of the Continental Congress and it was understood that the money would be redeemed in gold or silver by the states after the war.

On down the line……………….

The American market accepted the Spanish dollar as its basic unit of value minted in Mexico and called a “piece of eight,” or a peso abbreviated into an S and a P with one written over the other which was further abbreviated to a “$” sign.

In 1785, two years before the Constitution was written, the Congress accepted the Spanish dollar as the official unit of value for the United States and determined that all foreign coin would be evaluated in terms of the Spanish dollar.

In 1786, the year before the Constitution was adopted; the Board of Treasury fixed the silver weight of the adopted dollar at 375 and 64/100s grains of fine silver.

The value of gold coins or any other coins was to be calculated in terms of the silver dollar of this weight and fineness.

Those three things had been established before the Constitution was adopted:
1. That the official money of the United States would be precious metals–silver and gold.
2. That the basic unit of value would be called a “dollar” and consist of 375 and 64/100s grains of fine silver.
3. All other coins, both foreign and domestic, would be evaluated in terms of this official silver dollar.

Here is my favorite line from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_currency#Banknotes
The U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States".[44] Congress has exercised that power by authorizing Federal Reserve Banks to issue Federal Reserve Notes.
[to me congress is doing the borrowing on the credit of the united states by using frn’s, to run their Act of 1871 for the Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C) corporation.] McDonalds money.

Those notes are "obligations of the United States" and "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."[45] Federal Reserve Notes are designated by law as "legal tender" for the payment of debts.[46] Congress has also authorized the issuance of more than 10 other types of banknotes, including the United States Note[47] and the Federal Reserve Bank Note. The Federal Reserve Note is the only type that remains in circulation since the 1970s.

This statement imho says the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note is still in circulation today. I don’t care how much the congress is allowed to print each year or decade or in a lifetime it’s still here.


*** All of this was already part of the law of the land when the Constitution was adopted. ***

Therefore, the Founders wrote the following provisions in the Constitution concerning money based on the above statutes which had previously been adopted as the official monetary system.

They wrote:
Congress shall have the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” (Article I, section 8, clause 5.)

Congress shall have the power to punish the counterfeiting of money. (Article I, section 8, clause 6.)

No tax on imported persons (bonded servants) shall exceed ten dollars.

Note the reference to “dollars” in this provision.(Article I, section 9, clause 1.)

No state shall coin money, emit bills of credit, or make anything but gold and silver tender in payment of debts. (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1.)

In civil cases for more than twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. (Seventh Amendment.)

In 1792, the Coinage Act was passed. It invoked the death penalty for anyone debasing the money. It provided for a United States mint where silver dollars were coined along with gold coins beginning in 1794.

900,000,000 silver dollars were coined from that time until 1935 when the treasury stopped minting them. Silver dollars contained 46 grains of standard silver same as the Spanish dollar, which had now been determined to be 371.25 grains of fine silver. Half dollars, quarters, and dimes and “half dimes” contained a proportionate amount of silver and Pennies and half pennies were made of copper.

Gold eagles were worth ten silver dollars, with a ratio between gold and silver fixed by statute. The fixing of this ratio by statute turned out to be a mistake.

Each metal should have been allowed to follow its independent market value. Half eagles (worth $5) and quarter eagles (worth $2.50) were also minted.

Free minting privileges were granted to all citizens. They could take either gold or silver to the mint and have it minted into coins. This practice lasted until 1873.

The ratio between gold and silver which was fixed by statute at 15 to 1 was soon out of phase in favor of gold as a result much of the American gold stocks began to be purchased by Europe.

In 1834, the ratio was changed to 16 to 1which favored silver, and from then until the Civil War the nation was, for all practical purposes, on a gold standard.

Europe began buying silver, with the gold it had previously accumulated. This soon brought gold stocks back to the United States.

Sidebar. Funny look to the right in the box @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_currency you have Official user(s) and unOfficial user(s), lol.

allodial
09-26-13, 07:22 PM
According to Webster's Dictionary, "sovereign" is defined as: 1. chief or highest; supreme. 2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction.

Probably no aspect of the American economy has strayed further from the Constitution than the monetary system. W. Cleon Skousen.

Unless you’re calling congress the sovereign or ruler of such it was congress and the Board of Treasury most probably by us the people who in the Constitution stated what money is . This is a constitutional issue. The Constitution is an extraordinary document.

Plenary power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power) (U.S. Congress is said to have "plenary municipal authority" over the District of Columbia and over the territories of the United States). If you live within one of the 50 States of the Union then that plenary power might apply to you. AFAIK they ARE NOT necessarily legislating outside of territorial confines. And they aren't necessarily stopping you from leaving yours and coming *under* theirs. As a matter of fact they probably make a point to hand out invitations!

P.S. Congress itself is a creature of something, somethings or someone or someones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Continental_Congress).


Thank you! I believe that it is useful to think in terms of license. A license is the method by which we make illegal activity legal.

1341
But perhaps equitable in a court of equity (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/reference/maxims/1880_peloubet_a_collection_of_legal_maxims_in_law_ and_equity.pdf). The UCC focuses on 'value' which is assessed on a case by case basis (i.e. equity jurisprudence) even when you go to the store and decide that something is worth $___ or not.


I extend license to the Spiritual Leader in priestcraft (Vatican jurisdiction) over and infiltrating New Thought (teaching Unity) by not exposing him. His license in theory lasts as long as that, presuming any of the congregants care.
http://www.computer-museum.ru/images/histussr/strela.jpg
Priestcraft of a certain kind (http://www.theexaminer.org/volume6/number1/clergy.htm)? For some reason I at this time recall someone relating the notion that the Soviet (http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1987-8/byrnes.htm) Model of computers was said to be one of strong (http://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/) centralization (http://www.theexaminer.org/volume3/number4/building.htm)(thin clients connected to a massive central system) with the American model being one of proliferous distribution (i.e. powerful clients; peer to peer; aversion to strong centralization (http://www.theexaminer.org/volume8/number3/home.htm)). Was Jesus Christ pointing to a strong centralization of authority or to distribution of authority?

http://www.futuretimeline.net/22ndcentury/images/mind-uploading.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_share)

David Merrill
09-27-13, 09:00 AM
Plenary power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power) (U.S. Congress is said to have "plenary municipal authority" over the District of Columbia and over the territories of the United States). If you live within one of the 50 States of the Union then that plenary power might apply to you. AFAIK they ARE NOT necessarily legislating outside of territorial confines. And they aren't necessarily stopping you from leaving yours and coming *under* theirs. As a matter of fact they probably make a point to hand out invitations!

P.S. Congress itself is a creature of something, somethings or someone or someones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Continental_Congress).



1341
But perhaps equitable in a court of equity (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/reference/maxims/1880_peloubet_a_collection_of_legal_maxims_in_law_ and_equity.pdf). The UCC focuses on 'value' which is assessed on a case by case basis (i.e. equity jurisprudence) even when you go to the store and decide that something is worth $___ or not.



Priestcraft of a certain kind (http://www.theexaminer.org/volume6/number1/clergy.htm)? For some reason I at this time recall someone relating the notion that the Soviet (http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1987-8/byrnes.htm) Model of computers was said to be one of strong (http://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/) centralization (http://www.theexaminer.org/volume3/number4/building.htm)(thin clients connected to a massive central system) with the American model being one of proliferous distribution (i.e. powerful clients; peer to peer; aversion to strong centralization (http://www.theexaminer.org/volume8/number3/home.htm)). Was Jesus Christ pointing to a strong centralization of authority or to distribution of authority?

http://www.futuretimeline.net/22ndcentury/images/mind-uploading.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_share)

Thank you dearly for those links! It validates how much time I have been spending in pursuit of this Vatican infiltration into New Thought. New Thought, Science of Mind and A Course in Miracles, especially the latter is actually built upon a sense of Unity.


But the cross of Christ forever wiped out all such distinctions. They were abolished and done away when the legal custodian delivered us to Jesus, and faith in Gods Son superceded that righteousness which is by deeds of the law.

I place before you the idea that this line of posts is quite fitting for this thread topic. - That the very idea of sacrifice and a bloodthirsty God of Abraham is quite a perverse thought process. The idea of Abram cutting his son Isaac's throat on Mount Moriah is a simple allegory for Love the LORD thy God with all thine heart.

I read something like that recently, a treatise imploring quite on an encouraging note that the Kingdom of Heaven was easily accessed simply by putting it vigilantly on your heart. Make finding the Kingdom your priority and it will be upon you now.


And now we dedicate buildings to God exactly as Solomon did in the days of spiritual adolescence, and men stand up and intone in sepulchral tones, "I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go up to the house of God."


Our clear connection of this priestcraft with the thread topic came clear to me around 1994. There was a short rash of churches being burned in the southern States. Robert RUBIN, then the Secretary of the Treasury declared the burnings an act of domestic terrorism. The term may have been invented at that time. What always caught my eye was how the Secretary of the Treasury was stepping up instead of some other political figure.

Please carefully consider this Indictment (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImOWMwMjUxZTYtZmViNy00NmI1LWEyNzItMDgxY zFkZWMxNmVi/edit?usp=sharing). Notice how RUBIN resigned in time for the 5:00 O'Clock News!

Furthermore - notice the effect the USGS testimony had upon the admiralty, the plenary municipal jurisdiction of METRO organization and compare to the plain mathematics.



http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4255/monumentsfibonaccispira.jpg

1342

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/2883/monumentsmounthermon.jpg

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7852/hermanpastoral.jpg


Funny how the whole Sacrificial System was formalized around the Golden Calf incident - which involved the foiling of gold?

David Merrill
09-27-13, 09:39 AM
P.S. We find a big discrepancy for the layman to be swearing out oaths, while that is a function of bonding the officials to the Treasury in fidelity bond.

It may have been over a decade since I have signed my name on anything but my own process, except for forceful obligations proposed by the Booking Area of the local jail. - And those incidents leave me wanting a long hot shower.

David Merrill
09-27-13, 03:18 PM
Chex;


Your post fits nicely there. Thank you!

allodial
09-27-13, 06:26 PM
http://www.myfloridacfo.com/division/sfm/bfai/images/DetectiveBanner.jpg

Our clear connection of this priestcraft with the thread topic came clear to me around 1994. There was a short rash of churches being burned in the southern States. Robert RUBIN, then the Secretary of the Treasury declared the burnings an act of domestic terrorism. The term may have been invented at that time. What always caught my eye was how the Secretary of the Treasury was stepping up instead of some other political figure.

In the State of Florida the State Treasurer / CFO is also the "go-to" guy for arson (http://www.myfloridacfo.com/division/sfm/bfai/) (Note: slide 5). Harming property or that of 501(c)(3) registrants in the State called United States might be in the domain of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/rr982.aspx). Interesting though to consider a 501(c)(3) 'church': tax exemption, weekly swarms of cash coming in and being deposited... like..a bank.
1343

shikamaru
09-27-13, 08:17 PM
The funny thing about computers is right now things are moving back towards strong centralization with cloud computing, virtualization, and such ....

David Merrill
09-27-13, 09:07 PM
The funny thing about computers is right now things are moving back towards strong centralization with cloud computing, virtualization, and such ....


Thanks Allodial - processing...

Shikamaru - like spiritual data?

allodial
09-27-13, 10:57 PM
Perhaps this might help ....

1344

http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server2900/2e56f/products/69/images/157/82-2622__66968.1301068565.1280.1280.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5206/5306991119_7e162d06a3_z.jpg

David Merrill
09-28-13, 10:15 AM
Okay... I get it.

shikamaru
09-28-13, 11:24 AM
Shikamaru - like spiritual data?

Nope ... more like all your data being on the cloud ... so govy can sniff at will ....

End terminals, to some degree, are moving back towards being dummy terminals ....

David Merrill
09-28-13, 01:11 PM
I think of that as de-centralization but I believe you have it better perceived:



http://imageshack.us/a/img138/8827/vvtt.jpg


Also, the choice must be made - are you serving God or Mammon?



1347

The §501(C)(3) "church" is not the church according to the IR Code. Churches are Disqualified Organizations. The congregants for example are defaulted into §508 as applicants who have not turned in their applications for approval. There we find though, that there is a Mandatory Exception from the Code for people like the Pope (Bishop of Rome), Mayor etc. - corporations sole.

I am sure if you search for The Good Church (http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1817/thegoodchurch.pdf) around here you will get the cites.

allodial
09-28-13, 07:01 PM
Nope ... more like all your data being on the cloud ... so govy can sniff at will ....

End terminals, to some degree, are moving back towards being dummy terminals ....

And perhaps less intelligent operators (mhkeehn.tripod.com/ughoae.pdf) to boot (thin clients in the head (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?978-Decrypting-Education-in-America))?

1348

David Merrill
01-14-14, 10:43 AM
This is an interesting BUMP (http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/userfiles/file/2013-Annual-Report-to-Congress-Executive-Summary.pdf)!

froze25
01-15-14, 09:30 PM
Updating you all.


This fellow got a latter about 45 days ago saying the IRS would be considering his Return for another 45 days. He sounded optimistic that the IRS will be sending his full Refund, however late.

I noticed how long the IRS contemplated sending him his Refund for the latter half of 2009:



http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/1148/irs2010.png

What ever happened to this Suitors Refund, The offered him Half he did a R4C any word after?

David Merrill
01-15-14, 10:14 PM
This suitor is in International Settlements at a huge international bank. I believe about the time we were waiting for the refund he inquired with his co-worker's sister, the IRS attorney and she remarked how his file was secured above her pay grade. Interesting that was a First for her. And unheard of - sealing a file from IRS attorneys. But maybe they discovered they knew each other too?

He turned out to be one of the three suitors involved in financial advice/banking that led me to the conclusion that people in the financial industry attract Frivpens. Not that the IRS has a legal right - just that if someone is making a living from endorsers of private credit the IRS is emboldened to try something. Now I inquire before helping somebody through a Libel of Review.

All in all though, I cannot promise anything about the actions of others.

Johnny
03-25-14, 07:15 PM
Hello David,

I'm new here. Is using line 21 on 1040 form "redeemed in lawful money reduction still working provided all checks have been properly stamped? Was wondering if there is any more successes since 2009?
Thanks for all the interesting comments and work, Johnny

David Merrill
03-29-14, 10:42 PM
Hi Johnny;


Welcome to StSC!

I was just looking at a FrivPen warning and got an updated Link to the same old Memorandum (http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Identifies-40-Frivolous-Positions-for-Taxpayers-to-Avoid) as recently cited. So I really don't spend much time on this thread.

I get a lot of successful reports though. Just the other day...


David,

This morning I have news of federal refund (attached) as result of lawful money tax return filing. Have wonderful example docs from start to finish, just need to sanitize. So a big THANK YOU! there.


He sanitized them for use but I refrain from putting them on the forums because of a NY Tort Attorney who likes to publish the PACER docs on a skeptical website thinking he is affecting process. Since the purpose is to publish process there is no real problem but I don't like to see suitors' home addresses displayed to that mentality for ridicule.

The good news however is that your metaphysics is what is really at work. There is a new example here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1036-1st-Return-Redeeming-Lawful-Money&p=13475&viewfull=1#post13475), with documentation. This suitor never filed a Libel of Review to establish an evidence repository and may have encouraged the IRS agent to start FrivPen process. So he will likely re-file a more standard 1040 Form, set up an evidence repository and file the Redeemed Lawful Money Return next year instead. Once they get that ball rolling they would rather get the suitor into an administrative argument, just creating a sad FrivPen, ignoring the law.

Lots of folks are getting full refunds on the evidence alone, the demands on the backsides of paychecks etc. but I am skeptical about going forward without a proper evidence repository (record).


Regards,

David Merrill.

samgans
04-05-14, 01:01 AM
Hi Johnny;


Welcome to StSC!

I was just looking at a FrivPen warning and got an updated Link to the same old Memorandum (http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Identifies-40-Frivolous-Positions-for-Taxpayers-to-Avoid) as recently cited. So I really don't spend much time on this thread.

I get a lot of successful reports though. Just the other day...



He sanitized them for use but I refrain from putting them on the forums because of a NY Tort Attorney who likes to publish the PACER docs on a skeptical website thinking he is affecting process. Since the purpose is to publish process there is no real problem but I don't like to see suitors' home addresses displayed to that mentality for ridicule.

The good news however is that your metaphysics is what is really at work. There is a new example here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1036-1st-Return-Redeeming-Lawful-Money&p=13475&viewfull=1#post13475), with documentation. This suitor never filed a Libel of Review to establish an evidence repository and may have encouraged the IRS agent to start FrivPen process. So he will likely re-file a more standard 1040 Form, set up an evidence repository and file the Redeemed Lawful Money Return next year instead. Once they get that ball rolling they would rather get the suitor into an administrative argument, just creating a sad FrivPen, ignoring the law.

Lots of folks are getting full refunds on the evidence alone, the demands on the backsides of paychecks etc. but I am skeptical about going forward without a proper evidence repository (record).


Regards,

David Merrill.


Hello, I wanted to thank you for explaining the concept of lawful money and how to redeem for L. money, it's amazing how a bit of knowledge can go such a long way, thank you very much david!! (I just received the refund for state and local tax, federal refund I received over month ago, full refund of course direct deposited)

samuel gansburg

David Merrill
04-05-14, 09:58 AM
Welcome Sam!!

It is always a delight when my career contributes to someone's prosperity and happiness!!

David Merrill
04-27-14, 09:45 AM
Here is a Letter (3176 attached) that is quite recent as of this Post. By the number though it is likely the same rendition as of 2007.

This suitor has had no problems with the IRS in the past so it might have been better to file a Libel of Review and set up an evidence repository preemptively.


Here are the two citations on the Letter. Click Here (http://www.irs.gov/irb/2007-14_IRB/ar20.html) and Here (http://www.irs.gov/irb/2007-14_IRB/index.html).


I assume by the filename that the 2007 Memorandum about Frivolous Positions is not revised but I would like the Reader here to refresh themselves and see if you can find a Position that is applicable to redeeming lawful money as found on our application of the law?


Thanks for examining this objectively,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
04-29-14, 12:43 AM
A suitor on the brain trust brought these up - I believe you can find these a few pages back...


http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-17_IRB/ar13.html

This one looks new!


http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction

David Merrill
04-29-14, 04:53 PM
This suitor intuitively neglected to make a Claim for a Refund by leaving Item 74(a) blank. Therefore the IRS Agent who sent the Letter is doubly in error to threaten a $5K FrivPen.

[As I develop "flutter" from dither and toggle applied to the Five Cube Sum Number Locks I gain some useful insight into Artificial Intuition.]

I developed the Title 12 Citations a little so to complete a more-rounded and better developed Claim in Yehoshuah H'Natzrith H'Massiach - natzar being BRANCH, David's coronation name. This assembles a great mental model around Archelaus being KING while Antipas and Philip were only TETRARCHs in Israel.

So this Counterclaim (attached) is designed to be heard, meaning that it will be served on the Attorney General as well according to the FRCP whereas the typical Libel of Review is dismissed and designed to set up an evidence repository for future Refusals for Cause. This new Counterclaim does both.


Enjoy,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
05-21-14, 02:43 PM
Here is a more recent Memorandum. (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf) Check out the top of Page 15 and remember that Demanding Redeemed Lawful Money means you hold US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.



P.S. This was brought to my attention by a suitor who has just received his full state and federal refunds for the third year straight.

P.P.S. I am a bit concerned about this disclaimer -


This document, including the relevant legal authorities cited, is not
intended to provide an exhaustive list of frivolous tax arguments. Merely
because a frivolous argument is not included in this document does not
mean that it is not frivolous. Taxpayers may not rely on frivolous
arguments to avoid or evade federal taxes. The government and courts are
not precluded from penalizing taxpayers who raise a frivolous argument
not addressed in this document.

When dealing with property rights does not the mere weight require specificity?

samgans
06-07-14, 05:21 PM
Here is a more recent Memorandum. (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf) Check out the top of Page 15 and remember that Demanding Redeemed Lawful Money means you hold US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.



P.S. This was brought to my attention by a suitor who has just received his full state and federal refunds for the third year straight.

P.P.S. I am a bit concerned about this disclaimer -



When dealing with property rights does not the mere weight require specificity?

agreed, although the remedy of redeeming lawful money is what's in the law, they cannot call it frivilous it just wouldn't make any sense

doug555
06-07-14, 06:24 PM
Here is a more recent Memorandum. (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf) Check out the top of Page 15 and remember that Demanding Redeemed Lawful Money means you hold US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.


This document, including the relevant legal authorities cited, is not
intended to provide an exhaustive list of frivolous tax arguments. Merely
because a frivolous argument is not included in this document does not
mean that it is not frivolous. Taxpayers may not rely on frivolous
arguments to avoid or evade federal taxes. The government and courts are
not precluded from penalizing taxpayers who raise a frivolous argument
not addressed in this document.

P.S. This was brought to my attention by a suitor who has just received his full state and federal refunds for the third year straight.

P.P.S. I am a bit concerned about this disclaimer -

When dealing with property rights does not the mere weight require specificity?

1786

If 12 USC 411 "Demanding Lawful Money" is effectively-connected to the "good faith" clause in 12 USC 95a(2) [excerpted below] and the "liability" clause in 50 USC App 7(e) [excerpted below] granting IMMUNITY from liability in any court, then what is there to worry about?

1788

1787

And isn't said 12 USC 411 LAWFUL MONEY truly effectively-connected to 50 USC App 7(e), the Trading with the Enemy Act, and to its corresponding statute 12 USC 95a(2), BECAUSE ONLY LAWFUL MONEY (not an IOU FRN) can effect the true asset-based PAYMENT that is needed for a "full acquittance and discharge"?

See Lawful Money Demands - IMMUNITY & DUTY (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_dG5LU0hZS18xeU0&usp=sharing) (copied from http://iuvdeposit.blogspot.com (http://iuvdeposit.blogspot.com/))

froze25
07-31-14, 02:09 PM
The file was created on 11-Apr-2014 08:45 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf the "wayback machine" shows the last file was created on 07-Mar-2013 10:09 https://web.archive.org/web/20130726142845/http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/ The one before that was on 31-Jul-2012 So to answer the question of was it recent, yes its new as of this year. Unfortunately you can not get the previous files off the archived pages to compare them to see what changes were made.

Michael Joseph
07-31-14, 09:22 PM
The file was created on 11-Apr-2014 08:45 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf the "wayback machine" shows the last file was created on 07-Mar-2013 10:09 https://web.archive.org/web/20130726142845/http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/ The one before that was on 31-Jul-2012 So to answer the question of was it recent, yes its new as of this year. Unfortunately you can not get the previous files off the archived pages to compare them to see what changes were made.

If you have a zero filing....the computer is most likely kicking it out based on BEARD v COMMISSIONER and U.S. v RIFEN. Beard argues an EXCHANGE THEORY labor for notes = no gain. Beard does not see the Trust.

In Rifen FRN's are Taxable. Huge Presumption. Question: What's in your wallet?

Shalom,
MJ

doug555
07-31-14, 09:57 PM
If you have a zero filing....the computer is most likely kicking it out based on BEARD v COMMISSIONER and U.S. v RIFEN. Beard argues an EXCHANGE THEORY labor for notes = no gain. Beard does not see the Trust.

In Rifen FRN's are Taxable. Huge Presumption. Question: What's in your wallet?

Shalom,
MJ

What's in your wallet? Indeed... But, once lawful demand is made, the FRNs become USNs.... dual purpose Notes as the Treasury FAQ says...

BTW: Notice that the FRS Seal on the left side of top $5 is missing...

1843

David Merrill
08-01-14, 12:36 AM
If you have a zero filing....the computer is most likely kicking it out based on BEARD v COMMISSIONER and U.S. v RIFEN. Beard argues an EXCHANGE THEORY labor for notes = no gain. Beard does not see the Trust.

In Rifen FRN's are Taxable. Huge Presumption. Question: What's in your wallet?

Shalom,
MJ


It might be better then to file in a more direct manner. The total FICA and SS "tax" treated as insurance premiums go on line 21. The W-2 total goes on the Schedule.

froze25
08-01-14, 04:42 PM
What's in your wallet? Indeed... But, once lawful demand is made, the FRNs become USNs.... dual purpose Notes as the Treasury FAQ says...

1843
could you provide a link to the page that says that FRNs are dual purpose and serve as USN's? I can only find that FRN's serve the same function as USN's but not that they are dual purpose or that they may act as USN's. On there website. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

Brian
08-01-14, 07:21 PM
could you provide a link to the page that says that FRNs are dual purpose and serve as USN's? I can only find that FRN's serve the same function as USN's but not that they are dual purpose or that they may act as USN's. On there website. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

Froze...I don't think there is a statute or reg or decision that specifically call this out. I think this is where metaphysics comes into play. If the FRN's are discharged by notice & demand then they would essentially be treated as USN's.

The questions I would ask then is: can my demand be considered inherent and my notice is this conversation.

doug555
08-01-14, 07:44 PM
could you provide a link to the page that says that FRNs are dual purpose and serve as USN's? I can only find that FRN's serve the same function as USN's but not that they are dual purpose or that they may act as USN's. On there website. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx)


What are United States Notes and how are they different from Federal Reserve notes?
United States Notes (characterized by a red seal and serial number) were the first national currency, authorized by the Legal Tender Act of 1862 and began circulating during the Civil War. The Treasury Department issued these notes directly into circulation, and they are obligations of the United States Government. The issuance of United States Notes is subject to limitations established by Congress. It established a statutory limitation of $300 million on the amount of United States Notes authorized to be outstanding and in circulation. While this was a significant figure in Civil War days, it is now a very small fraction of the total currency in circulation in the United States.

Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of our national currency and both are legal tender. They circulate as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them comes from different statutes. United States Notes were redeemable in gold until 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard. Since then, both currencies have served essentially the same purpose, and have had the same value. Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued, and none have been placed in to circulation since January 21, 1971.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the production and circulation of Federal Reserve notes. Although the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) prints these notes, they move into circulation through the Federal Reserve System. They are obligations of both the Federal Reserve System and the United States Government. On Federal Reserve notes, the seals and serial numbers appear in green.

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.

I am basing my comment on above highlighted statement on the FAQ...

walter
08-02-14, 04:45 PM
What's in your wallet? Indeed... But, once lawful demand is made, the FRNs become USNs.... dual purpose Notes as the Treasury FAQ says...

BTW: Notice that the FRS Seal on the left side of top $5 is missing...

1843


Whats in your wallet? Your richer then you think.
I always chuckle when I hear that line.

Whats the letter "B" for on the Fed note? (center left)
Bonded? Bankrupt? Borrowed? Bullshit? etc.

doug555
08-02-14, 05:08 PM
Whats in your wallet? Your richer then you think.
I always chuckle when I hear that line.

Whats the letter "B" for on the Fed note? (center left)
Bonded? Bankrupt? Borrowed? Bullshit? etc.

1845

1846

http://www.littletoncoin.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Display%7C10001%7C10001%7C-1%7C%7CLearnNav%7CFederal-Reserve-Districts.html

Keith Alan
08-03-14, 05:51 PM
Froze...I don't think there is a statute or reg or decision that specifically call this out. I think this is where metaphysics comes into play. If the FRN's are discharged by notice & demand then they would essentially be treated as USN's.

The questions I would ask then is: can my demand be considered inherent and my notice is this conversation.

I wonder why - since when one makes his demand, the US always subsequently defaults - the US would ever challenge your considering of FRN as USN.

bsperlazzo
08-08-14, 10:33 PM
Several of the links in the original post (see below) are dead links.
Could someone please update the post and submit correct links?

Thanks!



The best way to discern how an IRS agent is going to interpret your Zero-Income Return based on Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is to study his Required Reading. His boss tells him what he has to read, to train him about the guidelines about when to issue a warning or $5K penalty for a frivolous filing.

I invite even the most skeptical readers to find a directive about redeeming lawful money as framed in the Fed Act and Title 12.

http://www.irs.gov/taxexemptbond/20k/0,,id=134362,00.html - notices


http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=168637,00.html

Notice 2007-61

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2007-30

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2008-14

http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-33.pdf
http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2010-33

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-ccdm/cc-2011-004.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

Notice 2011-004


To save time I suggest keywords to search:


lawful
redeem
redemption
Title 12
411

David Merrill
08-10-14, 09:58 AM
Thank you for mentioning it! I have edited the opening post with the Memorandums. There is not much I can do about the pages the IRS has removed.

Chex
08-10-14, 08:59 PM
IRS Threatens to Seize Campaign for Liberty’s Property http://www.campaignforliberty.org/national-blog/irs-seize-campaign-libertys-property/

When the IRS Attacks http://www.campaignforliberty.org/national-blog/irs-attacks/

Select Your State http://www.campaignforliberty.org/community/#mapanchor

Campaign for Liberty Strongly Opposes Phony ‘Audit the Fed’ Effort http://www.campaignforliberty.org/resources/audit-the-fed/campaign-liberty-strongly-opposes-phony-audit-fed-effort/

Mark Allan
08-15-14, 03:02 AM
The question for me is; how is it Line 21 - Other Income has been defined as to where Redemption of Lawful Money is properly stated?
I ask this group why not, possibly, Line(s) 40, & or 42 wouldn't be the much more logical avenue.

Other Income Line 21 as a < > negative number just seems confusing.
Is it we are trying to modify, break the connection to the presumption of Income?

Whereas, Line 40 Deductions seems so much easier & logical to express there, and more aligned with what presumably, IRS might be better able to process.

What is presently define as "Standard Deduction" is $1000 for a filing individual..., (UNLESS like myself, I can't claim ANY Standard Deduction, as current rules apply that, if your spouse files separately, AND includes Itemized Deduction(s), filer, (me) is NOT allowed to take the "Standard Deduction")

As learned, probably on this site, that $1000 is "allowed" since it is the presumption of your usage of United States coinage. [Lawful Money].
So, in this regard, this is where IRS is pointing to filers as to where to place Lawful Money deductions...., in my opinion.
Granted, there are defined constraints & restrictions, and boundaries around "deduction(s)", but this really shouldn't be any different in practice than accessing & utilizing Line 21 - Other Income(?), except a Filer will then be entering $ amounts, but in positive numbers.
This just seems more aligned with the published law & ongoing practice of finding & utilizing deductions, to reduce / lower presumed Income.

I suggest Lawful Money is a deduction, not necessarily confined to use on Line 21.
While it has certainly shown itself to be practical, to this point, is it possible another valid approach might be usage of Line 40, and or Line 42?

Additionally, for myself, I would suggest Line 42 may also serve my filing needs, since this line is where Exemptions are stated.
For 2013 Filing, a wet ink - updated W-4 was provided to my employer with Line 7 informing on my "Mandatory Exception per 12 USC 411.

Being this Thread is ~ "What does an ...think?:, anybody care to weigh in?

One last point; since I have yet to receive my 2013 Federal 1040 refund, I maintain IRS is improperly holding my Lawful Money - refund, since on & for the Record, before any payment entries are ever made to me, what WILL be paid to me is demanded, Lawful Money.

IRS believes it is retaining my paid in withholding on presumed tax due for Income.
By my accounting, IRS is in possession of, (my) Lawful Money.
They wrongly think it to be tax receipts since it was given to them by my employer.

Mark Allan

martin earl
10-14-14, 11:51 PM
"One last point; since I have yet to receive my 2013 Federal 1040 refund, I maintain IRS is improperly holding my Lawful Money - refund, since on & for the Record, before any payment entries are ever made to me, what WILL be paid to me is demanded, Lawful Money."

I agree, what's more, they are demanding I pay them a 10000 $ penalty for noticing them of my demanded redemption via the 1040!

So, I think I will NOTICE them of the facts!

Michael Joseph
10-15-14, 01:19 PM
"One last point; since I have yet to receive my 2013 Federal 1040 refund, I maintain IRS is improperly holding my Lawful Money - refund, since on & for the Record, before any payment entries are ever made to me, what WILL be paid to me is demanded, Lawful Money."

I agree, what's more, they are demanding I pay them a 10000 $ penalty for noticing them of my demanded redemption via the 1040!

So, I think I will NOTICE them of the facts!

I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS. Will the judge be willing to overturn the law? What I mean is this:

Job 10:15 If I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction;

So I find that the Name is a Person of State and therefore will the State rely upon the Policy of Necessity or will truth win out? Nevertheless, I shall remain righteous and call upon Heaven to record the events to be held over until Judgment Day. In other words, the State might just take the same position as Creator - so whether the End User be righteous or not, it does not matter - in the light of Policy.

Therefore, even though I will march into the fire, my King may deliver me or not, it is up to my King. ALL THINGS are under the feet of Jesus Christ - ALL THINGS. Thus the witness.

Where two or more are gathered in my name....Class Action.

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

All offices of State are Ecclesiastical. So if I go privately and am met with repugnance, then I am to go again with a witness. And then I will proceed before the Public - Class Action complaint. How am I to initiate that action - I claim in the name of Jesus Christ in and to the THING. I am a Witness to His Glory.


Shalom Brethren,
Michael Joseph

doug555
10-15-14, 02:29 PM
I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS. Will the judge be willing to overturn the law? What I mean is this:

Job 10:15 If I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction;

So I find that the Name is a Person of State and therefore will the State rely upon the Policy of Necessity or will truth win out? Nevertheless, I shall remain righteous and call upon Heaven to record the events to be held over until Judgment Day. In other words, the State might just take the same position as Creator - so whether the End User be righteous or not, it does not matter - in the light of Policy.

Therefore, even though I will march into the fire, my King may deliver me or not, it is up to my King. ALL THINGS are under the feet of Jesus Christ - ALL THINGS. Thus the witness.

Where two or more are gathered in my name....Class Action.

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

All offices of State are Ecclesiastical. So if I go privately and am met with repugnance, then I am to go again with a witness. And then I will proceed before the Public - Class Action complaint. How am I to initiate that action - I claim in the name of Jesus Christ in and to the THING. I am a Witness to His Glory.


Shalom Brethren,
Michael Joseph

Perhaps another alternative... depending upon your True Bill. See example claim below:
http://broadmind.org/uploads/AMY_FINAL_CLAIM_-_AC_v_DFCS__1_.doc (http://broadmind.org/uploads/AMY_FINAL_CLAIM_-_AC_v_DFCS__1_.doc)

See excerpt below:

N THE CHIASSON COURT; A COURT OF RECORD
AT PAULDING COUNTY COURTHOUSE
STATE OF GEORGIA, U.S.A.
i; a woman claim; all herein be true;
my word is my bond;


i; aimee-laura: LeBoeuf [Chiasson]; a.k.a. ‘Aimee Chiasson’; a woman; aggrieved; wronged; harmed;

Claimant;
v;

Sharon Hill; a woman; and; SHARON HILL; A PERSON; DIRECTOR; GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES (‘DFCS’); and; Keith Horton; a man; and; KEITH HORTON; A PERSON; COMMISSIONER; GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (‘DHS’); and; Tabitha Burrell; a woman; and; TABITHA BURRELL; A PERSON; CASE MANAGER; SUPERVISOR; DFCS AGENT; and; Joseph Justice; a man; and; JOSEPH JUSTICE; A PERSON; SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (‘SAAG’); DFCS AGENT; and; Jennifer Carreras; a woman; and; JENNIFER CARRERAS; A PERSON; GUARDIAN AD LITEM; DFCS AGENT; and; Deborah Bickers; a woman; and; DEBORAH BICKERS; A PERSON; ‘CASA’; DFCS AGENT; and; Angie Chandler Wilbanks; a woman; and; ANGIE CHANDLER WILBANKS; A PERSON; FOSTER CARE MANAGER SUPERVISOR; DFCS AGENT; and; Lindsey Collier; a woman; and; LINDSEY COLLIER; A PERSON; FOSTER CARE CASE MANAGER; DFCS AGENT; and; Tamra Bennett; a woman; and; TAMRA BENNETT; A PERSON; ‘SSCM’; DFCS AGENT; and; All Principals and/or Agents of DFCS; Lawfully served by way of Notice to Sharon Hill; and; All Principals and/or Agents of DHS Lawfully served by way of Notice to Keith Horton; and;

Each Unnamed Wrongdoer (1-99); and;
EACH UNNAMED WRONGDOER (1-99);

Wrongdoers;


Claimant Case No: 70131710000078579804
(Certified by way of USPS: UPU Treaty Applies)

Notice to Officers of the Court: Upon penalty for ‘Trespass upon the Case’: this is a common law suit in a ‘Court of Record’: 1) the above case number must be the primary case number recorded upon all documents in this case; and all referenced cases hereafter; and pressed upon the record; regardless of any other numbers used by the Clerk of Court; or other; for internal department management; or other purposes; 2) the style in which this Claim is made may not be altered in any way and; at no time does ‘Claimant’ consent to be restyled as a ‘Plaintiff’; or other; or to have this ‘Claim’ be restyled as a ‘Complaint’; govern yourself accordingly... g0d save you;

Similar to a ‘Counterclaim’ upon Case No’s:
13JV10188;13JV10189;13JV10190;13JV10191


In Re: a Tort; in Original Jurisdiction of man;

Amount per Wrongdoer: (See Attached True Bill)


March 21, 2014; 9:00 AM EDT
Heard Before Magistrate: Sandra W. Miller; a Trustee of: the People; man;
Room 2106; Paulding County Courthouse

in this court of record; at common law; trial by jury; by right of man; guaranteed; all rights reserved; none waived;


CLAIMS: TORT; TRESPASS; AND ORDER FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO
RESTORE PROPERTY; AND COMPENSATION;
...

martin earl
10-15-14, 06:03 PM
An ART III class action? Those demanding redemption per 12 USC 411 are the smallest minority for sure!
Also, there has never been a case involving this minority group, so the assertion by the IRS the stand we take is "frivolous" is patently false.

It has long been my standing we do NOT receive recognition from the Treasury department for our demand (thus no proper representation nor enforcement for the US/state/irs when it violates the laws of the land against us).

The METRO is rouge and its the fault of the Treasury for violating its fiduciary duty to recognise the minority group demanding redemption per 12 USC 411 and it needs to be stopped.

So how do we proceed?

martin earl
10-15-14, 06:16 PM
I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS. Will the judge be willing to overturn the law? What I mean is this:

Job 10:15 If I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction;

So I find that the Name is a Person of State and therefore will the State rely upon the Policy of Necessity or will truth win out? Nevertheless, I shall remain righteous and call upon Heaven to record the events to be held over until Judgment Day. In other words, the State might just take the same position as Creator - so whether the End User be righteous or not, it does not matter - in the light of Policy.

Therefore, even though I will march into the fire, my King may deliver me or not, it is up to my King. ALL THINGS are under the feet of Jesus Christ - ALL THINGS. Thus the witness.

Where two or more are gathered in my name....Class Action.

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

All offices of State are Ecclesiastical. So if I go privately and am met with repugnance, then I am to go again with a witness. And then I will proceed before the Public - Class Action complaint. How am I to initiate that action - I claim in the name of Jesus Christ in and to the THING. I am a Witness to His Glory.


Shalom Brethren,
Michael Joseph

"Complaints alleging discrimination by Treasury Department employees can be filed with the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG). Complaints alleging discrimination by any other Treasury Department employees can also be filed with the OIG.
Office of Internal Affairs
U.S. Customs Service
U.S. Department of the Treasury
P.O. Box 14475
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20044
1-877-422-2557 (24 hours/day)
202-927-1016
202-927-4607 (fax)
http://www.customs.gov/travel/cmplnt.htm

Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of the Treasury
740 15th St NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20220
1-800-359-3898
202-927-5799 (fax)
http://www.treas.gov/oig/ (click on "Hotline" for contact information).

I will gladly file the complaint, would any like to help me write it?
There must be someone with law of the land authority at the treasury, they still coin money there and account for currency not subject to the national debt limit, someone has to be in charge of the trust set up in 1933 and oversee the gold coin which was seized by the "New deal", I would think that is the responsible party we need to talk to.

Shall we take a trip to their office under peaceful negotiations for a redress of grievances and high crimes and misdemeanors against us? I will go!

Chex
10-15-14, 08:05 PM
With that said I like to bump this thread (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?558-Lawful-money-per-US-Code&p=7049&viewfull=1#post7049)a little before a march on the treasury.

Your not a NAME your a NUMBER = IRS BMF,IMF, NMF IRAF and EPMF (https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Asq49qS7_omF5WShAEsfqYmbvZx4?p=IRS+BMF %2CIMF%2C+NMF+IRAF+and+EPMF+&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-dummy_3&fp=1)

Chex
11-24-14, 09:13 PM
I can see where he is coming from................

On December 10, the good guys come together, or a final nail goes into the rule of law's coffin.

LET IT BE SAID PLAINLY: Forcing someone to declare herself indebted to another party-- whether by court order or threat of penalty for not making such a declaration-- is not a legitimate, lawful act of any organ of the state. Instead, it is a corrupt, tyrannical act, and prohibited by the United States Constitution's speech, due process and equal protection provisions.

LET IT BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD: Compelling someone to declare a belief that her earnings are "income" taxable by the United States is compelling her to declare herself indebted to the United States (or to declare her agreement with material facts under which the tax debt then arises as a matter of law). Compelling someone to declare her earnings on a line in the "income" section of a testimonial document like a 1040-- whether by direct command or by threat of a penalty for not doing so-- is compelling her to declare a belief that those earnings are "income" and subject to the tax.

LET IT BE RECOGNIZED: If someone's earnings ARE actually subject to the tax as a matter of law, and the government is aware of them sufficiently to command their declaration on a 1040, there can be no legitimate purpose for compelling their declaration, even were doing so not Constitutionally prohibited. Such an effort to compel can only serve a government interest if those earnings ARE NOT actually subject to the tax as a matter of law.
Earnings actually subject to the tax are so subject whether the recipient agrees or not. Compelling agreement with that fact is pointless as well as illegal. All the government needs to do is create its own return declaring the earnings to be "income" over a sworn signature-- which it is, in fact, required to do by law if the recipient of the earnings hasn't already agreed to the tax. Needless to say, this is both simpler, cheaper and easier than attempting to compel agreement from the recipient, and involves no Constitutional issues. (And again, it is mandated by law in any event).

Compulsion of declared "agreement" is only of use to the government where the earnings in question are NOT actually taxable. Its purpose is to eliminate the recipient's ability to dispute the application of the tax to those earnings, and allow the government to proceed as though those earnings are taxable as a matter of law.

Declared agreement creates a false appearance of "no dispute over material facts".

The government is relieved of what otherwise would be its burdens of proof (or, more exactly, its obligation to walk away from the untaxable earnings and confine its attention to gains legitimately subject to the tax, in regard to which no coerced fiction of agreement is needed).

The tax can then collected-- improperly, but with a superficial appearance of legitimacy which is impenetrable by anyone not educated about the actual objects of the tax and how it is applied under the law.

BUT THERE COULD NEVER BE SUCH COMPELLED AGREEMENT IN AMERICA, you say! Such a thing could never happen here!!

Wrong. It IS happening here, right now. And you'd better pay attention and get involved.

Continued... (http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#PageOne)

pumpkin
11-25-14, 02:52 PM
I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS.

My suggestion is to demand a preliminary injuction in the state courts against the IRS. This way it cannot be removed to federal court, as the anti-injunction act forbids the federal courts to entertain an action against any federal tax collecting agency. The state constitution is the power here, also the compact between the people and the states, The Ordinance of 1789. The compact in in Article 4 which irrevocably places the authority to collect a direct tax in the hands of the state legislatures. Also demand findings of facts and conclusions of law, if not required by the rules of court.

Chex
11-25-14, 03:08 PM
I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS. The compact in in Article 4 which irrevocably places the authority to collect a direct tax in the hands of the state legislatures. Also demand findings of facts and conclusions of law, if not required by the rules of court.

U.S. Constitution› Article I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei)

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 10. (http://temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com/2010/08/article-i-section-8-clauses-1-through.html)
The Constitution is the Solution Temecula Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs August 19, 2010

But xxxx "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a gxxxxxxxd piece of paper!" (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=I+believe+the+exact+quote+was+%22Stop+thr owing+the+Constitution+in+my+face.+It%27s+just+a+g oddamned+piece+of+paper%21%22&b=&fr=ie8)

PRO SE (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p088.htm)

Polly A. Graves-Taylor, Plaintiff (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/tl68vlrb/texas-eastern-district-court/gravestaylor-v-irsacs-support-systems-et-al/)

(A) there is an installment agreement between the taxpayer and the Secretary, prior to the date which is 90 days after the expiration of any period for collection agreed upon in writing by the Secretary and the taxpayer at the time the installment agreement was entered into; or

If a timely proceeding in court for the collection of a (http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/)tax is commenced, the period during which such tax may be collected by levy shall be extended and shall not expire until the liability for the tax (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEV0cprHRUTzMAR0VXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2 NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA2llOARncHJpZAN2emt1OWc3Y1NwV3NSdn B5b1Jrc2dBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMxMARvcmlnaW4Dc2Vh cmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDNgRwcXN0cgN1c2VyZnJ1Y3QEcH FzdHJsAzkEcXN0cmwDMTkEcXVlcnkDdXN1ZnJ1Y3R1YXJ5IHJp Z2h0cwR0X3N0bXADMTQxNjkzMjQ3NA--?p=usufructuary+rights&fr2=sa-gp-search&fr=ie8)(or a judgment against the taxpayer arising from such liability) is satisfied or becomes unenforceable.

David Merrill
11-25-14, 04:22 PM
I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS.

My suggestion is to demand a preliminary injuction in the state courts against the IRS. This way it cannot be removed to federal court, as the anti-injunction act forbids the federal courts to entertain an action against any federal tax collecting agency. The state constitution is the power here, also the compact between the people and the states, The Ordinance of 1789. The compact in in Article 4 which irrevocably places the authority to collect a direct tax in the hands of the state legislatures. Also demand findings of facts and conclusions of law, if not required by the rules of court.

Keep in mind that endorsement is the signature contract. Contracts are protected in Article I, Section 10.

Therefore the class must be non-endorsers redeemed in lawful money.

Chex
11-25-14, 06:47 PM
I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS. by the rules of court.

With who, when, where? What do you have in mind? I don't have FB.

Suitors comes to mind. (http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Quality.Rubber.Stamps.2.719-635-0943) A Class has to have the same characteristics for all intents and purposes.

Order up your stamp and use it instead of, as your signature whenever possible. Be in the class that is outside the Federal Reserve Districts.

Chex
11-25-14, 09:56 PM
Last edited by David Merrill; Today at Today at 03:35 PM.

How did you edit my post above?

doug555
11-25-14, 10:53 PM
Originally Posted by pumpkin
I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS. by the rules of court.



With who, when, where? What do you have in mind? I don't have FB.

Suitors comes to mind. (http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Quality.Rubber.Stamps.2.719-635-0943) A Class has to have the same characteristics for all intents and purposes.

Order up your stamp and use it instead of, as your signature whenever possible. Be in the class that is outside the Federal Reserve Districts.

I am One suitor who would NOT want to participate in a class action since the IRS is honoring my demands for lawful money.

David Merrill
11-26-14, 12:23 AM
I am One suitor who would NOT want to participate in a class action since the IRS is honoring my demands for lawful money.

Exactly! But like with April's Memorandum if suitors start having troubles getting Refunds then we might be able to address this with Class Action or even qui tam.

pumpkin
11-26-14, 08:29 PM
"Keep in mind that endorsement is the signature contract. Contracts are protected in Article I, Section 10.

Therefore the class must be non-endorsers redeemed in lawful money."

You must also keep in mind the parties and the relationship between them. A duty was owed from the very beggining. When trustees embark into commercial contracts, from within their official offices, it must be in the best interest of the settlor / beneficiary.

JohnnyCash
11-27-14, 02:45 AM
No troubles getting refunds here. I haven't paid income tax since 2007. Lawful Money works like a charm.

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

David Merrill
11-27-14, 07:29 AM
"Keep in mind that endorsement is the signature contract. Contracts are protected in Article I, Section 10.

Therefore the class must be non-endorsers redeemed in lawful money."

You must also keep in mind the parties and the relationship between them. A duty was owed from the very beggining. When trustees embark into commercial contracts, from within their official offices, it must be in the best interest of the settlor / beneficiary.


That is an edifying post...

Please describe the parties in more detail - for both an endorser and a non-endorser?

pumpkin
11-27-14, 02:41 PM
Government officers, employees and even sub contractors, are trustees of the public trust. The people are the settlors / beneficiaries of that trust. Fiduciary duty requires that the trustees always act in the best interests of the settlors / beneficiaries. That most certainly includes not abrogating their rights. Though they seem to have cast a shadow of commerce across this relationship, they cannot act commercially and just ignore their duty. Since the rights are private (takes a party of interest for standing) the duty is owed individually. If their actions are not in the best interest of the man or woman and their rights, they breach their fiduciary duty. A strictly commercial entity can act in its best interests. The best interests of the public trust however is the interests of the people themselves since they are its creator.

David Merrill
07-21-16, 11:50 PM
I am posting a rendition of this thread on www.lawfulmoneytrust.com and would like to bump the thread here. The most recent FrivPen Memorandum is from 2014?

I found it attached to the Opening Post.

Does anybody get frivolous penalty letters anymore? I have only seen one billing and I don't think it was about "frivolous arguments". The lack of news is great and the trend is that when the IRS delays, interest and penalties are added pursuant to the time the Treasury delays sending the Refund.

Christopher Thomas
08-20-16, 12:20 AM
Hope everyone is well...This is actually "Christopher-T:Farley"..I deleted the email account because when I set it up I was free with personal info. anyhow..sorry for being strange..I got a new job..I filled out the w-4, however in the signature part..Redeemed lawful money..on the I-9 I put the Estate..mainly cause I was nervous and HAD to fill it out there instead of taking it home to think about it...plus not sure what I was thinking..I just didnt want to answer the citizen and the ss as "mine" I wanted to clearify those titles are...I am exempt from FWIT and honored...FL don't have state..and wanted to find out about the states that do..My cheques was the third mistake...I stamped on the back of the paycheque "redeemed lawful money pursuant to 12 usc 411"...however I also stamped each private credit note that was given in exchange and scanned all..soo since it is transaction based.. have I corrected the cheque endorsement by endorsement of the private credit notes? I also am working on this General Post office Registered mailing for "warrant claim of title" and it is getting re routed everywhere..I want to post all the docs im speaking of but cant figure out how to mark out all personal info without damaging hard copies.

David Merrill
08-20-16, 12:43 AM
Hi Christopher Thomas;


It is good to have you back here... especially in your true name!

allodial
08-21-16, 08:42 PM
Hope everyone is well...This is actually "Christopher-T:Farley"..I deleted the email account because when I set it up I was free with personal info. anyhow..sorry for being strange..I got a new job..I filled out the w-4, however in the signature part..Redeemed lawful money..on the I-9 I put the Estate..mainly cause I was nervous and HAD to fill it out there instead of taking it home to think about it...plus not sure what I was thinking..I just didnt want to answer the citizen and the ss as "mine" I wanted to clearify those titles are...I am exempt from FWIT and honored...FL don't have state..and wanted to find out about the states that do..My cheques was the third mistake...I stamped on the back of the paycheque "redeemed lawful money pursuant to 12 usc 411"...however I also stamped each private credit note that was given in exchange and scanned all..soo since it is transaction based.. have I corrected the cheque endorsement by endorsement of the private credit notes? I also am working on this General Post office Registered mailing for "warrant claim of title" and it is getting re routed everywhere..I want to post all the docs im speaking of but cant figure out how to mark out all personal info without damaging hard copies.

You can use a scanner, then use a program like GIMP or photoshop to make true black boxes over the personal info. Save only graphic, raster images (jpg, gif) rather than vector.

Christopher Thomas
08-21-16, 11:25 PM
David Merill, Thanks for the Welcome...I read "Quatlosers" posts..some people might not only be brainwahed but maybe hypnotized..they're still sound asleep..

Allodial, Thanks for the info..I will learn the functions and post oneself's own attempt to handle one's own affairs..mistakes can also be learned from by two sides..surely what not to do and leader to correctness of repeating that same mistake..I think,therefore I am so I shall not be "insane"..I just totally made that up. got an app..leafly..pretty accurate.."may cause creativness..lol..in saying that im open to opinion..

My current "payday" routine is usually pick the cheque up go home, "Stamp & Scan" cheque, Go to the gas station and receive redeemed, go home, Stamp and Scan [frn's]. seems like more once I typped it. however, the "extra stuff" adds up..literally. anyways i'm wondering about true and correct reproduction of more than one page as one document..is there a way that I can scan originals and number them in the pdf to show more than one page on the print out?

Im so confused about this dba filing...One is record-owner once appears to show there is no abandonment...then one is now entitled to use that property [title] so why would i want to go to the state for another title?

David Merrill
08-22-16, 12:14 AM
...mistakes can also be learned from by two sides.

I learned something today.


DOCUMENTS SIGNED IN BLANK I. A RECURRING question in commercial and property law is which of two innocent people is to suffer for the fraud of another. The purpose of this article is to consider one particular type of fraud, namely the incorrect completion of a document signed in blank. Four types of documents seem particularly vulnerable to this practice-bills of exchange, share transfers, insurance proposal forms and hire purchase proposal forms. The problem arises when an individual signs a document in blank and that document comes into the hands of another (the intermediary). Subsequently the intermediary fraudulently, or perhaps mistakenly, fills in tha blanks incorrectly and the document is passed on to a third party. The latter may enter the picture in various ways. The document may be a contractual offer which is addressed to him, or the intermediary may have assigned an apparently valid contract between the signatory and himself to the third party, or the third party may be the holder of a bill of exchange which has been negotiated to him. In any event, the question that then arises is whether the signatory is bound by the terms appearing in the document as against the third party. Looking at the situation in terms of offer and acceptance, and ignoring for the time being the principles of agency and estoppel, it is apparent that the offer made by the signatory is different from that accepted either by the intermediary or the third party. On this basis there is no concluded contract.

Christopher Thomas
08-25-16, 11:47 AM
I learned something today.

David Merril, First thanks for the welcome...I also saw those post(s) from "Quataloosers" ha ha ha...Ignorance will be Man's downfall...literally...

Allodial, Thanks for the info. I did download the "Gimp2" program..not to savvy with this yet and seem to have some difficulties with saving...I'm ocd with my recordkeeping..anyhow, once figured out..I will upload..My usual schedule on payday is 1.get the cheque 2.Stamp and scan (just got a portable scanner saves going back and forth from home to arronds) 3. cash, Stamp and Scan the private credit in proper.

Now, I tried to respond a few days ago and typed everything which i am about to now and it didn't upload plus lost the response..Remedy: Copy before posting lol.. anyway...

On the I-9 form I feel I made mistakes..for the name under "family" I put "FARLEY, Estate" and my given name for the rest however correlating to the Estate...I put the SSN attached to the Estate and U.S. citizen and the birth date. for the signature.."By: LS (signature)" however forgot to space given and family.. On the W-4 I put the Estate...and "Exempt" in "7" (I first put my demand in that space there accountant sent it back and said just put "Exempt", so I signed it the way (above) detached it from the dotted lines...the Signature was: "Redeemed Lawful Money...Pursuant to 12 usc 411...(signature) By: LS

My first check, I redeemed lawful money on the back..first ending with my signature and thumb print...second, just redeemed lawful money..pursuant to 12 usc 411...same for third...this last one, I went in and I now have a custom stamp the gentlemen asked me to sign under the stamp..I noticed he put his Deposit stamp above mine..I sealed the signature..however worried since I did not scan the changed document..next time will just take my cheque back scan it then do it..

I also, did a warrant claim on the filing # of the COLB...so the Estate and it's title become one..since it is no longer abandoned...it has a new location..I asked to pay for the registered mail with ordinary stamps...rookie says (honestly, started that week) I MUST use Metered Strip for registered mail...I knew better..I also knew that as Trustee by special deposit I am able to refuse claim of mail...so I asked proper questions and still proceeded and spoke to the supervisor (she called about two days after I made the claim) and wanted to ensure this dont happen again to me or anyone else utilizing the mail process...I went to claim the mail piece and refused it as it is in conflict..the metered strip I feel is an account which uses private credit...so it would conflict with the bonding of title with lawful money...plus morally wrong as we are to For-give...

Today, going to the Comptroller's office to record my Solemn Act...my printer is not printing in blue and is 80% full..frustrating but patient..may have to go and get color print..

I watch "Last week tonight" by John Oliver...he had an episode where he "forgave" medical debt of about 15m...was curious about contacting bureau of public debt..and doing something similiar...

About True, Correct Reproduction of documents...if there is say (4) pages does each individual need to be sealed? or is the front sufficient?

I feel like i'm forgetting to share something...If remember, will post.

David Merrill
08-25-16, 01:58 PM
After a while it becomes second nature to create a record. Keep your health.


The Quatludes just don't do it for me anymore. I got some pearls there, because of the high attorney posts, but they just grew so far and few between...

David Merrill
10-12-16, 10:59 PM
BUMPING - for the latest and greatest!!! A suitor just emailed an article to me...




TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

Office of Audit

Actions Are Needed to Better Identify and Address Individuals Who File Tax Returns Using Frivolous Arguments
Final Report Issued on August 31, 2016


Highlights

Highlights of Reference Number: 2016-40-069 to the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner for the Wage and Investment Division.


IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS

Individuals or businesses who oppose the Federal tax laws may use a frivolous tax argument to enrich themselves or evade paying tax. Generally, a frivolous tax argument is based on a frivolous or incorrect interpretation of the Federal tax laws. Individuals and businesses use these incorrect interpretations to support their claims that they are not subject to Federal tax laws.


WHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT

To date the IRS has identified 50 frivolous tax arguments used by taxpayers. During Fiscal Years 2012 through 2014, the IRS identified 36,648 frivolous tax returns in which the taxpayer used one or more of the 50 identified frivolous arguments. TIGTA performed this audit to assess the IRS’s efforts to identify and prevent the avoidance of individual income tax based on frivolous tax arguments.

WHAT TIGTA FOUND

Potentially erroneous refunds were paid as a result of undetected or insufficiently addressed frivolous tax return claims. Specifically, IRS processes and procedures do not ensure that all tax returns claiming a potentially frivolous tax argument are identified. As a result, the IRS paid more than $27.2 million in potentially erroneous refunds or tax credits to 1,938 taxpayers who claimed one or more frivolous tax arguments in Tax Year 2014. The IRS can assess a $5,000 frivolous penalty for each of the 1,938 returns for which a valid return is not provided by the taxpayer. IRS management informed us that the Frivolous Return Program (FRP) filters have been modified to ensure that returns with the same characteristics as those 1,938 confirmed as frivolous will be identified and referred to the FRP for additional frivolous filer review.

In addition, TIGTA identified that employees are not adequately trained to identify tax returns claiming frivolous tax return arguments. For example, 40 of the 50 frivolous arguments are identified as a result of an IRS employee’s manual review of paper-filed tax returns or correspondence. The IRS informed us that prior to Calendar Year 2013 annual FRP training was provided to its employees responsible for reviewing tax returns and correspondence. The IRS has developed two online frivolous return training courses. However, employees working in those units most likely to identify frivolous returns and correspondence are not required to take the training courses.

Finally, the FRP Correspondence Unit employees incorrectly identified for destruction correspondence containing potentially frivolous arguments. Our review of the 155 pieces of correspondence found that 11 (7 percent) pieces of correspondence should have been worked as frivolous correspondence but were incorrectly identified for destruction.

WHAT TIGTA RECOMMENDED

TIGTA recommended that the IRS ensure that the annual evaluation of the FRP filter criteria includes the identification and assessment of all original and amended tax returns, regardless of dollar tolerance, that meet the filter criteria and ensure that appropriate action is taken to address the 1,938 tax returns the IRS confirmed as being frivolous. In addition, the IRS should correct computer programming errors and ensure that all employees receive annual training on the processes for identifying potentially frivolous tax returns.

IRS management agreed with all of TIGTA’s recommendations.

READ THE FULL REPORT

To view the report, including the scope, methodology, and full IRS response, go to:
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2016reports/201640069fr.pdf.



Let's see how they "legally" integrate redeeming lawful money, shall we? (https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2016reports/201640069fr.pdf)


P.S. Wow! I just looked through quickly for "lawful", "money", "411" and "redeem..." - NOTHING! Amazing! They still have the ZERO INCOME Return item but no new details. Please get back to us after you give it a thorough reading through.

doug555
10-13-16, 12:07 AM
BUMPING - for the latest and greatest!!! A suitor just emailed an article to me...





Let's see how they "legally" integrate redeeming lawful money, shall we? (https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2016reports/201640069fr.pdf)


P.S. Wow! I just looked through quickly for "lawful", "money", "411" and "redeem..." - NOTHING! Amazing! They still have the ZERO INCOME Return item but no new details. Please get back to us after you give it a thorough reading through.

I just searched within the PDF itself with 2 different PDF Readers... and NO HITS!

See Thread #161 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145-Exactly-what-does-the-IRS-agent-think&p=15527&viewfull=1#post15527) for a good example of a 1040 LM Return and Refund using "TaxAct" program.

lorne
10-14-16, 04:14 PM
It's argument #51. Surprised you missed it.


Redeemed Lawful Money Is Not Taxable

The individual argues that his or her income can be non taxable because they were paid in U.S. notes (lawful money). NOTE: This is true. However this is generally unknown and omitted from the IRS frivolous list. Please don't tell the public as they might discover they've been victims of an elaborate scam.

David Merrill
10-14-16, 08:52 PM
It's argument #51. Surprised you missed it.


Redeemed Lawful Money Is Not Taxable

The individual argues that his or her income can be non taxable because they were paid in U.S. notes (lawful money). NOTE: This is true. However this is generally unknown and omitted from the IRS frivolous list. Please don't tell the public as they might discover they've been victims of an elaborate scam.


Hi Lorne;

Nice spoof! The Arguments stop at #50. I am probably the only fellow to feel a panic attack coming on... Maybe I should have a nap?

doug555
10-15-16, 08:24 PM
Hi Lorne;

Nice spoof! The Arguments stop at #50. I am probably the only fellow to feel a panic attack coming on... Maybe I should have a nap?

Nope... he got me too David!!!

But, actually, IMO, that exact statement and position would truly be a frivolous one... BECAUSE all transactions are initially paid in FRNs, the default currency in the USA.

USNs only appear AFTER the 12 USC 411 demand is applied by the Trustees when they are given opportunity to REDEEM their associated FRNs "dollar for dollar" in accord with the HJR 192 Resolution Trust established by the Intent of Congress on June 5, 1933.

FRNs are "redeemed", NOT "precluded" upon demand!

lorne
10-21-16, 01:30 PM
Sorry about the panic. The omission is really a Wow! thing. I mean folks have been redeeming lawful money for what? about 10 years now publicly, using it to avoid income taxes and the IRS has never addressed it. There's NOTHING in the frivolous list. This is great news!

If this was a crazy patriot nutjob theory, the IRS would have included it by now in their Friv List. It's easy; I just wrote it for them as Argument 51. The fact it's missing reveals the argument is NOT frivolous. It's the truth.

Over at Lost Horizons we had a Glaring Omission thread about just this topic. It grew to be the longest thread in the history of the forum.

David Merrill
10-21-16, 04:06 PM
I felt a twinge of anxiety until about halfway down the post. No big thing. I enjoyed it.

Christopher Thomas
10-25-16, 03:06 PM
I'm wondering about this financial institution AMSCOT dba FRB will not accept there own [properly endorsed] money order...?

I tried to inform the gentlemen any one of the people have right to their own endorsement....

As Michael Joseph emphasises that it is transaction based...

Anyhow, I've been looking for the [Colorado issued] reproduction of 12 usc 411...I can't seem to remember the thread...

David Merrill
10-25-16, 03:20 PM
Anyhow, I've been looking for the [Colorado issued] reproduction of 12 usc 411...I can't seem to remember the thread...


I believe that you might be speaking of the page from the US Code that a suitor published at the El Paso county Clerk and Recorder.

Interestingly the failure to properly cure the land into a Territory in 1861 equates to the US stealing the Territory - as the War Chest I have been referring to. Territorial Governor GILPIN issued the first notes to fund paying Union soldiers in Colorado. So you might be on to something by insisting on this particular rendition.

Christopher Thomas
10-26-16, 05:29 PM
Absolutely.Thank you. it's funny that after this was posted and I was re-searching for the blank replica (without suitors recording info) and it came right up...

This link....https://youtu.be/5SkTT8rNx_I has been in the process of being passed around...unsure of reliability...interested in some factual proof of reliability if someone may know themselves.

I find it interesting...it speaks of redemption and SDR's however the denial of redemption...apparently recently being set in place...maybe a connection with above situation...

I will print the above and record in accordance with my indenture...as for her (who is experiencing this absurdity) if she wishes and once again properly assertively establish her Demand...when an action against a trustee's rights in the duties of administration occurs..a art.iii 3rd party claim should be administered for such deprivation...or am I still confusing theory and fact?

David Merrill
10-26-16, 09:03 PM
I listened to a few seconds.

Christopher Thomas
10-26-16, 11:08 PM
Not fully understanding... Respected though. I didn't intend to offend anyone. Much appreciated.

EZrhythm
12-03-16, 06:12 AM
Interesting report from the IRS-

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

Actions Are Needed to Better Identify
and Address Individuals Who File
Tax Returns Using Frivolous Arguments

August 31, 2016

https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2016reports/201640069fr.pdf

Of course "redeeming lawful money" is not included as there is no "frivolidity" in the position or method but it may be interesting to some anyway.

David Merrill
12-03-16, 10:51 AM
Interesting report from the IRS-

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

Actions Are Needed to Better Identify
and Address Individuals Who File
Tax Returns Using Frivolous Arguments

August 31, 2016

https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2016reports/201640069fr.pdf

Of course "redeeming lawful money" is not included as there is no "frivolidity" in the position or method but it may be interesting to some anyway.



Thank you for that. The IRS attorneys are pretty slick about casting illusions. Some feel the Trading with the Enemy Act has been "Omitted" from the Bankers' Code because it was redundant (Title 50 - Military Code) while not even realizing the implications of it being omitted from the Bankers' Code.

I gather we have these cited docs herein...

4777


P.S. FrivPen Notice 2010-33 - Click Here (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf).
The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments. (https://www.irs.gov/PUP/taxpros/The%20Truth%20Jan%202015.pdf)

Michael Joseph
07-16-17, 06:01 PM
Thank you for that. The IRS attorneys are pretty slick about casting illusions. Some feel the Trading with the Enemy Act has been "Omitted" from the Bankers' Code because it was redundant (Title 50 - Military Code) while not even realizing the implications of it being omitted from the Bankers' Code.

I gather we have these cited docs herein...

4777


P.S. FrivPen Notice 2010-33 - Click Here (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf).
The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments. (https://www.irs.gov/PUP/taxpros/The%20Truth%20Jan%202015.pdf)

Just yesterday a student at www.lawfulmoneytrust.com called me elated that his letter regarding frivolous penalty was stopped due to one letter that he wrote based on what he learned on the site. Not only did the IRS stop their action, it was clear that there was some communication also with the State Revenue Department as he received his State withholdings which were on hold until determination could be made by the IRS if the taxpayer owed any tax.

In 2014 I read "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments" and looked up the court cases so that I might comprehend the arguments made. It is easy to see after some study how words can be twisted and how those who would issue a charge need only sit back and listen to the words which issue from the defendant. Most times the defendant hangs self with his own mouth.

As a matter of Law I would like to show that if one has issued a claim upon which relief may be granted, then it is the responsibility of the claimant to show the remedy in the Law so that one may be justified.

Isaiah 43:26* Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.*

A king may not sit in a throne under Providence unless said king has written his Torah. Now you may ask, what does this have to do with anything? It has EVERYTHING to do with your current situation. King James wrote his Torah for the Realm and copyrighted his Torah to be the governing Law for the Realm. It was out of his Throne that the Trees were planted in America [colonies or plantations or Farms]. Thusly were these Estates held mediately in the Throne.

Thusly do we keep it simple. Those who have grown to understand Trust Law and how it works, will appreciate the following. It is NOT enough to know how you can do a deed, it is also needed to know why you can do said deed. My Will and my Intellect must be in accord - else I find self ripped in two.

Title 12 United States Code Section 411 (12 U.S.C. 411) is very clear that Federal Reserve Notes are not Lawful Money of the United States. While they are lawful to use as a legal tender they cannot ever pay a debt but merely discharge said debt to a future Day of Judgment. [paid in blood on battlefield] And relying on Scripture, I find this model made clear in the great book of Hebrews as follows:

Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Therefore, these have no power to pay for sin and only push the sin [debt] forward to a future day of reckoning. Thus is the nature of the Federal Reserve System and its notes. However, clearly, 12 U.S.C. 411 allows that these Federal Reserve Notes and their associated credit system may be redeemed as there must always be choice. Noticing an alter atop George Washington's head and noticing that he is the Alpha flanked by an Omega, only he who is blind cannot see the symbolism. I comprehend that you need my consent to understand the Federal Reserve System and I have expressly withheld my consent by way of restrictive endorsement expressing my trust in United States Lawful Money. I am with my free will to choose and I choose to undertake on behalf of the United States in Lawful Money. I stand upon the Law (12 U.S.C. 411) hereinbefore quoted and maintain that I have no obligations or liability to even file a return as the Account is absent liability of the burden of taxation. Finding no transfer of Rights of Use, there can be no Fee! There only remains a presumption of which is timely rebutted herein! It is now time for Eve to be true to Adam. For once she had many lovers but now is she submitting to her Husbandman in Love.

If you don't have the "blood of the Lamb" upon the lintels and door posts [which is Truth], then you will pay with your own blood. And we know it is the blood of the victim which seals the covenant. Further, we know that "the life is in the blood" which relates that blood is synonymous with energy and labor which is related to truth vs. error. For in error we labor in vain. And this relates directly to a mark in the hand [labor] and in the forehead [thoughts]. For our thoughts allow us to express and imply our trust thru written/spoken deeds and action. And now we see it is not good enough to have knowledge but that the benefit and relief is in the Hand of the one that does. See now the Altar atop George Washington's head?

Many read and only see the outer garments which cloak the knowledge hidden in symbolic language [His Voice] - but some will change their clothes.

Rev 19:8* And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.*

Caught between Free Will and Destiny are these not two pillars - Hegelian in nature? I wonder can anyone escape the Matrix using the thoughts which "built this place"?
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m-R0uT6KZk)


The World's most famous Weatherman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGrnCCmXes)


Because in the end, the Love you make is equal to the Love you take....Consider a life of faith absent love. Is this not akin to the Sun's rays without warmth? Is this not as Winter [pray your flight not be in Winter]? But what of Faith married to Love - is this not as Springtime of New Growth?

Love is what turns us on. For its wavelength is much shorter than fear and thusly hits upon more DNA. Can we think about serving our brethren in Unity? Or shall we continue to serve self? If in the latter - welcome to Groundhog Day - get comfortable. If the former, welcome to abundant Life.

Expressed Faith in the seedbed of Love is like having two great wings. Fly to your bliss!

Deu 32:29* O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!*

For there is but One Power - and those who sit in power today in Ministerial Trust, are only allowed. Herein is a great key.


============

A presumption exists. Why is a 1040 being issued if the one who issued said 1040 is not a trustee with obligations? For from the perspective of the IRS agent all who issue such are bound to obligation and subject to the form of which is established per code binding the trustee to give account of the management of the FRS property. In other words, who is this "farmhand" who declares he is not subject to the rent? The key is that there are TWO distinct districts. FRD [left] and USD [right]. Which side of the boat do you fish? For the Kingdom is built in trust and This State is legal to the Image. Thusly is Trust the Foundation.

Is it trust built on Faith [as in no Love] or trust built on Love whereof Faith is contemplated only in the Light of Love - Unity. In the latter we see there is only one life and that is God. And therefore, there is but One Love that comes from God. And the Light is Love and the Good is Truth and thusly can we come to be One? Or shall we remain two in intercourse with a foreign lover? Is that not adultery?

Of course Johnny B Agent, is just as ignorant as the rest of the mass and if something does not conform to the standard way of "doing business" it merely seems frivolous. And now with understanding we can see it is the duty of a trustee to prove his/her innocence and thusly we can see the appeals process - which in the Federal Reserve districts is understood by insurance policies - and NOT oaths of office to the people.

It is just good business Jack (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_54IUIv97nI).

David Merrill
07-17-17, 01:02 PM
While traveling I stayed over with a suitor. Refusal for Cause on the 3175C FrivPen letter worked years ago to stop any billing - $30K in fines. Since then the wife has just gone Exempt with the W-4 and so they have no reason to file.

David Merrill
11-17-17, 02:09 AM
I keep thinking this is one of the more productive threads on StSC. Does anybody know of any new Memorandums?

lorne
12-26-17, 04:43 AM
I've seen nothing new. The IRS has failed to address redeeming lawful money. In itself further evidence your interpretation of the Federal Reserve Act is correct, all these years later.

Some may claim to redeem lawful money, file, then wonder why they don't get to the end zone, tax-free. As a successful nontaxpaying filer for years I can say you need to actually redeem lawful money, and be able to provide proof. You can't claim the ball crossed into the end zone, when you haven't established yourself as a runner (redeemer). You have to establish yourself as a “runner” first before the goal line means anything. To establish yourself as a runner (redeemer) you have to complete the catch. Jesse James never completed the catch (https://twitter.com/NFLFootballOps/status/942559627295764480). A receiver has to “survive the ground through the catch” and he didn’t.

Merry Christmas!

David Merrill
12-26-17, 04:20 PM
I've seen nothing new. The IRS has failed to address redeeming lawful money. In itself further evidence your interpretation of the Federal Reserve Act is correct, all these years later.

Some may claim to redeem lawful money, file, then wonder why they don't get to the end zone, tax-free. As a successful nontaxpaying filer for years I can say you need to actually redeem lawful money, and be able to provide proof. You can't claim the ball crossed into the end zone, when you haven't established yourself as a runner (redeemer). You have to establish yourself as a “runner” first before the goal line means anything. To establish yourself as a runner (redeemer) you have to complete the catch. Jesse James never completed the catch (https://twitter.com/NFLFootballOps/status/942559627295764480). A receiver has to “survive the ground through the catch” and he didn’t.

Merry Christmas!

I like the football "close enough" allegory. Lately I encountered searching my disk, an old American's News Bulletin article (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nlhuJwvH0IW9-hnbmo_7--6gKFGsCSbv/view?usp=sharing).

It is the oldest defense to the Libel of Review I have been utilizing since the late-1995 Are You Lost at C? (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImTDhwb0R3WUhCQ3c/view?usp=sharing) - days. Rule 12 FRCP; Failure to State a Claim.

What I feel, being the geopolitical social engineer at the intelligence nexus of the brain trust, is that the Response to this correct interpretation was when Congress bolstered the FrivPen from $500 to $5000. And in all this time the only real damage on the FrivPen/NOFTL front has been with a new suitor who is being attacked by a rogue agent and Director. The IRS reports truthfully to the SSA:


5012

More expressly here, I enjoy the MAGI acronym and may play with it in my imagination:

5013

There it is!! The attorneys are allowing, if not leading the Director and Agent to go ahead with the "emergency" collections activity, even though they will not falsely report to a fellow government agency.

Sometimes I feel this thread is the very most productive thread on the entire website. God I miss Allodial though. Does anybody have a clue what happened to Allodial?

doug555
01-07-18, 10:59 PM
I keep thinking this is one of the more productive threads on StSC. Does anybody know of any new Memorandums?

It appears that the Treasury's position on redeeming FRNs has changed. See its link below, and notice its excerpt below, especially the first sentence of the last paragraph:

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx


What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.

Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.



Then see “Commodity” definition below:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity


Now, if one cannot redeem FRNs anymore for anything per above stated policy, is that not in violation of 12 USC 411 and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act?

Is that not also in violation of Public Policy (Public Res. 73-10, 48 Stat 112 (http://legisworks.org/sal/48/stats/STATUTE-48-Pg112b.pdf)) by demanding a particular KIND of currency for payment of obligations?

If now one can only "promise to pay" all obligations with only one KIND of currency (FRNs), then why not use this same KIND of currency (a promise to pay) to "pay" all obligations, following this same stated Treasury policy on non-redemption?

When the Messiah paid the tax in Mt 17:27, did He tender a coin with Caesar's image on it, in accord with His decision in Mt 22:21?

Likewise, should we simply tender currency that bears a "promise to pay" image, in accord with this system's monetary policy and instruments?

lorne
01-09-18, 03:40 AM
Sometimes I feel this thread is the very most productive thread on the entire website. God I miss Allodial though. Does anybody have a clue what happened to Allodial?
Yes, very productive thread. No info on what happened to Allodial but my guess is ... his/her objective was reached here; mission accomplished. And then told to stand down or, left on their own.

We are consistently winning versus the IRS with lawful money remedy. I have seen them occasionally threaten a lawful money tax return with a frivolous penalty. Probably these letters have worked so well for the IRS in the past they continue to send them. Here is a recent example:

5014

Here the IRS tries to create an illusion, saying the tax return claims a frivolous position when in fact it does not. Bit of a psychological operation at play. Gamesmanship. Responding with the law will cause the IRS to back down, eventually. And the threats melt away like January snow.

David Merrill
01-10-18, 02:57 AM
Now, if one cannot redeem FRNs anymore for anything per above stated policy, is that not in violation of 12 USC 411 and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act?

I don't read the webpage that way. The law reads: They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

FRN shall be redeemed in lawful money, on demand.




Yes, very productive thread. No info on what happened to Allodial but my guess is ... his/her objective was reached here; mission accomplished. And then told to stand down or, left on their own.

We are consistently winning versus the IRS with lawful money remedy. I have seen them occasionally threaten a lawful money tax return with a frivolous penalty. Probably these letters have worked so well for the IRS in the past they continue to send them. Here is a recent example:

5014

Here the IRS tries to create an illusion, saying the tax return claims a frivolous position when in fact it does not. Bit of a psychological operation at play. Gamesmanship. Responding with the law will cause the IRS to back down, eventually. And the threats melt away like January snow.

Thank you Lorne. This is pleasing to the ear. If you authorize the redemption it "goes through".

Francon
01-19-18, 09:05 PM
Hello, I have redeemed lawful money for over 3 years and did the deduction on 2014, 2015, and 2016 returns which I filed a bit late. Just this week I received a CP15 notice of penalty charge for my 2014 return. The notice says due by Feb 5, 2018. How are people successfully refuting the frivolous filing penalty? Some have mentioned phone calls to the IRS. What information is being conveyed in the phone conversation? Are suitors just writing back to the IRS and explaining that the redemption of lawful money is not mentioned in any of the frivolous filing categories that are listed in the IRS documentation? Advice or links are greatly appreciated.

Regards, kevin in Phoenix

doug555
01-19-18, 11:11 PM
Did Congress & Trump Provide the Ultimate TAX Remedy? Hidden In the Rules?

https://www.youarelaw.org/did-congress-trump-provide-the-ultimate-tax-remedy-hidden-in-the-new-bill/

I am researching this...

This may also be the "exigent circumstances" justifying a Garnishment action in Admiralty by a Clerk in USDC to bypass the seditious Judges!

And use those funds to offset damages from current IRS collections.

See Rule B (1)(c) below:

https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-xiii/rule-b-in-personam-actions-attachment-and-garnishment/

David Merrill
01-20-18, 08:36 PM
Something settled into my mind while having a delightful phone conversation with Francon.

With five garnishments in admiralty underway in the USDC DC, wherein the Garnishees (TRUMP and MNUCHIN) reside, that admiralty rules might not apply to the redeemed. Admiralty as a jurisdiction in America must arise from below the high tide mark, or be related to an insurance contract. The insurance contract can be drawn up at sea or anywhere inland.

The fractional lending requires insurance (FDIC or a Credit Union assurance). Suppose after all these years we have been pressuring the system into actual special deposit? I recall how a chain of credit unions closed down but years back is when some intrepid redeemed trustees began opening many trust accounts and moving large amounts of money through the credit union chain.



5024


Out of the blue, trustees began hearing that they must quit all non-endorsing of checks. When the trustees claimed that they would sign as they pleased, the chain shut down.

I have always advocated that we do not bother patrolling or even monitoring the lawfulness of the activity happening behind the teller window. So my presumption has always been that nobody gives a flip and all the money is processed the same, in the vault. That it is all insured and fractionalized upon. The branch managers do nothing to make sure that those bills deposited or set aside upon a check deposit were set aside "special deposit" in the vault for when that particular redeemed customer came back for "his or her money". And for amounts less that (let me guess) $1000 that is still true.

My imagination has that the board of trustees for this credit union chain serving at the pleasure of the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) realized they had been breaking the law, by treating these deposits as though they are insured for fractional lending/reserve banking. Or maybe the OCC looked over the books and noticed a discrepancy worth mentioning?

The closure was silent correction. No discussion. Like pulling a weed and burning it.

doug555
01-21-18, 05:00 PM
Can anyone help me find evidence of Coast Guard Geodetic Survey Marks/Monuments being placed on mountain tops to justify bringing Admiralty/Maritime Law onto the Land?

http://www.peakbagging.com/Benchmark.htm (http://www.peakbagging.com/Benchmark.htm)

Benchmark Placement on Mountain Tops

Most of you reading this have probably been to a lot of summits which have had a benchmark in a prominent location that was easy to see. There may be a large rock at the summit and the benchmark will be cemented in place at the very highest point. Surveyors are concerned with visibility to other survey monuments and thus may place the benchmark near, but not actually on the highest point. The elevation of the benchmark will in these cases be lower than that of the true summit and the position as measured in latitude and longitude will not be that of the highest point.

........................................
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_marker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_marker)
Survey markers, also called survey marks, survey monuments, or geodetic marks, are objects placed to mark key survey points on the Earth's surface. They are used in geodetic and land surveying. Informally, such marks are referred to as benchmarks,[1] although strictly speaking the term "benchmark" is reserved for marks that indicate elevation.
........................................

See: http://freedom-school.com/admiralty-special-maritime-exposed.pdf (http://freedom-school.com/admiralty-special-maritime-exposed.pdf)
Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction Exposed.pdf (excerpt from page 7 below):

"As long ago as 1851 the Supreme Court recognized that the Congress has the power to extend the
jurisdictions of admiralty and maritime causes to the land under the commerce clause and deprive the
people of the right of a trial by jury. The following holding by the high court pretty much says it all.

"This power [of admiralty jurisdiction] is as extensive upon land as upon water. The
Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in
matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise
on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it
can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and
torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also
the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on. It would be in the power of
Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in
transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the
persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now
the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been
supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the
power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its
courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known
and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason
would justify the same exercise of power on land." Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v.
Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

.....................................


The below links are offline during the government shutdown:

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datasheets/

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datums/vertical/

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/Tidal_Elevation/ (www.ngs.noaa.gov/Tidal_Elevation/)

David Merrill
01-25-18, 10:40 AM
I based an indictment upon a monument on Mt Herman, Colorado.

5025

There were three permanently mounted on the summit. Two of them pointed to the main one at ninety degrees. I knew there was something special about it from Mount Hermon of the Bible and how it overlooks Megachurch, USA from The North.

5035

My intention was to utilize the monument as an escape from admiralty. - To prove that we are air-breathing high above the high-tide mark.

5027

5028

While camping a couple months later, I heard some strange pounding from my camp across the way. I did not think much of it but a few hours later went over to the summit and found that a group of men had carried a sledgehammer up and destroyed the metal cap. The two pointer caps remain there.

You may be on to something but I focus on DeLOVIO:

5029

Here is my thinking - Fractional lending and reserve banking depend entirely on insurance. FDIC is the primary insurance but all endorsed bills are insured against the national debt for security. Therefore redemption restores one to that Mandatory Exception from the false balances of elastic currency.

But there is more. A FrivPen is Waiver of Tort... continued.

David Merrill
01-25-18, 10:55 AM
5030

This is the municipal CODE of the Five Boroughs. My "new technology" is to apply Admiralty Rules for garnishments against TRUMP and MNUCHIN. For example:

5034

5031

Secretary Robert RUBIN resigned suddenly, in time for the Five O'Clock News. Look at the date above.

But if I am redeemed, MELCHIZEDEK then I have no business with LEVI. Sure enough. There is nothing going on because I am not separate. This is how difficult it is to climb over your egoistic mind and pull your head out of debt long enough to reconquer your idea set - brain trust. I am not alone. I am ONE with many. Unity.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX-rV-WQn-U

It goes way back - Jim's NOFTL (Notice of Federal Tax Lien) was not released. It disappeared.

5032

I thought it strange that Jim could never get Wiley Young DANIEL to pull off his administrative cap and put on original jurisdiction - his Article III cap. But then that is the point. For a party in interest to come up out of the sea, and state claim on land, they must first file a petition in the USDC.

Unless of course that party endorses private credit.

doug555
01-29-18, 08:17 PM
In response to the 'Waiver of Tort' mentioned above...

Here is an "Official Claim through a International Alien Tort Claim published by the Government of The United States of America!" for proceeding in an INTERNATIONAL VENUE for the "Trafficking of Persons" committed by the United States and the United States of America against Americans via COLB & SSN instruments.

https://reignoftheheavens.com/?p=3388 (https://reignoftheheavens.com/?p=3388)


Since both the United States and the United States of America are private corporations, who "own" all USDC Courts, it appears that only an INTERNATIONAL VENUE is suitable for recourse.

See also: The Government of The United States of America and the American National Union of The United States of America declares independence from the British Empire!

https://reignoftheheavens.com/?p=3458 (https://reignoftheheavens.com/?p=3458)

Notice item #7:

7: The British Empire created private international agreements under its private international law
that included but not limited to the Atlantic Charter (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/atlantic.asp) of nineteen hundred and forty one, and
trafficked persons into the use of private Trusts (Internal Revenue) to facilitate human trafficking
under the guise of Social Security, forced payment of taxes to allegedly fund the 'government' when
those funds are really a 'tribute' payment to the Crown and the Vatican, and

Notice page 4, 2nd last paragraph:

The British Empire British Agents shall never be allowed to file one more charge against anyone
outside of their borders, nor trafficked in persons within its borders

Our "persons" have been trafficked under the guise of Social Security into offshore (Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands) internal revenue trusts... so would signing onto these 2 documents help those who are now dealing with the recent IRS Frivolous Filing charges and installment payment plans forced thereunder?

P.S. This may also help...
See: THE NEW INCOME TAX LAW (HR 1) DESTROYS the IRS, the DOJ, and ALL the JUDGES!
http://www.tax-freedom.com/BrokenSystem.pdf (http://www.tax-freedom.com/BrokenSystem.pdf)

David Merrill
01-29-18, 10:48 PM
I can see how "commercial war of genocide and temple desecration" would bring that to mind.

lorne
02-08-18, 09:31 PM
Fractional lending and reserve banking depend entirely on insurance. FDIC is the primary insurance but all endorsed bills are insured against the national debt for security. Therefore redemption restores one to that Mandatory Exception from the false balances of elastic currency.

But there is more. A FrivPen is Waiver of Tort...
5044

I get it. The IRS presumes everyone is endorsing private credit (of the Federal Reserve). This is their default position ... assuming your income is federal income; you are contracting. Therefore when their computer database shows you with unreported income (ie. W2, 1099) or unpaid tax as an unjust benefit, instead of suing in court (tort) they elect to treat the facts as establishing an implied contract - all the rules & regs of Title 26. Therefore their system issues the Frivolous Penalty, per contract.

But, I am redeemed. Non-contracting. So in my case the IRS is in error.

It occurs to me that your five suitors could also go after the Garnishees bank accounts by Trustee Process. But that would require judgement by judge in favor of the suitor. And that seems unlikely given the invalid oaths and that judges almost always favor the banks. I suppose the odds are slightly better with the clerks - if you can get them to do their job.

David Merrill
02-09-18, 01:41 AM
5044

I get it. The IRS presumes everyone is endorsing private credit (of the Federal Reserve). This is their default position ... assuming your income is federal income; you are contracting. Therefore when their computer database shows you with unreported income (ie. W2, 1099) or unpaid tax as an unjust benefit, instead of suing in court (tort) they elect to treat the facts as establishing an implied contract - all the rules & regs of Title 26. Therefore their system issues the Frivolous Penalty, per contract.

But, I am redeemed. Non-contracting. So in my case the IRS is in error.

It occurs to me that your five suitors could also go after the Garnishees bank accounts by Trustee Process. But that would require judgement by judge in favor of the suitor. And that seems unlikely given the invalid oaths and that judges almost always favor the banks. I suppose the odds are slightly better with the clerks - if you can get them to do their job.

Thank you for paying attention and being so smart. That makes it worthwhile for me. Much better than finding out I imagine these things because of a tumor putting pressure on my pituitary gland or something like that.

About the clerks; Angela CAESAR took two months but finally published a Notice of Clerk's Bad Behaviors on PACER. I imagine that was pretty difficult for her.

About Waiver of Tort action. I am having trouble finding any difference in a CP-15 FrivPen billing and Waiver of Tort. I do not think that I have ever seen a frivolous filing penalty ever turn into a prosecution for tax evasion. So maybe that is waiver of tort; when the IRS decides to bill a taxpayer that is the decision to waive a criminal prosecution?

So what is good for the gander is good for the goose?

This is why it helps to hit the clerk with malfeasance accusations. The Rules of Court are published and that is the authority, combined with bonding for the "judges". So this has all paid off.

David Merrill
04-17-18, 08:27 AM
Greetings;

This is one of the more useful threads around here. I am crosstalking from another thread (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?2450-Get-Your-Taxes-Won/page2)...


Automated Under Reporter (AUR) is the IRS codename for their system that detects & responds to reported income mismatches: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleae...cp-2000-notice

David Merrill
06-16-18, 12:24 AM
Hi Everybody!

A new suitor sent me this link. I think this is the same memorandum as before though, already posted here. If you see anything that might relate to redemption please comment.


https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c

lorne
06-17-18, 03:32 AM
Ah, new edition of the Frivolous List, March 2018, but still the GLARING OMISSION - no mention of redemption of lawful money.

CONTENTION: U.S. notes are not income.
Taxpayer claims his U.S. note income can be non-taxable. Taxpayer claims to have learned the secret of the federal income tax: that it's an excise on receipt of Federal Reserve currency. While it is true one can avoid taxation on income by redeeming one's income in lawful money (U.S notes in the form of FRN's), we (the owners of the central bank and all who profit from it) would prefer you don't tell anyone. Thanks.

David Merrill
06-19-19, 08:19 AM
This is what you're looking for...

Contention: U.S. notes are not income.

Some assert that U.S. notes are not taxable income under the Revenue Acts of Congress; that a worker who redeems a paycheck in U.S. notes (lawful money) owes no federal tax on that income.

The Law:

The U.S. Supreme court has said “…taxation on income was in its nature an excise…” and excise taxes can be avoided by avoiding the privileged activity - endorsing private credit of the FED.

[I]Relevant Case Law:

United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10 th Cir. 1980) - Court affirms "that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money."

Milam v. United States, Appellees, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974) - Holder of $50 Federal Reserve Note sought to require Federal Reserve board to redeem the note in gold or silver. Court affirms that "Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal."
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/524/629/430631/

United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9 th Cir. 1984) - Taxpayer argued that receipt of Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute "income", the bass ackwards argument of Contention above. Of course FRNs are taxable. George Mercer wrote a letter to taxpayer Armen Condo who was highly unreceptive, continued using FRNs, and the court upheld his criminal conviction.
https://famguardian.org/Publications/InvisibleContracts/ArmenCondoLetter.htm

Conclusion: True


I have copied this from another thread.

Also, this MENDOZA Order (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?2494-The-MENDOZA-Order&p=24940&viewfull=1#post24940) might be being misused already, I don't know.

David Merrill
07-20-19, 06:38 AM
My suspicion lately is that the DoJ is keeping tabs here and the Albany Remand, seeing that we have no judicial oversight to run to - except maybe the Dragon Court (NEPHALIM) and then maybe above that, the Truth. So they are experimenting.



I am copying this post over to What does the IRS agent think?

Thank you David,

I received a copy of my 2017 signed W4 with Lawful Money stamp today from the IRS along with form 3699 (rev. 1-83) attached to the front, it has a box checked on the form that reads "Forms W4 (To be filed with your employers to enable them to determine the amount of income tax to withhold from your wages.) See photo attached.

After much searching I found this on the IRS site:

"General OCEP Audit Guidelines

Return cancelled checks, receipts and other original records the taxpayer submitted during the audit. Use Form 3699, Return of Documents to Taxpayer, or Letter 1020 (DO), Correspondence and Interview Examination. Letter 1020 (DO) advises the taxpayer of the status of the audit and documents returning records to the taxpayer.
Place all pertinent correspondence in the back of the file. (Correspondence enclosures may not be pertinent, see IRM 4.75.16.7.3(1)) Contact the taxpayer to determine whether they submitted any original documents. If so, make copies of the documents and return the originals.
Keep only records you need to document workpaper conclusions in the files.
Caution:
At the first indication of a revocation, the agent must be careful to keep all records that were received from the taxpayer. At the same time the agent must begin compiling an administrative record. For a discussion on proposed revocations and administrative records, refer to IRM 4.75.32, Declaratory Judgment Cases and The Administrative Record.

General on-site audit guidelines are in IRM 4.75.11, On Site Examination Guidelines. They may be useful in an OCEP audit. Refer also to Exempt Organization’s, Audit Technique Guides, for audit guidelines appropriate for an OCEP based on the type of organization under audit."

Are they really going to audit me for claiming LM?

David Merrill
08-26-19, 03:59 PM
This is still one of the more informative threads on the entire Internet, in my opinion. This image indicates we are making progress as it is the second report in one day that instead of slapping on the $5K FrivPens the IRS is simply losing returns!


5548

With this particular new suitor, it is a godsend considering he mistakenly added the FICA SSI stuff to his claim. Now he gets a chance to correct it. I think it should be difficult for the IRS to admit that they lost two Returns in a row!


https://youtu.be/dinJO6ut1KI

David Merrill
12-01-19, 08:38 AM
Hello everybody;

I am posting my suspicion that John SCHLABACH is an agent provocateur. This is to say he is getting a break on past liabilities for generating case law against remedy, for the purpose of discouraging people searching the Internet about Redeeming Lawful Money.

I came across his case in Eastern Washington on PACER by accident. I do not believe that the IRS agents' strategy had anticipated my finding it in progress. So I told John early about MENDOZA being a bogus judge and encouraged him to enlist me to disqualify him on having a vacant office. At that time I recall finding his history with the IRS and realizing, "This guy is in big trouble already." So I had a sinking feeling that he would be available for exactly what is going on.

One suitor tells me,


It looks to me like that is exactly what it was about redeem in lawful money, they ruled aginst him last year 2018 but this year it was dropped i guess because of his appeals he filed.
I did find it on a google search of frivolous filing. Not sure what the besmirch remedy is.


The remedy is not to believe what you read on the Internet. MENDOZA is not a federal judge. He can judge in equity by consent of the parties and that is where John took it. I told him to be genuine in his efforts and principles he would need to disqualify MENDOZA before he lost in trial court. But now in hindsight I am convinced my suspicions have been truthful. John is hurting a lot less from the "loss" in (vacant) court because he played his role in generating rumors that besmirch a perfect absolute right to be redeemed from central banking dishonors.

Please let us know if SCHLABACH's case is cited in any 3176-sytled Letters from Christine DAVIS. I doubt the IRS attorneys will do more than take advantage of people's Internet gullibility. Meanwhile:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIjMwGC1730

David Merrill
12-04-19, 08:40 AM
Another common citation for the 3176 styled Letter is 2105 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf). I do not see any new details that might cover redemption.

Prepping Crown indictment I discovered an interesting IRS publication:

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-025-010r

Search for "chargeback" -


Exhibit 25.25.10-1

Frivolous Arguments

Frivolous arguments are currently described in Notice 2010-33, available at http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-17_IRB/ar13.html (or its successor notice), the Truth About Frivolous Arguments, and a number of revenue rulings. Please refer to these publications for the most current listing of frivolous arguments. Recognized frivolous arguments include but are not limited to:


Non-negotiable Chargeback (NNCB) - The filer attempts to sell his/her birthright back to the government for a large dollar amount and requests that a "Treasury Direct Account" be set up to hold the money.

Interestingly this is a distorted description of redemption - redeemed from a world where debt is valued for substance, along with an absurdity that debt can be sustainable. Even clearly in the Bible the Law is Jubilee every 50 years.

In a phone call to the IRS recently a suitor was told that "Non-Negotiable Chargeback" was the FribPen category that Redeemed Lawful Money Returns fell under for charging FrivPen.

xparte
12-07-19, 09:59 AM
Conviction has one Authority unfortunate for the mi trow nerals or finite the metals pronounced mental All the alchemy in this world is a stone's throw from what certainly not the truth rocks say what? nothing till a price is put on it then its what exactly a commodity nobody forgives a commodity just the promised part call it notes land or title blood from a stone is something u cant earn

xparte
12-07-19, 10:04 AM
over 22 posts on this thread but the brilliance rests within

David Merrill
12-07-19, 04:23 PM
over 22 posts on this thread but the brilliance rests within

Agreed.

Few are conscious of the true value of physical gold - the server farms and data silos that make this communication possible. Sometimes it seems I am the only one in the world who believes the Internet is a widely used interactive computer program.

David Merrill
12-09-19, 07:45 AM
Here is an audio recording that will express things clearly. The IRS agents have been instructed to include Redeemed Lawful Money - Line 21 styled Demands as FrivPen Argument 30 (https://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-025-010r) - non-negotiable chargebacks.


Non-negotiable Chargeback (NNCB) - The filer attempts to sell his/her birthright back to the government for a large dollar amount and requests that a "Treasury Direct Account" be set up to hold the money.

I liken it to the IRS Agent being in a bowl, for so long that the rim of the bowl has become a convincing horizon for real. Now redemption from the illusion debt has substance and value is simply unreal. To the Agent under Crown Principal (God) the suitor is attempting to sell out his or her birthright in the tontine.


5696


5697

Let's look closer:


5698

5699

I met a fellow who enjoys parsing syllables today. I can use that. Even if I never see him again, I now know it is a real thing.

Continued...

David Merrill
12-09-19, 08:26 AM
In the definitions of terms above there is mention of coil field. This allows for a certain amount of compression or change in charge. I used the crystals of potassium nitrate for the first infant SD Cards storing a "1" or "0" within the crystal and reading it back. Memory. But the delta Q was the simulated bliss, creating gravity through interdimensional charge compression - like manna does when superconductivity balances the right and left hemispheres across the DNA wires in the third ventricle.


5701

This simulation of bliss under the delusion of sustainable debt is complacency.

marcel
12-11-19, 02:51 PM
So I do see you've sent in supporting schedules that demand for lawful money all transactions per 12 USC 411 95 ate choo. That I cannot argue with you...
-- IRS agent

Thanks for the admission.

David Merrill
12-12-19, 01:36 AM
So I do see you've sent in supporting schedules that demand for lawful money all transactions per 12 USC 411 95 ate choo. That I cannot argue with you...
-- IRS agent

Thanks for the admission.


Are you speaking that post to me? Admission?

marcel
12-12-19, 04:43 AM
I was thanking the IRS agent. When she said "that I cannot argue with" it sounds like an admission that there's nothing wrong with demanding lawful money. There's no law or rule against it - I can't argue it. It's within your rights. It's not on the list of items we issue friv pens for but... But I've been instructed to mis-classify it as Argument 30 - non-negotiable chargeback and threaten you with a friv pen anyway. Boss says I have to to keep my job.

David Merrill
12-12-19, 07:59 AM
I was thanking the IRS agent. When she said "that I cannot argue with" it sounds like an admission that there's nothing wrong with demanding lawful money. There's no law or rule against it - I can't argue it. It's within your rights. It's not on the list of items we issue friv pens for but... But I've been instructed to mis-classify it as Argument 30 - non-negotiable chargeback and threaten you with a friv pen anyway. Boss says I have to to keep my job.

Nice Take on it.

David Merrill
01-14-20, 01:52 AM
I just noticed that the 2020 Withholdings Certificate has no option for "Exemption" by expectation of no liability.

2020 W-4 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf)
2019 W-4 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/fw4--2019.pdf)

lorne
01-15-20, 01:46 AM
The option to claim Exempt status remains although it's a bit harder to find now after the redesign of the Form W4. Page 2 under Exemption from withholding instructs you to write "Exempt" in the space below 4(c). Note that even if Exempt from Federal Income Tax withholding, as an "employee" you're still subject to Medicare and SS tax withholdings. That's just part of being in "employment."

modnyc3
02-08-20, 07:09 AM
Here is an audio recording that will express things clearly. The IRS agents have been instructed to include Redeemed Lawful Money - Line 21 styled Demands as FrivPen Argument 30 (https://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-025-010r) - non-negotiable chargebacks.



I liken it to the IRS Agent being in a bowl, for so long that the rim of the bowl has become a convincing horizon for real. Now redemption from the illusion debt has substance and value is simply unreal. To the Agent under Crown Principal (God) the suitor is attempting to sell out his or her birthright in the tontine.


5696


5697

Let's look closer:


5698

5699

I met a fellow who enjoys parsing syllables today. I can use that. Even if I never see him again, I now know it is a real thing.

Continued...

What does this mean? The IRS agents have been instructed to include Lawful Money Redemption as frivolous? I just prepared all my tax forms and proof of lawful money demand to mail in to the IRS for the first time, but this is scaring me now. More and more people are obviously redeeming Lawful Money.

David Merrill
02-08-20, 11:00 AM
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars is fictional, but based in real and substantial psychology. It tells of the Elite and Illuminati conjuring macroeconomics hidden in a little calculus. So I worked it out.

modnyc3
02-08-20, 04:25 PM
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars is fictional, but based in real and substantial psychology. It tells of the Elite and Illuminati conjuring macroeconomics hidden in a little calculus. So I worked it out.

Yes! That's very good. But I was referring to the phone call clip you provided. How can that IRS agent just say that they don't process anything with the Demand for Lawful Money verbiage? Are they now sending FrivPen letters to anyone who files a Lawful Money return? I guess I am wondering if there is a solid way to fight against a FrivPen letter if one receives it after having filed a Lawful Money return. I'm still new to all this....

David Merrill
03-26-20, 08:56 PM
Yes! That's very good. But I was referring to the phone call clip you provided. How can that IRS agent just say that they don't process anything with the Demand for Lawful Money verbiage? Are they now sending FrivPen letters to anyone who files a Lawful Money return? I guess I am wondering if there is a solid way to fight against a FrivPen letter if one receives it after having filed a Lawful Money return. I'm still new to all this....

The refusal for cause properly published stays progress. I have mentioned that the Albany Remand is under attack; that KAHN is doing his best to end the evidence repository at over 100 Docs, most of them Refusals for Cause.

However there are some very convincing success stories that requesting a formal assessment or audit, with the participation of the subject "taxpayer" will induce an honest refund. This plays on the right to be heard. The response to the IRS Letter is to engage the agent to continue evaluation of the tax liability.

David Merrill
03-27-20, 09:03 AM
How can that IRS agent just say that they don't process anything with the Demand for Lawful Money verbiage?

That was a phone conversation. The Lesson Plan:


true identity
record forming - Refusal for Cause
redeeming lawful money



This includes being on the brain trust. Here is some recent Crosstalk (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?2627-Tool-Shed).

Especially Step 2 - that is where I teach a suitor how to express redemption in terms the IRS attorney understands. Very effective.


Are they now sending FrivPen letters to anyone who files a Lawful Money return?

Just about anybody who is redeeming lawful money is aware of me and how to get communications going. So I have to say that almost every FrivPen on this kind of income tax return comes to my attention. There have only been about ten FrivPens throughout my entire journey drafting remedy. There is always a problem with the return and I help spot it and we correct it. We invariably refuse the FrivPen presentment for cause.

In the Albany Remand there was one suitor who was signing "Without Prejudice" - a patriot dreg. I kept missing it and it developed but since we corrected his R4C process he has received the forgiveness letter.

5789

5790

5791

ag maniac
03-28-20, 12:58 AM
Yes! That's very good. But I was referring to the phone call clip you provided. How can that IRS agent just say that they don't process anything with the Demand for Lawful Money verbiage? Are they now sending FrivPen letters to anyone who files a Lawful Money return? I guess I am wondering if there is a solid way to fight against a FrivPen letter if one receives it after having filed a Lawful Money return. I'm still new to all this....

DM offers some sage advice -- TAKE IT TO HEART -- requesting a formal assessment or audit, with the participation of the subject "taxpayer" will induce an honest refund. This plays on the right to be heard. The response to the IRS Letter is to engage the agent to continue evaluation of the tax liability.


Used to have a suitor here "Martin earl"....give a read to his posts in the following link.....DON'T BE AFRAID....YOU'RE IN THE RIGHT !!

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1405-Get-Your-Billions-Back-America-2014&p=24356&viewfull=1#post24356

xparte
03-28-20, 01:36 AM
I am never surprised when i visit this site and that fishing discourse better known as The lesson plan a lesson plan or lessened up. Verbatim Employment its a form of commerce you is per / forming or acting like a federally formed employee onlyjust a Me can demand only a you gets the benefits from the privateers IRS internally you service to say agents. How verbally speaking is just volunteered information. Verbiage its legally binding standing and style demanding lawfully requires its own statutory style No agents for this station or office can give Me legal advice. Becoming your own agent with the lesson plan . Two distinctions i did it myself and i have donated a portion to (express redemption in terms of my own gratuitous benefit) Or having the distinction of becoming a suitor and expressing satisfaction or disappointment in being taught some expressed benevolence . I am suggesting if your worries are formed you've already expressed deferral . I however have no distinctions on benevolence if sharing is done privately thats distinct if its a I am wondering if there is a solid way to fight against a FrivPen letter if one receives it after having filed a Lawful Money return. I'm still new to all this.. i distinctly see a private message as the expressive method for discourse. DBA vs DBOTP on the phone a true name isn't identified on a Business # Tax player payer slayer why talk to anyone its FrivPho calls

David Merrill
03-28-20, 02:00 AM
I am never surprised when i visit this site and that fishing discourse better known as The lesson plan a lesson plan or lessened up. Verbatim Employment its a form of commerce you is per / forming or acting like a federally formed employee onlyjust a Me can demand only a you gets the benefits from the privateers IRS internally you service to say agents. How verbally speaking is just volunteered information. Verbiage its legally binding standing and style demanding lawfully requires its own statutory style No agents for this station or office can give Me legal advice. Becoming your own agent with the lesson plan . Two distinctions i did it myself and i have donated a portion to (express redemption in terms of my own gratuitous benefit) Or having the distinction of becoming a suitor and expressing satisfaction or disappointment in being taught some expressed benevolence . I am suggesting if your worries are formed you've already expressed deferral . I however have no distinctions on benevolence if sharing is done privately thats distinct if its a I am wondering if there is a solid way to fight against a FrivPen letter if one receives it after having filed a Lawful Money return. I'm still new to all this.. i distinctly see a private message as the expressive method for discourse. DBA vs DBOTP on the phone a true name isn't identified on a Business # Tax player payer slayer why talk to anyone its FrivPho calls

I think sometimes after all these years I might be the best ever at interpreting xPartese. You got me this time.

P.S. It is like instead of a spellchecker you downloaded a wordscrambler.

xparte
03-28-20, 02:37 AM
When the wisdom gets imparted or impaired ? When our strength compliments us the compassion for a weaknesses sustains us. Its a small justice Just /us gringo

David Merrill
05-18-20, 05:52 PM
The debt scavenger most reliably goes silent in the face of a proper Refusal for Cause.

5918

Notice how there is no return address anywhere, making a proper R4C difficult to the novice at redemption.

5919

This suitor knows who to notify, his Refusal for Cause:

5920

It is always the municipal office in charge, as the judiciary is a farce. STEWART, not KAHN.

David Merrill
11-12-20, 08:41 PM
One suitor has received, or rather his employer has, a Lock-In Letter demanding a certain amount of withholdings.

This is inconsequential as the money will be refunded pursuant to law. The suitor led me to an interesting link:

Withholdings 2020. (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/withholding-compliance-questions-and-answers)

David Merrill
12-11-20, 09:45 AM
On the W-4 front;

The IRS waited until 12/4 to supply us with the new W-4 Form for 2021. They prepared us with a draft though:

6290

Last year, for 2019, the W-4 Form was obscured about conditions for writing in "EXEMPT".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w42nh6dRMnA&t


6293

To be clear about the attached returns, the suitor filed 130 days ago, both state and federal but did not put any demand on the state (CA) return. Line 58. So the IRS went silent and sent in the state, returning a $500 refund instead of the withholdings of over $7K. The $500 refund is refused for cause.

For the full explanation - stay tuned to this thread. Or check into my Lesson Plan ($2K) if you need some guidance. There is no need to involve your employer at all. Any IRS agent can call your employer and start a fight without any paper at all - a fight that will get you fired. Nasty business! If the IRS compels withholdings just consider it a savings account until you can file your return.

David Merrill
12-17-20, 09:56 PM
To follow up on this, I filed my TY2019 lawful money tax return on paper and left the question at the top of Schedule 1 blank:
At any time during 2019, did you receive, sell, send, exchange, or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?

Didn't answer it at all and yet I did receive my tax refund as requested. So it appears answering that question was voluntary after all, and TurboTax just decided to make the answer required when it really isn't.


That is great! I am copying this over to What Does the IRS Agent Really Think?

David Merrill
12-18-20, 09:35 AM
Here is a form for people who were redeeming but filed as endorser. Frivolous Return Program law. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HkI1_nxZ8FnSIxaPi3Y2whjblffxKvYw/view?usp=sharing)


An untimely claim for a refund/abatement on a non-frivolous Form 843 is received.

Note: To be considered timely, taxpayer must file a claim for a refund on Form 843 within 3 years from the time a return associated with the penalty is filed or 2 years from the date the penalty was paid, whichever period expires later.

Here is the link at the IRS. (https://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-025-010r)

David Merrill
03-21-21, 05:36 PM
This letter followed a delayed refund of withholdings.


6547

I think it prudent to Refuse for Cause the form letter since it specifies that the income is taxable interest.


P.S. I am confused about the phone camera angle:

6548

Yeah. That's better!

David Merrill
04-02-21, 10:24 AM
Mr. PAZ (818) 743-8890 is geared up with an online redemption tax accountant service. He gets consistent results.

Attached find the only exception - but look at Page 4 - he is bringing redemption to the DEATH PROMISE. Quite literally that means death promise.


MORTGAGE


Remember that debt (death) and redemption (life) are mutually exclusive ultimates. Where there is one, the other does not exist.

shikamaru
04-03-21, 12:34 PM
Mr. PAZ (818) 743-8890 is geared up with an online redemption tax accountant service. He gets consistent results.

Attached find the only exception - but look at Page 4 - he is bringing redemption to the DEATH PROMISE. Quite literally that means death promise.


MORTGAGE


Remember that debt (death) and redemption (life) are mutually exclusive ultimates. Where there is one, the other does not exist.

A mortgage is a "dead pledge". It is property that produces income, but the income proceeds go to the creditor without buying down the debt.

Redemption is the buying back of the pledge (property).

In medieval times, the title of the property would change hands from debtor to creditor with clauses in the contract allowing the debtor to redeem the property from the creditor.

David Merrill
04-03-21, 05:06 PM
A mortgage is a "dead pledge". It is property that produces income, but the income proceeds go to the creditor without buying down the debt.

Redemption is the buying back of the pledge (property).

In medieval times, the title of the property would change hands from debtor to creditor with clauses in the contract allowing the debtor to redeem the property from the creditor.

Very good explanation. Wonderful!

In conjunction with bottomry and Rules of Admiralty we can get a rounded portrait of central banking. Plus the Bretton Woods Agreements, SDR's and the Amendments all point us to understand the role of War and Emergency with martial rule.

David Merrill
07-06-21, 09:53 AM
Without specifying a signature required on the Registered Mail one seems to open the door for redelivery to the agent.


6692

6693

It takes more intelligence to determine what the Principal YELLEN is thinking here, but remember she comes directly into the IMF as US Governor from the Board of Governors of the Fed. So she knows her way around redemption. Now looking at the dates you might guess we will need a few weeks time to determine what will happen at the IRS campus(es).

gbw
07-18-21, 02:54 AM
Has anyone had any luck contacting Mr. Paz? No responses from phone or email. Thanks!

David Merrill
07-18-21, 05:19 AM
Has anyone had any luck contacting Mr. Paz? No responses from phone or email. Thanks!

Between his redemption clients and the brain trust he might be that busy. We are not in close contact but I think he is a planner. By that he expanded a small business through firmware and at-home delegation of workload to quickly trained employees. And by that I mean that redemption refunds are sure when processed through a professional tax accountant and more importantly they are extremely simplified. All those details about finding deductions and those trade secrets fall away. You simply match up the four figures - reported income, taxable income and reported withholdings are matched up to your claim. It is a mistake to complicate a 1040 Form further. The IRS will jump on any mistakes.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLnOJSErSdU

In summary what I am telling you is Mr. PAZ may not be responding to business he cannot take. If he is working to capacity your attempts to reach him may be going into a queue for when one of his employees can get to you. Turning business down may not be in the plan.

gbw
07-20-21, 01:58 AM
Fair enough, thank you for the responses, and the initial referral, David. If anyone else out there in this fine community wants to help a noob like me win for once, inbox me, I'll buy you dinner if you ever come to Los Angeles.

David Merrill
07-20-21, 03:57 AM
Fair enough, thank you for the responses, and the initial referral, David. If anyone else out there in this fine community wants to help a noob like me win for once, inbox me, I'll buy you dinner if you ever come to Los Angeles.

Many have success with my Lesson Plan ($2,500). But it is more for the brain trust participation and intelligence. Redacting the tax returns to their simplicity seems ridiculous for that kind of money. Redemption of lawful money is just a model. Like the video I linked above - getting out of the religious bonding about money is redemption for real.

marcel
07-21-21, 09:35 AM
firm·ware (fûrm wâr)

noun
permanent software stored in a computer's ROM (read-only memory).

David Merrill
07-21-21, 02:25 PM
firm·ware (fûrm wâr)

noun
permanent software stored in a computer's ROM (read-only memory).

Is that a riddle?

marcel
07-21-21, 06:20 PM
You had mentioned that he expanded a small business through firmware and at-home delegation of workload to quickly trained employees. and I wondered what you meant.

David Merrill
07-21-21, 07:58 PM
You had mentioned that he expanded a small business through firmware and at-home delegation of workload to quickly trained employees. and I wondered what you meant.

I see.

I meant portals for other tax accountants to prepare returns, through his business hub. Therefore all he needs are more tax accountants.

Interestingly, preparing a 1040 for the Redeemed is extraordinarily simple and takes almost no time at all.

P.S. After many refunds, the reason Guilliani PAZ got on my radar was attaching a mortgage gains form. It was voluntary and inert, but offered to pull the mortgage industry into redemption. Like my 9/11 Bill of Exchange in miniature.

Michael Joseph
07-21-21, 08:08 PM
firm·ware (fûrm wâr)

noun
permanent software stored in a computer's ROM (read-only memory).

Firmware = DNA
Software = mRNA

Enough said....