View Full Version : Substance of the R4C
David Merrill
09-26-12, 09:17 PM
I have been thinking of different ways to explain the power behind the Refusal for Cause process.
One way to understand it is through the Circuit Court justices who handled Bob SHULTZ's revealing appeal (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Bob_Shulz_revealing_appeal.pdf), as I call it. Read this page carefully:
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1001/bobschulzrevealingappea.jpg
There it is clear that with great pain the justices have overturned forty years of precedent by revealing that a summons from the IRS holds absolutely no authority whatsoever. I have an example or two where levies and garnishments too were resisted by banks and employers so that the IRS in the name USA would file for a court ordered rendition of the same. They would get it and proceed.
However if one is redeeming lawful money then I doubt that the judge would sign off on it or that the IRS attorneys would even bother trying to get him to.
http://imageshack.us/a/img515/9715/sresponsetosummons.jpg
David Merrill
10-06-12, 10:31 AM
I glanced through the Meads v. Meads treatise (http://canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html) on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments. I found it revealing that there is no mention about "refusal for cause" and "refused for cause". There is only one instance of "lawful money" and it is without any context in the US Fed Act.
BAMAJiPS
01-07-13, 02:46 AM
David, I am fascinated by this R4C. Are you saying to set up an evidence repository in the federal courthouse... NOW? before any inkling of action from the IRS or other commercial courts?
I can't even comprehend how you learned all this. The scope is vast. Where do you study or learn all of these techniques? I read until my eyes feel like they're going to bleed - hours each day and cant seem to understand how you have this much knowledge.
Were you raised in it? Did you surround yourself with people of knowledge? Were you an apprentice to someone? I read your petition in US District Court of Colorado in amazement. Where do you come up with this stuff? I would honestly consider spending a year or so in apprenticeship learning these things. All I have at my disposal is the internet, which is a fine tool, but it tends to lead me in more tangents and extremely deep rabbit holes that absorb so much of my time - it's hard to focus! Do you have any suggestions on where/how to hone skills? I have yet to locate local clubs or workshops in my area to assist. Do they exist? I don't mean to sound so helpless. I suppose I am just in awe of the expansive knowledge you seem to possess.
stoneFree
01-07-13, 04:12 AM
David! Thank you for this thread. I had lost track of that fascinating bank letter. Do you happen to know what "appropriate steps" Mr. [Redacted] followed to object to the release of bank records?
LearnTheLaw
01-07-13, 01:45 PM
David! Thank you for this thread. I had lost track of that fascinating bank letter. Do you happen to know what "appropriate steps" Mr. [Redacted] followed to object to the release of bank records?
Chapter 9:
The Law of Presumption
Now, let's have a little fun with this law of presumption, as it is called. The law works both ways. This means that you can use it to your advantage as well as anyone else can. One of the most surprising and fascinating discoveries made by the freedom movement in America concerns the bank signature card. If you have a checking or savings account at a bank, you may remember being asked by the bank officer to sign your name on several documents when you opened that account. One of these documents was the bank signature card. You may have been told that the bank needed your signature in order to compare it with the signatures that would be found on the checks you write, to detect forgeries. That explanation sounded reasonable, so you signed your name on the card.
What the bank officer probably did not tell you was that you signed your name on a contract whereby you agreed to abide by all rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury. You see, bank signature cards typically contain such a clause in the fine print. These rules and regulations include, but are not limited to the IRC (all 2,000 pages of it) and the Code of Federal Regulations for the IRC (all 10,000 pages of it). These rules may also include every last word of the Federal Reserve Act, another gigantic statute. Now, did the bank have all 12,000 pages of the IRC and its regulations on exhibit for you to examine upon request, before you signed the card? Your bank should be willing, at the very least, to identify clearly what rules and regulations adhere to your signature.
You are presumed to be a person who knows how to read, and who knows how to read a contract before signing your name to it. Once your signature is on the contract, the federal government is entitled to presume that you knew what you were doing when you signed this contract. Their presumption is that you entered into this contract knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily. Why? Because your signature is on the contract. That's why. Is this presumption rebuttable? You bet it is. Here's why:
Instead of telling you that the bank needed your signature to catch forgeries, imagine that the bank officer described the signature card as follows:
Your signature on this card will create a contract relationship between you and the Secretary of the Treasury. This Secretary is not the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, because the U.S. Treasury Department was bankrupted in the year 1933. The Treasury Department referred to on this card is a private entity which has been set up to enforce private rules and regulations. These rules and regulations have been established to discharge the bankruptcy of the federal government. Your signature on this card will be understood to mean that you are volunteering to subject yourself to a foreign jurisdiction, a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia and its private offspring, the Federal Reserve system. You accept the benefits of limited liability offered to you by this corporation for using their commercial paper, Federal Reserve Notes, to discharge your own debts without the need for gold or silver.
By accepting these benefits, you are admitting to the waiver of all rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution for the United States of America, because that Constitution cannot impair any obligations in the contract you will enter by signing this card. Your waiver of these rights will be presumed to be voluntary and as a result of knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences, as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Brady v. U.S. With your signature on this card, the Internal Revenue Service, a collection agency for the Federal Reserve system, will be authorized to attach levies against any and all of your account balances in order to satisfy any unpaid liabilities which the IRS determines to exist. You will waive all rights against self-incrimination. You will not be entitled to due process in federal administrative tribunals, where the U.S. Constitution cannot be invoked to protect you. Your home, papers and effects will not be secured against search and seizure. Now, please sign this card.
How does the law of presumption help you in this situation? First of all, you presumed that your signature was required, to compare it with the signatures on checks you planned to write. This was a reasonable presumption, because that's what the bank officer told you, but it is also a rebuttable presumption, because of what the fine print says. That fine print can be used to rebut, or disprove, your presumption when push comes to shove in a court of law. The federal government is entitled to presume that you knew what you were doing when you signed this contract. Well, did you? Did the bank officer explain all the terms and conditions attached thereto, as explained above? Did you read all 12,000 pages of law and regulations before deciding to sign this contract? Did you even know they existed? Was your signature on this contract a voluntary, intentional and knowingly intelligent act done with sufficient awareness of all its relevant consequences and likely circumstances? The Supreme Court has stated clearly that:
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)]
Fortunately, the federal government's presumption about you is also rebuttable. Why? Because the feds are guilty of fraud, among other reasons, by not disclosing the nature of the bankruptcy which they are using to envelope the American people, like an octopus with a suction tentacle in everybody's wallet, adults and children alike. The banks became unwitting parties to this fraud because the Congress has obtained a controlling interest in the banks through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and their traffic in Federal Reserve Notes and other commercial paper issued by the Federal Reserve banks, with the help of their agent, the private Treasury Department. For further details, read "Return to Constitutional Money" by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
Because this fraud can attach to bank accounts without your knowledge or consent, it is generally a good idea to notify your bank(s), in writing, that the IRS cannot inspect any of your bank records unless you have specifically authorized such inspections by executing IRS Form 6014. The IRS Printed Products Catalog describes this form as follows:
6014 42996R (Each)
Authorization ?? Access to Third Party Records for Internal Revenue Service Employees
Authorization from Taxpayer to third party for IRS employees to examine records. Re-numbered as a 4-digit form from Letter 995(DO) (7/77). Changes suggested per IRM Section 4082.1 to help secure the correct information from the third party. EX:E:D Tax Related Public Use
[IRS Printed Product Catalog]
[Document 7130, Rev. 6-89, p. 49]
Make explicit reference to this Form in a routine letter to your bank(s). Inform the appropriate bank officers that they must have a completed Form 6014 on file, with your authorized signature, before they can legally allow any IRS employees to examine your records. Then state, discretely, that you hereby reserve your fundamental right to withhold your authorized signature from Form 6014, because it might otherwise constitute a waiver of your 4th Amendment Rights, and no agency of government can compel you to waive any of your fundamental Rights such as those explicitly guaranteed by the 4th Amendment in the Constitution for the United States of America. (Banks are chartered by the States in which they do business, and as such they are "agencies" of State government.)
For good measure, you might also cite pertinent sections in your State Constitution, particularly where it mandates that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, as it does in the California Constitution of 1879. Finally, you may wish to state that Form 6014 is not applicable to you anyway, because you are not a "Taxpayer" as that term is defined by Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, the bank is simply not authorized to release information about you to IRS employees, period!
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter9.htm
David Merrill
01-07-13, 03:37 PM
David, I am fascinated by this R4C. Are you saying to set up an evidence repository in the federal courthouse... NOW? before any inkling of action from the IRS or other commercial courts?
I can't even comprehend how you learned all this. The scope is vast. Where do you study or learn all of these techniques? I read until my eyes feel like they're going to bleed - hours each day and cant seem to understand how you have this much knowledge.
Were you raised in it? Did you surround yourself with people of knowledge? Were you an apprentice to someone? I read your petition in US District Court of Colorado in amazement. Where do you come up with this stuff? I would honestly consider spending a year or so in apprenticeship learning these things. All I have at my disposal is the internet, which is a fine tool, but it tends to lead me in more tangents and extremely deep rabbit holes that absorb so much of my time - it's hard to focus! Do you have any suggestions on where/how to hone skills? I have yet to locate local clubs or workshops in my area to assist. Do they exist? I don't mean to sound so helpless. I suppose I am just in awe of the expansive knowledge you seem to possess.
That is one flattering post. I think it may be a rendition of Ochham's Razor, but it might be a Fourier Transform quirk too. The simpler conclusion is usually best and true. However it helps to be able to make out patterns in the noise. Learn Rules of Evidence (http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/350/rule804.jpg) first and enjoy learning. Find pleasure in grasping so many interesting items of fact that it is exactly that - noise. A technician considers a complex waveform of more than three or four frequencies "noise". This is the disruptive waveform for Swine Flu (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImQTl2UG5GU2pfQjQ). Look at the image as you listen and see if you can find the five frequencies with your ear. [Synchronicity (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImTTVKRHRLM1c2bjQ) - BBC World News at 3:00 am MST.] When I look at Holonation images however, I can only see the inverted image - this Burning Bush (http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2104/burningbush.jpg) looks to me like somebody punched a piece of soft clay. I wonder if that is something to be considered.
For example when thinking about baptism by water I see the political climate by knowing the history. A typical Christian I presume just accepts that since Jesus was the Son of God people would accept him marching up the King's Road on a colt as a proper coronation ceremony. Just out of the blue - divine providence! Herod the Great had three sons; Philip was in Jordan so he had no role to speak of in the Bible Story. Antipater was never King but remained Tetrarch for his reign. The King was Archelaus but he was exiled in 6 AD (adding Judea, Sumaria and Idumea to Antipater's rule) and so would have been living like a mountain man out in the sticks. Sound familiar? John the Baptist was a mountain man! So Archelaus was likely keeping a secret school - a secret society or Order and of course John was beheaded for speaking against the authority of the Tetrarch HEROD Antipas/Antipater who slew Jesus on the Cross too. So the Jordan River dunking was likely a cheap coronation, Jesus accepting the title of KING upon Archelaus' death from the (secret) Order of Archelaus as ministered by disciple John (the Baptist). At any rate, try reading that and see if it fits with my scenario in mind while you review the account.
That is an example and I know from the postings especially around here that you all have amazing minds but maybe different mathematical keys to sort and interact with a higher Creative Mind by making distinctions and dichotomies that need not exist. Separation. Mostly I perceive most people to be in identity crisis - true name and legal name. Confusion.
David! Thank you for this thread. I had lost track of that fascinating bank letter. Do you happen to know what "appropriate steps" Mr. [Redacted] followed to object to the release of bank records?
That letter happened much earlier than SHULTZ revealing appeal (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Bob_Shulz_revealing_appeal.pdf). I have seen how all the IRS has to do is file a $46 Miscellaneous Case jacket requesting a judicial summons to fill the bill.
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1001/bobschulzrevealingappea.jpg
Learnthelaw, Brilliant dissection of the signature card.....
"Your signature on this card will create a contract relationship between you and the Secretary of the Treasury. This Secretary is not the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, because the U.S. Treasury Department was bankrupted in the year 1933. The Treasury Department referred to on this card is a private entity which has been set up to enforce private rules and regulations. These rules and regulations have been established to discharge the bankruptcy of the federal government. Your signature on this card will be understood to mean that you are volunteering to subject yourself to a foreign jurisdiction, a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia and its private offspring, the Federal Reserve system. You accept the benefits of limited liability offered to you by this corporation for using their commercial paper, Federal Reserve Notes, to discharge your own debts without the need for gold or silver.
By accepting these benefits, you are admitting to the waiver of all rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution for the United States of America, because that Constitution cannot impair any obligations in the contract you will enter by signing this card. Your waiver of these rights will be presumed to be voluntary and as a result of knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences, as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Brady v. U.S. With your signature on this card, the Internal Revenue Service, a collection agency for the Federal Reserve system, will be authorized to attach levies against any and all of your account balances in order to satisfy any unpaid liabilities which the IRS determines to exist. You will waive all rights against self-incrimination. You will not be entitled to due process in federal administrative tribunals, where the U.S. Constitution cannot be invoked to protect you. Your home, papers and effects will not be secured against search and seizure. Now, please sign this card."
What if you signed it and added -"All Rights Reserved" ....would this protect you further from the presumptions you discussed above?
LearnTheLaw
01-07-13, 06:10 PM
Learnthelaw, Brilliant dissection of the signature card.....
"Your signature on this card will create a contract relationship between you and the Secretary of the Treasury. This Secretary is not the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, because the U.S. Treasury Department was bankrupted in the year 1933. The Treasury Department referred to on this card is a private entity which has been set up to enforce private rules and regulations. These rules and regulations have been established to discharge the bankruptcy of the federal government. Your signature on this card will be understood to mean that you are volunteering to subject yourself to a foreign jurisdiction, a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia and its private offspring, the Federal Reserve system. You accept the benefits of limited liability offered to you by this corporation for using their commercial paper, Federal Reserve Notes, to discharge your own debts without the need for gold or silver.
By accepting these benefits, you are admitting to the waiver of all rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution for the United States of America, because that Constitution cannot impair any obligations in the contract you will enter by signing this card. Your waiver of these rights will be presumed to be voluntary and as a result of knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences, as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Brady v. U.S. With your signature on this card, the Internal Revenue Service, a collection agency for the Federal Reserve system, will be authorized to attach levies against any and all of your account balances in order to satisfy any unpaid liabilities which the IRS determines to exist. You will waive all rights against self-incrimination. You will not be entitled to due process in federal administrative tribunals, where the U.S. Constitution cannot be invoked to protect you. Your home, papers and effects will not be secured against search and seizure. Now, please sign this card."
What if you signed it and added -"All Rights Reserved" ....would this protect you further from the presumptions you discussed above?
YOU must stand up and reserve your rights because nobody else is going to do it for you.
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)]
Proof you are a legal entity file to large to upload, Page 6......Source (http://thematrixhasyou.org/PDF/court-response-to-brief-nm.pdf)
Where this came from is. Source (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epche12c03.pdf)
IRC SECTION 7609 provides that notices are not required in cases where:
1. the summons is served on the taxpayer, officer or employee of the taxpayer;
2. the stated purpose of a summons is to determine whether records of the business transactions or affairs of an identified person have been made or kept;
3. it is issued solely to determine the identify of a person having a numbered account with a
4. bank or institution.
5. it is issued to aid the collection of an assessed liability from the taxpayer or from a transferee or fiduciary of the taxpayer.
6. the summons is issued by CID in connection with the investigation of an offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the revenue laws.
7. John Doe summonses (A summons issued to receive information regarding an unknown person, usually applicable to tax shelters and not generally used by Employee Plans).
LearnTheLaw
01-08-13, 03:46 AM
Proof you are a legal entity file to large to upload, Page 6......Source (http://thematrixhasyou.org/PDF/court-response-to-brief-nm.pdf)
Where this came from is. Source (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epche12c03.pdf)
IRC SECTION 7609 provides that notices are not required in cases where:
1. the summons is served on the taxpayer, officer or employee of the taxpayer;
2. the stated purpose of a summons is to determine whether records of the business transactions or affairs of an identified person have been made or kept;
3. it is issued solely to determine the identify of a person having a numbered account with a
4. bank or institution.
5. it is issued to aid the collection of an assessed liability from the taxpayer or from a transferee or fiduciary of the taxpayer.
6. the summons is issued by CID in connection with the investigation of an offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the revenue laws.
7. John Doe summonses (A summons issued to receive information regarding an unknown person, usually applicable to tax shelters and not generally used by Employee Plans).
The information below could prove to be quite useful someday.
Chapter 10:
The Fundamental Law
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< snip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Internal Revenue Service is well aware of these amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For example, many persons are incorrect to believe that the IRS has authority to force disclosure of private books and records. Even though the IRS may have authority to issue a summons in certain circumstances, it has absolutely no authority to compel disclosure of private books and records. This means that you must bring your books and records to an audit, if lawfully summoned to do so, but you are under no obligation to open those books and records, or to submit them to the Internal Revenue Service. As amazing as this may seem, this restraint is documented in the official IRS Tax Audit Guidelines (IR Manual MT 9900-26, 1-29-75), as follows:
242.12 Books and Records of An Individual
(1) An individual taxpayer may refuse to exhibit his books and records for examination on the ground that compelling him to do so might violate his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and constitute an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. However, in the absence of such claims, it is not error for a court to charge the jury that it may consider the refusal to produce books and records, in determining willfulness.
(2) The privilege against self-incrimination does not permit a taxpayer to refuse to obey a summons issued under IRC 7602 or a court order directing his appearance. He is required to appear and cannot use the Fifth Amendment as an excuse for failure to do so, although he may exercise it in connection with specific questions. He cannot refuse to bring his records, but may decline to submit them for inspection on Constitutional grounds. In the Vader case [U.S. v. Vader, 119 F.Supp. 330], the Government moved to hold a taxpayer in contempt of court for refusal to obey a court order to produce his books and records. He refused to submit them for inspection by the Government, basing his refusal on the Fifth Amendment. The court denied the motion to hold him in contempt, holding that disclosure of his assets would provide a starting point for a tax evasion case.
[emphasis added]
Note, in particular, where this IR Manual uses the phrase "in the absence of such claims". In general if you do not assert your rights, explicitly and in a timely fashion, then you can be presumed to have waived them. There's the "law of presumption" again. You can, therefore, assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, by refusing to submit your books and records for inspection, even though you cannot refuse to bring those books and records to an audit. This may seem like splitting hairs. However, if the federal government could compel your submission of books and records to IRS agents, then the federal government could compel persons to be witnesses against themselves. This would violate the Fifth Amendment. Similarly, the federal government could compel the search and seizure of books and records without a warrant issued upon probable cause and describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. This would violate the Fourth Amendment. Agencies of the federal government are constrained by law to avoid infringing upon the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
How do you assert your rights in a polite yet convincing way, so that everyone who needs to know is placed on notice that you have done so? One of the most effective ways of asserting your rights is to become totally alert to every document which bears your signature, past, present and future. Know that your signature is the touch which magically transforms common pieces of paper into commercial contracts, or "commercial agreements" as they are called in the Uniform Commercial Code. Always sign your name with the following phrase immediately above your signature on all contracts which involve bank credit or Federal Reserve Notes:
With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights
and Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207 [now 1-308]
A short-hand way of doing the same thing is to utilize the phrase "All Rights Reserved". This phrase appears in most published books and in film credits. The use of these phrases above your signature on any document indicates that you have exercised the "Remedy" provided for you in the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") in Article 1 at Section 207. This "Remedy" provides a valid legal mechanism to reserve a fundamental, common law right which you possess. Under the common law, you enjoy the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement which you did not enter knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.
Moreover, your explicit reservation of rights serves notice upon all administrative agencies of government, whether international, national, state, or local, that you do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the "compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements. As you now know from reading previous chapters, the federal government is famous for making presumptions about you, because your signature is on documents which bind you to "commercial agreements" with tons of unrevealed terms and conditions. Think back to the terms and conditions attached to the bank signature card, for example. An unrevealed term is proof of constructive fraud, and constructive fraud is a legal basis for cancelling any written instrument.
Last but not least, your valid reservation of rights results in preserving all your rights, and prevents the loss of any such rights by application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel. A "waiver" has occurred when you sign your name on an agreement which states that you knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily waive one of your fundamental rights. Kiss it goodbye. As long as you are not infringing on the rights of others, only you can waive one or more of your fundamental rights. In law, "estoppel" means that a party is prevented by his own conduct from claiming a right, to the detriment of another party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and who has acted accordingly:
Estoppel is a bar or impediment which precludes allegation or denial of a certain fact or state of facts, in consequence of previous allegation or denial or conduct or admission, or in consequence of a final adjudication of the matter in a court of law.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
Read the whole section here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr10.htm
Corporation Papers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARECNYRhCF0&feature=youtu.be
LearnTheLaw
01-08-13, 04:23 AM
Corporation Papers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARECNYRhCF0&feature=youtu.be
I laugh at people who think they will overturn the Citizens United decision.
Learnthelaw, Thanks for the affirmation and information!
"A short-hand way of doing the same thing is to utilize the phrase "All Rights Reserved". This phrase appears in most published books and in film credits. The use of these phrases above your signature on any document indicates that you have exercised the "Remedy" provided for you in the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") in Article 1 at Section 207. This "Remedy" provides a valid legal mechanism to reserve a fundamental, common law right which you possess. Under the common law, you enjoy the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement which you did not enter knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily."
This "Remedy" provides a valid legal mechanism to reserve a fundamental, common law right which you possess. Under the common law, you enjoy the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement which you did not enter knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily." Hummm!
IRS Form 1040:
Let's look for a moment at the statement at the IRS 1040 in the "Sign Here" section.
Under the penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.
"Under the penalties of perjury,": This becomes a sworn document when it is signed.
If a person makes one mistake on the form, he can be criminally prosecuted and would have to prove that he didn't lie. Most people are confused and don't know that this tax does not apply to them. If they fill it out, they are not telling the truth.
So if a man/woman fills out this return and fully complies with the IRS's agenda, they are lying on the record. Assuming the tax code applied to all of us, to swear an oath that the forms and schedules are correct, even to the best of one's knowledge, puts a person in an extremely compromising position because "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
One is also put into a position of testifying against himself and issuing a sworn document that could possibly incriminate himself in the future.
Signing an IRS form under the penalties of perjury violates the most basic rights of a free man, And on top of all that, one is binding his soul to it.
"I declare that have examined this return....." Did you? Really?
When you filed the return, do you really know what you were doing?
Did you know all the ins and outs of over 9000+ pages of tax code?
Do you really know if you are subject to the tax code?
Do you know if you are a U.S. citizen?
Do you really understand the territorial jurisdiction of the US Code?
Did you really have "gross income"?
Did you really know if you had taxable income?
Did you know for sure if you are an "employee" or an "employee"?
If you get 100 Certified Public Accountants together in one room, with the same information on an example of a taxpayer, no one will come up with the same answer, yet people readily sign these returns under oath when they have no clue as to what most of they mean.
Most of have used "professionals" relying upon them to know whether or not these returns are "true and correct".
Then we bind our souls to this nonsense by signing the 1040 they are true, correct, and complete":
How would you know?
The fact is that there are very few, if any people who could lawfully swear to that statement.
If you swear that the return is true, when you aren't sure if you owed the tax, you become a liar.
Are you going to swear that the returns are correct?
How would you know that?
What if you're wrong?
How are you going to prove that you aren't a liar?
Are they complete? Is the so-called "tax professional" competent? You really don't know that either, since most of us isn’t aware that these codes don't apply to us in the first place.
What if you forget a form or a schedule?
How are you going to prove that you didn't lie?
Do you really want to put your signature, which is coming from your mind and soul onto a document that has a high probability of falsehood and error?
If you're a Christian, do you want to disobey the clear statement of the Messiah? If you're not a Christian, do you want to bind your soul to a bond based upon a fraud? If you are an atheist, why would you swear an oath to a god that you don't believe in?
However, this is a choice than one has to make in the face of a lot of adversity from "government" circles. We are continually pressured to give up our signatures on papers that we don't really understand.
Before you give up your signature or swear any oaths, consider what it is that you are doing. A man cannot be compelled to do an act which he thinks is an act against the wishes of God.
Many of us have never understood the implications of swearing an oath. Most of us at one time or another have sworn oaths, and most of us don't really understand the implications of such an action. In many instances, government forms and ones from other entities shove papers in front of us to be attested to by a sworn statement.
BAMAJiPS
01-08-13, 06:10 PM
The simpler conclusion is usually best and true. However it helps to be able to make out patterns in the noise. Learn Rules of Evidence (http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/350/rule804.jpg) first and enjoy learning. Find pleasure in grasping so many interesting items of fact that it is exactly that - noise. A technician considers a complex waveform of more than three or four frequencies "noise". This is the disruptive waveform for Swine Flu (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImQTl2UG5GU2pfQjQ). Look at the image as you listen and see if you can find the five frequencies with your ear. [Synchronicity (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImTTVKRHRLM1c2bjQ) - BBC World News at 3:00 am MST.] When I look at Holonation images however, I can only see the inverted image - this Burning Bush (http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2104/burningbush.jpg) looks to me like somebody punched a piece of soft clay. I wonder if that is something to be considered.
An aside - Talk about picking out frequencies in the noise... I was trained at a young age in acoustic analysis. (I was a Sonar Technician in the Navy) Its a fascinating study. I was actually the first student to get a 100% comprehension on oceanography and sound propagation in water (blowing on my fingernails). Picking out frequencies in water was quite the chore, but you learn to look for certain frequencies and then look for the harmonics off the main frequencies. We used to sit with headphones on and listen to underwater noise. We could tap our fingers and get a turn count (a prop shaft turning in the water) and by determining the number of turns in a minute, we could calculate the engine RPM's, number of blades on the prop, etc and determine fairly accurately what we were listening to. The art is dying off in the Navy due to advanced electronics and satelite technologies following pretty much all ship movements in the world. I guess Im saying I can appreciate your analogy on the technical side of things about tuning out the noise. Nifty.
Bob Conlon
01-08-13, 07:13 PM
[QUOTE=stoneFree;9199]David! Thank you for this thread. I had lost track of that fascinating bank letter. Do you happen to know what "appropriate steps" Mr. [Redacted] followed to object to the release of bank records?[/QUOTE
Hi David, Where should a beginner start with the process? Is this Admiralty? The IRS is coming after me bigtime and I must learn to defend myself using techniques that work. Any suggestions?
Thanks, Bob Conlon
Just wanted to share....I finally opened a new non-interest account with US Bank and signed the form with my demand "all transactions, demand for lawful money 12USC § 411" and signed it "True Name-All Rights Reserved".
The girl helping me didn't bat an eye or ask any questions, couldn't have been easier! I asked for copies of both accounts, ( it seems they make you open a Savings as well , so I put $25 in it.) she was happy to oblige..... Thanks to all here.
David Merrill
01-08-13, 09:22 PM
[QUOTE=stoneFree;9199]David! Thank you for this thread. I had lost track of that fascinating bank letter. Do you happen to know what "appropriate steps" Mr. [Redacted] followed to object to the release of bank records?[/QUOTE
Hi David, Where should a beginner start with the process? Is this Admiralty? The IRS is coming after me bigtime and I must learn to defend myself using techniques that work. Any suggestions?
Thanks, Bob Conlon
The Lesson Plan around here evolved around 1) true name identity 2) Record Forming (Libel of Review (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf)) and 3) redeeming lawful money.
LearnTheLaw
01-09-13, 03:22 AM
This "Remedy" provides a valid legal mechanism to reserve a fundamental, common law right which you possess. Under the common law, you enjoy the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement which you did not enter knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily." Hummm!
IRS Form 1040:
Let's look for a moment at the statement at the IRS 1040 in the "Sign Here" section.
Under the penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.
"Under the penalties of perjury,": This becomes a sworn document when it is signed.
If a person makes one mistake on the form, he can be criminally prosecuted and would have to prove that he didn't lie. Most people are confused and don't know that this tax does not apply to them. If they fill it out, they are not telling the truth.
So if a man/woman fills out this return and fully complies with the IRS's agenda, they are lying on the record. Assuming the tax code applied to all of us, to swear an oath that the forms and schedules are correct, even to the best of one's knowledge, puts a person in an extremely compromising position because "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
One is also put into a position of testifying against himself and issuing a sworn document that could possibly incriminate himself in the future.
Signing an IRS form under the penalties of perjury violates the most basic rights of a free man, And on top of all that, one is binding his soul to it.
"I declare that have examined this return....." Did you? Really?
When you filed the return, do you really know what you were doing?
Did you know all the ins and outs of over 9000+ pages of tax code?
Do you really know if you are subject to the tax code?
Do you know if you are a U.S. citizen?
Do you really understand the territorial jurisdiction of the US Code?
Did you really have "gross income"?
Did you really know if you had taxable income?
Did you know for sure if you are an "employee" or an "employee"?
If you get 100 Certified Public Accountants together in one room, with the same information on an example of a taxpayer, no one will come up with the same answer, yet people readily sign these returns under oath when they have no clue as to what most of they mean.
Most of have used "professionals" relying upon them to know whether or not these returns are "true and correct".
Then we bind our souls to this nonsense by signing the 1040 they are true, correct, and complete":
How would you know?
The fact is that there are very few, if any people who could lawfully swear to that statement.
If you swear that the return is true, when you aren't sure if you owed the tax, you become a liar.
Are you going to swear that the returns are correct?
How would you know that?
What if you're wrong?
How are you going to prove that you aren't a liar?
Are they complete? Is the so-called "tax professional" competent? You really don't know that either, since most of us isn’t aware that these codes don't apply to us in the first place.
What if you forget a form or a schedule?
How are you going to prove that you didn't lie?
Do you really want to put your signature, which is coming from your mind and soul onto a document that has a high probability of falsehood and error?
If you're a Christian, do you want to disobey the clear statement of the Messiah? If you're not a Christian, do you want to bind your soul to a bond based upon a fraud? If you are an atheist, why would you swear an oath to a god that you don't believe in?
However, this is a choice than one has to make in the face of a lot of adversity from "government" circles. We are continually pressured to give up our signatures on papers that we don't really understand.
Before you give up your signature or swear any oaths, consider what it is that you are doing. A man cannot be compelled to do an act which he thinks is an act against the wishes of God.
Many of us have never understood the implications of swearing an oath. Most of us at one time or another have sworn oaths, and most of us don't really understand the implications of such an action. In many instances, government forms and ones from other entities shove papers in front of us to be attested to by a sworn statement.
That is why this SC decision is so important.
Remember, this means ALL rights must be waved voluntarily.
"Waivers of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences."
[Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970)]
But I wonder if auntie has some magical penalty waiting for anyone daring to sign his name with "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" on a 1040?? Has anyone done this?
BAMAJiPS
01-09-13, 04:35 AM
Wouldn't signing a 1040 "Under duress" be more prudent?
Well, that would apply also, wouldn't it?
I mean, you are compelled to file a 1040, or so auntie would have you believe...
But reserving your rights would also protect you from entering into a contract with unknown obligations....correct?
BAMAJiPS
01-09-13, 06:37 AM
I find it alarming that you have to sign a document that in and of itself perjures you either way. I think it is more under duress because if you dont sign it then theoretically you go to jail.
IRS sucks
shikamaru
01-09-13, 10:47 AM
I find it alarming that you have to sign a document that in and of itself perjures you either way. I think it is more under duress because if you dont sign it then theoretically you go to jail.
IRS sucks
The power of declaration used, yet again, to cut oneself .... en manu
Sword declaration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sworn_declaration)
I've seen such footers on bank forms too.
David Merrill
01-09-13, 02:30 PM
I remember long ago I went for a meeting - I think it was an audit. I had notified the agent at least ten days prior that I would be recording the meeting and so he could not stop me according to some rule somewhere. I was formally escorted in past the lobby. He wanted to create the illusion I was being detained when he got angry and said, Wait here! He got up and slammed the door to the tiny office behind him. I gave him a few seconds and left the office and meandered around the cubicle area, found a drinking fountain an so forth - basically enjoying myself in an obviously prohibited area with access to computers etc. I watched from the far end as he returned to the office with a Supervisor or whoever and discovered me gone. They spotted me and looked a little alarmed that instead of detaining me they had let me loose in the office cubicles.
Thanks Shikamaru.
Like you say, it may come in useful. At the very least make sure the IRS has a judicial summons (http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1001/bobschulzrevealingappea.jpg) before submitting. Interestingly even that does not mean one must open the records?
That reminds me of my jury summons many years ago. I went fifteen minutes early and looked up the statutes and found out that all I had to do was be there. I did not answer the questionaires any more than filling in the information they had on the summons.
Well, I might have celebrated to early.... the bank called today to ask to come in and resign the signature card....UGH! I explained (calmly) to them that it was within my rights to sign it that way, if they can cite a law that says that I can't sign it that way..then I will sign a new card or cancel the account.
All comments Welcome
Maybe an answer is in here or maybe a contact number might answer some questions.
https://www.tcul.coop/sites/25043ee8-a7e7-4aeb-8304-a91b5e7553c9/uploads/Understanding_Sig_Cards_10_29_08_Handouts.pdf
And it never fails who is involved: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-cyanide-homicide-0110-20130110,0,2479887.story
Thanks for the info Chex... the pdf seems to be a guide that the banks are to follow, in other words.. the sig card shouldn't be accepted if altered.
As an Update to my experience with US bank.... they said that they needed to have me re sign the sig card....I refused....they closed the account! Nice, huh?
I'm thinking of just getting my Demand notarized and put on record and send a copy to my current bank and the local FED bank. Trying to get the demand on a sig card seems like it will be an uphill battle at any bank...
David Merrill
01-10-13, 11:57 PM
Well, I might have celebrated to early.... the bank called today to ask to come in and resign the signature card....UGH! I explained (calmly) to them that it was within my rights to sign it that way, if they can cite a law that says that I can't sign it that way..then I will sign a new card or cancel the account.
All comments Welcome
If it has been more than about three days the novation sticks. The attorneys probably got that call in within the three days?
They are trying to make you cancel the account. You have agreed to verbally now (if they show you a law). I would not have done that. You can tell them you changed your mind. You like the account and the signature card the way they are. But I would not bother. Just keep on using the account like regular...
Wait a minute; is it an interest-bearing account? They might have to change that to non-interest-bearing. You are not granting the benefit of fractional lending so they should not be compelled to give you the benefit of interest. That might be what they are standing on for a cause to reject the non-endorsement.
Look at your papers and get back to us please.
Thanks for the reply David, No it was non-interest bearing checking, but they do make you open a savings as well...I put $25 dollars in it. I signed cards for both accounts. I opened the accounts yesterday morning, they called me in the afternoon. I felt bad for the girl I was working with, she was accommodating and apologetic, she was caught in the middle. Yes, I probably shouldn't have agreed verbally to shut the account down, as they were demanding a new sig card....live and learn.... They could not produce a law either.
EZrhythm
01-11-13, 03:31 AM
Well, I might have celebrated to early.... the bank called today to ask to come in and resign the signature card....UGH! I explained (calmly) to them that it was within my rights to sign it that way, if they can cite a law that says that I can't sign it that way..then I will sign a new card or cancel the account.
All comments Welcome
EXCELLENT! You may also ask them if they are attempting to give you legal advice or represent you. ;-) You may advise them about "practicing law without a license". LOL
don't go,
what can they do?
Well today I logged on to my account..it was still open.
So I called my contact at the bank and she apologized and said she would close it today...I told her I changed my mind and leave it open. She asked if I was going to come in and resign the sig card, I said "no, your legal department could not cite any legal authority to prevent me from annotating the card.... because it is the law...I also pointed out that what we have is a valid contract.
She said they may have to close the account without a resigned card. I replied that they would have to be the ones to close the account and I am not going to resign a valid contract.
David Merrill
01-12-13, 01:48 AM
Well today I logged on to my account..it was still open.
So I called my contact at the bank and she apologized and said she would close it today...I told her I changed my mind and leave it open. She asked if I was going to come in and resign the sig card, I said "no, your legal department could not cite any legal authority to prevent me from annotating the card.... because it is the law...I also pointed out that what we have is a valid contract.
She said they may have to close the account without a resigned card. I replied that they would have to be the ones to close the account and I am not going to resign a valid contract.
Thanks! The only problem I see is that you called her. Technically I feel that you made an appearance. Now she has notified you that she might close the account without your consent and that notice is verbal so it is difficult for you to R4C. There are plenty of banks though and kind of a shame on that bank if you have to go through this again down the street.
Did you inquire of the papers about interest?
Also there is some freeware called ROP (for Record on Phone - obviously Chinese). If you use a landline it records well through the modem connector.
Well, I will see how it plays out, I informed her that I had informed my bosses CPA that I had changed banks and they direct deposit on the 15 and 30....the 15th falls on Tuesday...she said she would wait until the deposit comes through.
I could call the CPA Monday and revert back to my old account.
Do you think a general Demand, notarized and registered with the County Recorder, and send copies to the local FED branch and my old bank would suffice?
David Merrill
01-12-13, 09:18 AM
Well, I will see how it plays out, I informed her that I had informed my bosses CPA that I had changed banks and they direct deposit on the 15 and 30....the 15th falls on Tuesday...she said she would wait until the deposit comes through.
I could call the CPA Monday and revert back to my old account.
Do you think a general Demand, notarized and registered with the County Recorder, and send copies to the local FED branch and my old bank would suffice?
This is probably a case of "next time". You can likely wait until the deposit is rejected because it never will be rejected. Following the brain trust shows that one bank fired employees because they were making general deposits instead of special deposits in a similar situation. They closed down several accounts but they had lost a lot of money after ignoring the non-endorsements. This bank administrator has an obligation to stockholders not to be shutting down accounts when you are doing nothing wrong - for just demanding lawful money.
You might freshen up on a Notice and Demand (http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2922/noticeanddemand2012.pdf) of some sort. I think in the future we might have to settle for affidavits of due diligence. One suitor tried a Fed branch and then a Major 12 and they are rejecting process from the professional server. That may be a trend. But you see we have them concerned when they have shut down receiving process. The Fed is not a governmental agency. They are behaving like the UN Campus on Manhattan, like they are international soil too.
This is probably a case of "next time". You can likely wait until the deposit is rejected because it never will be rejected. Following the brain trust shows that one bank fired employees because they were making general deposits instead of special deposits in a similar situation. They closed down several accounts but they had lost a lot of money after ignoring the non-endorsements. This bank administrator has an obligation to stockholders not to be shutting down accounts when you are doing nothing wrong - for just demanding lawful money.
You might freshen up on a Notice and Demand (http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2922/noticeanddemand2012.pdf) of some sort. I think in the future we might have to settle for affidavits of due diligence. One suitor tried a Fed branch and then a Major 12 and they are rejecting process from the professional server. That may be a trend. But you see we have them concerned when they have shut down receiving process. The Fed is not a governmental agency. They are behaving like the UN Campus on Manhattan, like they are international soil too.
It is amazing to me that they can reject a demand that they are obligated to receive and process. What a lawless bunch to even to go as far as rejecting service!
David Merrill
01-12-13, 08:47 PM
It is amazing to me that they can reject a demand that they are obligated to receive and process. What a lawless bunch to even to go as far as rejecting service!
As best I can tell the only basis would be interest. If you change your standing Signature Card on an interest-bearing account be sure to specify that you want it adjusted to a non-interest bearing account.
LearnTheLaw
01-12-13, 10:01 PM
Too all Suitors,
I may be wrong with my thinking below, so please feel free to correct me if I am.
They have told you that you MUST sign the signature card relinquishing your UNALIENABLE RIGHTS and succumb to being a 14th amendment statutory debt slave in order to open a bank account.
Further more they are demanding that you enter into a contract with the Federal Reserve and endorse private credit.
Basically, you are being COERCED into surrendering your 13th amendment rights into INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, then DECEIVED into contract with the IMF and forced to participate in a HIDDEN BANKRUPTCY and FRAUD against the people of the united states for america.
I have to wonder how the banks legal dept would feel about their employees committing such atrocities against their customers.
================================================== ================================================== ================
R.I.C.O.
“racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents)
finish reading here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961
================================================== ================================================== ===============
31 CFR §202.2: All banks that are FDIC insured are considered to be part of the U.S. government! --- Use this regulation in combination with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. §552a) to request information from banks! Also force the banks to follow the Constitution when they try to force you to incriminate yourself by providing an SSN to open an account!
202.2
Designations.
(a) Financial institutions of the following classes are designated as Depositaries and Financial Agents of the Government if they meet the eligibility requirements stated in paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) Financial institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
(2) Credit unions insured by the National Credit Union Administration.
(3) Banks, savings banks, savings and loan, building and loan, and homestead associations, credit unions created under the laws of any State, the deposits or accounts of which are insured by a State or agency thereof or by a corporation chartered by a State for the sole purpose of insuring deposits or accounts of such financial institutions, United States branches of foreign banking corporations authorized by the State in which they are located to transact commercial banking business, and Federal branches of foreign banking corporations, the establishment of which has been approved by the Comptroller of the Currency.
(b) In order to be eligible for designation, a financial institution is required to possess, under its charter and the regulations issued by its chartering authority, either general or specific authority to perform the services outlined in § 202.3(b). A financial institution is required also to possess the authority to pledge collateral to secure public funds.
[44 FR 53066, Sept. 11, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 28152, May 26, 1981; 62 FR 45521, Aug. 27, 1997]
David Merrill
01-13-13, 10:22 AM
Going out on a limb here with some Crosstalk:
Dear Suitors;
I have been considering the report of being vexed by suitors being charged frivolous penalties after redeeming lawful money. I have a fairly clear memory and also filter even suitor testimony through loose rules of evidence.
It seems to me that there are to date no instances of a suitor filing a redeemed lawful money Income Tax Return and actually being fined a frivolous filing penalty. We have one suitor who a couple years ago received inappropriate threats about frivolous correspondence and interpreted that to mean there would be a $5K bill coming if the R4C’s continued. In another case a suitor resorted to a tax attorney who reported the IRS agent was threatening the $5K FrivPen by phone. The most credible evidence that somebody has been charged a frivpen on a fully executed Lawful Money Return (2011) has only received the Notice that there will be a $5K FrivPen coming some time – not an actual bill for the $5K.
The two suitors who have been dealing with FrivPens from HENDRICKSON’s Cracking the Code Zero-Returns do not come into the same category as Redeemed Lawful Money tax returns. I believe those suitors have inadvertently attracted a slur on our process because the IRS agents are looking for ways to boil HENDRICKSON’s conviction and prison stay onto redeeming lawful money process.
I would like to be kept up on any of these developments so that I may respond to such skepticism on the brain trust broadcasts with accurate information for everyone. I do not like to have one “researcher” (suitors technically have default judgments published) among us with the impression that many suitors are being charged FrivPens and casting aspersions on process, when I am under the impression that there has been no such billing infractions against Title 12 USC §411 by any IRS agents to date. Remember an actual bill is a bill of indictment against the IRS/Treasury and we can use that if it exists.
Please email to me, or us, if you have an actual bill for a FrivPen resulting from a tax return based entirely on redeeming lawful money accounting. Please consider and be willing to discuss prosecuting the IRS agent (http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9098/complaintformfederal.pdf) if you have an actual $5K bill of indictment.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Too all Suitors,
I may be wrong with my thinking below, so please feel free to correct me if I am.
They have told you that you MUST sign the signature card relinquishing your UNALIENABLE RIGHTS and succumb to being a 14th amendment statutory debt slave in order to open a bank account.
Further more they are demanding that you enter into a contract with the Federal Reserve and endorse private credit.
Basically, you are being COERCED into surrendering your 13th amendment rights into INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, then DECEIVED into contract with the IMF and forced to participate in a HIDDEN BANKRUPTCY and FRAUD against the people of the united states for america.
I have to wonder how the banks legal dept would feel about their employees committing such atrocities against their customers.
================================================== ================================================== ================
R.I.C.O.
“racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents)
finish reading here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961
================================================== ================================================== ===============
31 CFR §202.2: All banks that are FDIC insured are considered to be part of the U.S. government! --- Use this regulation in combination with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. §552a) to request information from banks! Also force the banks to follow the Constitution when they try to force you to incriminate yourself by providing an SSN to open an account!
202.2
Designations.
(a) Financial institutions of the following classes are designated as Depositaries and Financial Agents of the Government if they meet the eligibility requirements stated in paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) Financial institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
(2) Credit unions insured by the National Credit Union Administration.
(3) Banks, savings banks, savings and loan, building and loan, and homestead associations, credit unions created under the laws of any State, the deposits or accounts of which are insured by a State or agency thereof or by a corporation chartered by a State for the sole purpose of insuring deposits or accounts of such financial institutions, United States branches of foreign banking corporations authorized by the State in which they are located to transact commercial banking business, and Federal branches of foreign banking corporations, the establishment of which has been approved by the Comptroller of the Currency.
(b) In order to be eligible for designation, a financial institution is required to possess, under its charter and the regulations issued by its chartering authority, either general or specific authority to perform the services outlined in § 202.3(b). A financial institution is required also to possess the authority to pledge collateral to secure public funds.
[44 FR 53066, Sept. 11, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 28152, May 26, 1981; 62 FR 45521, Aug. 27, 1997]
Good points LTL! I did not realize the depth of the deception until I started down this road looking at missaplication of the "income Tax" and now the unseen, obligations and presumptions placed on you when you open a bank account.
Could the fact that when you open a bank account and fill out these forms and contract with the private credit of the FED RESERVE (without legal counsel or full disclosure) that this is the linch pin that puts us in the cattle pen! Think about it. I am not a U.S. Person or U.S. citizen...also note that they never define which U.S. they are talking about, remember that SCOTUS stated that there are 3 definitions of U.S.
I am a citizen of one of the several states of the united states of America.
But as LTL pointed out the simple act of opening a bank account has big consequences....giving up your Constitutional and unalienable rights, presumption that you are a "taxpayer" and a U.S. person/citizen ( how much you want to bet that it is a federal critter?) Making you a slave to be sheared and bend to the will of the Machine.
David Merrill
01-13-13, 10:34 PM
I think that the person around the SSN is likely the nexus. Redeeming lawful money though, that would seem to override any US person because it is designed for state banks.
Has anyone successfully rescinded their SSN? I know SEDM has a lengthy ( AND I MEAN LENGTHY) article and Docs on it, but I do not know of anyone claiming success.
Disengaging from your SSN, IMHO, would be a great start to combat the FED WEB. It is sticky, and when you think you have it cleaned off , you find more of it.
BAMAJiPS
01-14-13, 02:15 AM
Has anyone successfully rescinded their SSN? I know SEDM has a lengthy ( AND I MEAN LENGTHY) article and Docs on it, but I do not know of anyone claiming success.
I cant find any successful examples either. I actually called the SSA and asked if I could surrender my number. The girl on the phone said no. I AM purposing on NOT giving it out anymore when entities ask for it. If anyone can tell me they have successfully done it I will follow right behind them in the exact same manner they did!
Get the popcorn ready http://famguardian.org/Disks/TaxDVD/Multimedia/Rose,Larken/861Evidence/861.htm
Wasn't the 861 argument shot down? ( not that means that it is incorrect, the judges and auntie's counsel all derive their income from taxes, conflict of interest...you bet!!)
Didn't Irwin Schiff first make this the center of his case?
I cant find any successful examples either. I actually called the SSA and asked if I could surrender my number. The girl on the phone said no. I AM purposing on NOT giving it out anymore when entities ask for it. If anyone can tell me they have successfully done it I will follow right behind them in the exact same manner they did!
Well, it is not YOUR number, but the govs.
Dave Champion is one who says not to use it...it's not yours, BUT try to open a bank account, get a job. EVEN THOUGH YOU SHOW THEM THE LAW....Privacy Act, Patriot Act....both say "identify"... DL, Passport.
BAMAJiPS
01-14-13, 04:42 AM
Get the popcorn ready http://famguardian.org/Disks/TaxDVD/Multimedia/Rose,Larken/861Evidence/861.htm
I agree with this! BUT - I think the Feds will nab anyone they want to nab. Your only hope is a jury that can comprehend these things. Wesley Snipes apparently got nabbed on the 861 argument.
I am of the firm belief that in the end we WONT win and everything gets worse in this country until Messiah comes. Just my opinion
BAMAJiPS
01-14-13, 08:53 AM
WOW. As I've said before Marc Stevens is AMAZING! These clips are gold I think because the IRS attorney tries to go the "frivolous" route and he hammers her to where she is speechless!
http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress/?p=34391
Keith Alan
01-14-13, 01:58 PM
I'm starting to realize that citizenship, social security numbers, and all that simply don't matter. What matters is if you're receiving taxable income. If you owe them, you serve them.
Personally, I want to avoid IRS at all costs. I think just about everyone feels that way. I want to be honest, legal, and responsible to my neighbors, and I don't want to end up living under a bridge. So, I've taken a while before beginning to make demands for lawful money. Now that I'm fairly confident that the true enemy is ignorance, both on my part and on the part of my neighbors, professionals at banks, and in government, it's time to begin.
The SSN is the taxpayer ID. That is the person receiving income. The simple fact is, Social Security is a voluntary program. If I need to use it in order to cash checks, then that is what I will do. The bottom line is, servitude does not enter the picture if I demand lawful money. That is the remedy provided in the law. If it turns out to be ineffective in securing the blessings of liberty, well, then we are living in a new regime.
Keith Alan
01-14-13, 02:48 PM
I agree with this! BUT - I think the Feds will nab anyone they want to nab. Your only hope is a jury that can comprehend these things. Wesley Snipes apparently got nabbed on the 861 argument.
I am of the firm belief that in the end we WONT win and everything gets worse in this country until Messiah comes. Just my opinion
The bankruptcy was a mortal wound on Uncle Sam. In order to preserve the government (what parts that could be preserved) FDR and Congress handed over the Treasury to foreign bankers. I prefer to believe they did it out of necessity, and in the end the people went along with it. Here we are, 80 years later, the living victims of a fraud committed that long ago.
I would prefer the government doesn't completely collapse, because that will mean a new system of law. It probably won't be as amenable to justice as the present one is. Even though the regime in place is difficult to comprehend, and the people as a whole are ignorant of its internal workings, it's still built on a sound foundation. The "Saving to suitors" clause is still embedded in the law.
If things continue getting worse, it is a call to be ever more vigilant in preserving freedom. You mentioned Messiah's coming, and I am with you in that, but I believe the kingdom is within easy reach. It's only a matter of changing one's mind, and entering therein. Therefore, believers who have entered the kingdom are the lawful regents in this land.
I see it as our duty as citizens of the kingdom of heaven to stand for righteousness, even in the face of pervasive evil. Our king has shown the way: love one another. If we do that, the kingdom is made real, and evil retreats. The truth is we are already free, and we have only to act like it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH9OIIJcQM8Redemption in legal terminology refers to a seller's right to repurchase something sold by returning the purchase price to the buyer. It is often used in the context of sales of municipal bonds, shares of stock in a corporation, or foreclosures on real property, where the owner buys back property by paying off a loan, interest and any costs of foreclosure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw2s9b9mdx0
I Try To Redeem My SILVER CERTIFICATE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0s73-cTykQ
Its just a medium for exchange now because the Reserve has made it impossible for you to collect wealth due to their devaluing it on purpose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Cp6Me26JA
Why don't they get it?
Dollar vs. Note
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVeYGREnFIk
Notes VS. United States Notes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tr5BbH6X8s
PAUL vs. BEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hepidgw-l1w
Glenn Beck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB5LK-jihgk
Privately Owned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdR1kpO9sc8
In 5 minutes
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000032014
Here are some highlights!
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?417-Treasury-explains-lawful-money-in-1982
shikamaru
01-15-13, 12:30 AM
Has anyone successfully rescinded their SSN?
George Gordon
Social Security is a trust.
The easiest way to defeat a trust is to disclaim being a beneficiary as well as the benefits of the trust.
You think? The easiest way to defeat a trust is to disclaim being beneficiary as well as the benefits of the trust.
The easiest way to be the trust is to claim beneficiary benefits of the trust.
Screw these other MF ers
George Gordon
Social Security is a trust.
The easiest way to defeat a trust is to disclaim being a beneficiary as well as the benefits of the trust.
What are the steps to doing that? Do you walk away from all the FRNs stolen from your paycheck?.... That is quite a substantial amount.
I was not familiar with Gordon , so I looked him up and went to his web page. Interesting article titled "Are You a Practicing Communist?".
It seems that the FED does own everything, we are only renters/payers. We own nothing because we used the FED's credit to purchase our goods and services, house, car, furniture.... They are partner's in every transaction that we made...all from using their "notes".... But we all unknowingly did this.
Time to stop...redeem yourself and demand lawful money.
shikamaru
01-15-13, 09:39 PM
The easiest way to be the trust is to claim beneficiary benefits of the trust.
The property within the trust is the trust or trust corpus.
The parties to the trust would include beneficiaries. When the beneficiaries are all gone, the trust is dissolved.
Social Security may even be a charitable trust.
shikamaru
01-15-13, 09:44 PM
What are the steps to doing that?
Gordon rescinded his SS using Statute of Frauds
Another avenue, recommended by "the Informer", involves correcting your IMF (Individual Master File) with the IRS. This doesn't rescind the number, but you can correct it to cease being liable for income tax. The correction is administrative.
The method I would use is a miscellaneous file at a federal court house coupled with notices to all interested parties that I waive all benefits and interests to the trust and disclaim being a beneficiary. A return of the card can symbolize a token gesture. Would be a good idea closing all accounts using the identifier. Cease using it thereafter.
Forget the money put in. It went to general funds of government as soon as it was deposited.
Here's an idea: http://www.ronrunkle.com/estate%20disclaimer%20trust.htm
Propaganda for SS: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-04-27-opting-out-of-social-security_n.htm
Interesting article on some history of SS: http://dailyreckoning.com/opt-out-of-social-security/
More for discussion:
http://askville.amazon.com/opt-out-Social-Security-system/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1338366
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/435/~/opting-out-of-social-security
Social Security (FICA) tax is another excise tax ... just like income tax. Both are indirect taxes.
Perhaps there is more to the IMF than most really consider?
The SSN is also essential for processing tax forms being that number functions as an EIN/TIN for individuals.
Gordon rescinded his SS using Statute of Frauds
This makes sense, since most of us signed for the SS card when we were minors.... not able to contract. I think I was 14?
Another avenue, recommended by the Informer, involves correcting your IMF (Individual Master File) with the IRS. This doesn't rescind the number, but you can correct it to cease being liable for income tax. The correction is administrative.
I have been through Dave Minor's IMF correction...they did change my MFR, mail filing requirement to 1...no return required to be mailed or filed. They still are up to their old tricks though.
I agree, the IMF is their "system of records" , everything they do is based off of it. All transactions must first be inputted into the IMF.... it is the source.
The SS# is the mark of the beast, IMHO.
David Merrill
01-15-13, 11:05 PM
This makes sense, since most of us signed for the SS card when we were minors.... not able to contract. I think I was 14?
I have been through Dave Minor's IMF correction...they did change my MFR, mail filing requirement to 1...no return required to be mailed or filed. They still are up to their old tricks though.
I agree, the IMF is their "system of records" , everything they do is based off of it. All transactions must first be inputted into the IMF.... it is the source.
The SS# is the mark of the beast, IMHO.
The real hitch with all that, as I saw recently in to trial transcript, is the IRS agent on the stand will tell the jury that notation means that the IRS is not required to mail out the 1040 Form to the taxpayer. If you ask, the IRS agent will say he or she is qualified to decode IMF's.
Hopefully somebody reading can jog my memory about that transcript so I can find where I filed it?
shikamaru
01-15-13, 11:08 PM
I have been through Dave Minor's IMF correction...they did change my MFR, mail filing requirement to 1...no return required to be mailed or filed. They still are up to their old tricks though.
Perhaps a different method is in order?
The IMF is in code; therefore, the translation books will be in order.
Were all parties notified including government, the Pope, and Queen of England?
Well, auntie was their typical non-responsive selves per my IMF correction demands. The VAL-1 one is a major error and everyone has it in their file....it says that the TIN is incorrect for the account, so the account should be frozen until an investigation is done. Auntie is not supposed input anything into that account until the matter is cleared, BUT they do! ( the 6209 manual and the IRM have all the controlling factors written out. There is no interpretation needed, it is there in black and white for the minions to follow)
MFR-1=01 Return not required to be mailed or filed....from the 6209 manual, but I digress.
Check this out...3.17.243.2 (10-01-2009) Reversal of Erroneous Abatements
1. General - This section provides instructions for overriding Master File computer programming that prevents the reversal of abatement transactions after the Statute of Limitations for Assessment has expired.
How do you like that? They even give instructions on how to override the Master File......tampering? you bet....but I digress. A lot of this is discussed over at Codebusters. A lot of discussion about the IMF and the codes they contain.
David Merrill
01-16-13, 12:47 AM
Well, auntie was their typical non-responsive selves per my IMF correction demands. The VAL-1 one is a major error and everyone has it in their file....it says that the TIN is incorrect for the account, so the account should be frozen until an investigation is done. Auntie is not supposed input anything into that account until the matter is cleared, BUT they do! ( the 6209 manual and the IRM have all the controlling factors written out. There is no interpretation needed, it is there in black and white for the minions to follow)
MFR-1=01 Return not required to be mailed or filed....from the 6209 manual, but I digress.
Check this out...3.17.243.2 (10-01-2009) Reversal of Erroneous Abatements
1. General - This section provides instructions for overriding Master File computer programming that prevents the reversal of abatement transactions after the Statute of Limitations for Assessment has expired.
How do you like that? They even give instructions on how to override the Master File......tampering? you bet....but I digress. A lot of this is discussed over at Codebusters. A lot of discussion about the IMF and the codes they contain.
People have been pushing this IMF proposal in my direction for many years now. Here is a big hitch with it. You will never get your decryption past Rules of Evidence in tax court. Even a criminal prosecution will never let it get into evidence. - Not the decryption. So you would need to summon an IRS agent qualified to decrypt the IMF under oath on the witness stand.
That is the case I was talking about... was that Lewis Vincent (http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7595/lewisvincentacquittalwi.pdf)?
I managed to get my IMF onto the record in a TC case. The judge asked respondent,"Well it is your record, correct? admitted." Of course respondent hates it when you get their IMF on record.
This was an NOD case , but there was no code in the iMF stating that a statutory NOD had been issued (TC494). That is not my interpretation, it is the 6209 manual....their manual. As you know , no NOD, no juris. My case did not rest on this ,but many other errors. The lack of NOD in IMF was just one.
David Merrill
01-16-13, 01:00 AM
I managed to get my IMF onto the record in a TC case. The judge asked respondent,"Well it is your record, correct? admitted." Of course respondent hates it when you get their IMF on record.
This was an NOD case , but there was no code in the iMF stating that a statutory NOD had been issued (TC494). That is not my interpretation, it is the 6209 manual....their manual. As you know , no NOD, no juris. My case did not rest on this ,but many other errors. The lack of NOD in IMF was just one.
I cannot follow you because I do not know what the initials mean.
Sorry acronym hell!
NOD-Notice of Deficiency
TC- Tax Court
IMF- Individual Master File
TC494- Transaction Code 494
juris- jurisdiction
David Merrill
01-16-13, 02:06 AM
Thanks! I appreciate that.
Thanks! I appreciate that.
No problem.
Sorry, TDL @ codebusters is brilliant at decoding the IMF, But uses more acronyms than I have ever seen! So , I immediately knew what u were talking about.
Remember, the IMF is the CONTROLLING SOURCE RECORD for auntie... If a transaction code does not appear on that record, it does not exist, or was created OUTSIDE of the IMF....an illegal entry.But I digress..LOL
David Merrill
01-16-13, 10:20 AM
Lately I have heard mention of decrypting the IMF and then prosecuting for lack of Assessment Authority as stated in the IR Code.
Of course respondent hates it when you get their IMF on record.
Respondent - to a counterclaim?
Lately I have heard mention of decrypting the IMF and then prosecuting for lack of Assessment Authority as stated in the IR Code.
Of course respondent hates it when you get their IMF on record.
Respondent - to a counterclaim?
In Tax Court (BTW...I do not recommend going there!! it is for "taxpayers" only) you are the Petitioner and auntie is the Respondent.
As far as prosecuting for lack of assessment authority... did they sue the agent individually or auntie?
I have evidence that the agents in my case were not authorized to make any assessments, a FOIA showed they were clerks! You also have to be a GS9 paygrade or above.... the agents in my case were GS7.
David Merrill
01-16-13, 05:44 PM
In Tax Court (BTW...I do not recommend going there!! it is for "taxpayers" only) you are the Petitioner and auntie is the Respondent.
As far as prosecuting for lack of assessment authority... did they sue the agent individually or auntie?
I have evidence that the agents in my case were not authorized to make any assessments, a FOIA showed they were clerks! You also have to be a GS9 paygrade or above.... the agents in my case were GS7.
Yes! Counterclaim - like a Libel of Review.
Are You Lost at C? (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf)
If you are the defendant in tax court the burden of proof is upon you.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Diagram1.jpg
Ok, started to read your book, thanks for sharing. So, the IRS is acting in admiralty law collecting for the International Monetary Fund ( Funny, it has the same acronym as Individual Master File..IMF....coincidence?)??
Administrative, Civil, Criminal, Admiralty
shikamaru
01-16-13, 09:52 PM
People have been pushing this IMF proposal in my direction for many years now. Here is a big hitch with it. You will never get your decryption past Rules of Evidence in tax court. Even a criminal prosecution will never let it get into evidence. - Not the decryption. So you would need to summon an IRS agent qualified to decrypt the IMF under oath on the witness stand.
I see fixing the IMF to avoid court, not to enter it.
If one is in Tax Court beyond pleading, she or he just plead into the status of as taxpayer.
The question then becomes not if one is a liable for a tax, but how much.
shikamaru
01-16-13, 09:54 PM
Ok, started to read your book, thanks for sharing. So, the IRS is acting in admiralty law collecting for the International Monetary Fund ( Funny, it has the same acronym as Individual Master File..IMF....coincidence?)??
Administrative, Civil, Criminal, Admiralty
Not the IRS... taxes ...
Taxes have been under admiralty since before the Revolution.
This all has its roots in smuggling and avoiding the King's dues.
See it here: http://www.founding.com/the_declaration_of_i/pageID.2450/default.asp
The King could not sustain any convictions in Common Law courts of the colonists, so he moved the cases and jurisdictions to Admiralty/Vice-Admiralty/Maritime courts.
Thanks for the clarification shikamaru.
Yes, it did not take long to figure out how rigged the game was in tax court and circuit court for that matter! ....Live and learn.
I could see the writing on the wall in discovery.... The judge would go out of his way to protect Respondent, I would ask some very pointed questions...Respondent made an order for protection and the judge happily agreed. Those interrogatories never got answered.
Respondent had almost everyone one of his motions granted, even poorly written ones that had fatal flaws. It was very easy to see that they were thick as thieves. I mean they both benefit from the money they are collecting! I found the same in Circuit court, it was a sad realization.
I have lost all faith in our court system....there is no justice, best to stay out of the court systems.
You just know that something else is going on.
Reading the Sugar Act and "Are you lost at Sea?" has confirmed this.
28 USC § 1333 - Admiralty, maritime and prize cases
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:
(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.
(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.
Emphasis mine.
PS- I apologize, I realize I am late to the game!
The King could not sustain any convictions in Common Law courts of the colonists, so he moved the cases and jurisdictions to Admiralty/Vice-Admiralty/Maritime courts.
Ok, thought about this. What would prevent the King to buy off the judges , just as what is happening today? I think that is a fair question. The judges and Counsel share in the spoils, do they not?
David Merrill
01-17-13, 10:05 AM
Ok, thought about this. What would prevent the King to buy off the judges , just as what is happening today? I think that is a fair question. The judges and Counsel share in the spoils, do they not?
The judges are recused for being taxpayers.
You may be saying the exact same thing from a fresh perspective.
shikamaru
01-17-13, 01:30 PM
Ok, thought about this. What would prevent the King to buy off the judges , just as what is happening today? I think that is a fair question. The judges and Counsel share in the spoils, do they not?
The judges in the colonies were non-attorneys for the most part at the time.
The BAR had a very slow and rough going establishing themselves here in the States for nearly 200 years.
That's the reason why smuggling and tax cases were moved to Admiralty/Vice-Admiralty/Maritime courts.
Furthermore, the judges made extra via a percentage of whatever penalties, fines, amercements, and other collections assessed against defendants.
During colonial times, there is tinge of courts martial to the Admiralty/Vice-Admiralty/Maritime courts being the power of these courts in England arose out of the office of Lord High Admiral of the English Navy.
In time, the power and jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral with regard to courts were eventually transferred to the Lord Commissioners of the Admiralty ..... members of the Board of Admiralty.
The commissioners in colonial times were customs agents (and collection officers).
Being the colonies were foreign to the lands of England, I would think it natural that Admiralty courts would address and adjudicate matters of their overseas possessions.
Check out the Board of Trade and Foreign Plantations, Board of Tax, and Vice-Admiralty courts sometime in your readings in history with respect to the American colonies.
Have you noticed that many of your taxing jurisdictions have Boards of Tax themselves under such titles as Boards of Review, Tax Franchise Board, etc.?
David Merrill
01-17-13, 03:12 PM
Inventing America (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImRGlwNEtRNnlZMHc/edit) by Garry WILLS is a good read about this too.
David, what was the outcome of the petition filed at the end of "Are you Lost at C"?
It appears it was filed under admiralty jurisdiction...... I am very curious as to the outcome.
Anyone here have any experience with admiralty jurisdiction as related to the IRS?
Well, update. I received a decision in my tax court case.
Not surprisingly, the dishonorable judge ruled against me and all this came on a document with no seal and unsigned!
The judge conveniently ignored all of my evidence, never even hinted at it.
He made allegations that I was making frivolous arguments, without ever specifically identifying one of them. (because there were none)
There was no evidence offered from the IRS, even their own records showed I owed -0- and that a NOD was not issued.
He made no statement of jurisdiction.
He just spat out the IRS counsel's arguments and lies and sanctioned me heavily (which really shows how angry he was at some of my evidence and arguments)
It took him a year to make this opinion...
My question now is, can I R4C his decision?
Well, update. I received a decision in my tax court case.
Not surprisingly, the dishonorable judge ruled against me and all this came on a document with no seal and unsigned!
The judge conveniently ignored all of my evidence, never even hinted at it.
He made allegations that I was making frivolous arguments, without ever specifically identifying one of them. (because there were none)
There was no evidence offered from the IRS, even their own records showed I owed -0- and that a NOD was not issued.
He made no statement of jurisdiction.
He just spat out the IRS counsel's arguments and lies and sanctioned me heavily (which really shows how angry he was at some of my evidence and arguments)
It took him a year to make this opinion...
My question now is, can I R4C his decision?Greetings, my Friend -- sorry to hear about this development. With all due respect, i believe that "R4C" is outside the scope of TC. Imho, this is because TC (formerly called "Court of Tax Appeals") is simply an extension of auntie [IRiS]. Ime, my next step would be a M4R ("Motion for Reconsideration") identifying each and every judicial error the judge made.
Thanks TDL, good to hear from you!
This has been an eye opening experience to say the least...
You say "red" and the judge and respondent say that you said "blue"
..constantly misstate your case...thick as thieves.
They provide no statement of facts or affidavit
They provide no facts or evidence to support their allegations
Even their own records do not support their allegations
You point out that there are no facts on record that support respondent's position....that's frivolous
You point out that the court has made no statement of jurisdiction as to the subject matter in your petition...frivolous
Of Course, anything they do not want answer or feel threatened by, they will ignore or call frivolous.
I am just completely disgusted...
What's even more disgusting is that only the judges remarks will be seen, not any of my motions, petitions, interrogatories,etc...
TDL, I was thinking about your comment above about R4C not applying to TC. Don't all sanctions go back to the IRS collections and are charged as Civil Penalties?
TDL, I was thinking about your comment above about R4C not applying to TC. Don't all sanctions go back to the IRS collections and are charged as Civil Penalties?
I assume you've been "sanctioned" per IRC 6673, right? Afaik, there are 2 kinds of sanctions in play: per a court's Local Rule(s), or per statute. So if IRC 6673 is "in play" (my guess, the TC's memo would mention it), I should think that auntie will come assessn' and collectn' (read: TC240/290 posted to your MFT=55 sub-account). Otherwise, you'd have to pay the court directly, or the court would turn over this receivable to the USST for collection. On more thing: if an NFTL is already in play (TC582 in your MFT=30 sub-account), this new "debt" was just added-to/placed-on the existing lien ...
Re. R4C (i assume "refused-for-cause"), imho, is a condition-subsequent to dishonoring a negotiable instrument (see UCC-3 et seq.). Imho, the TC-memo isn't such a thing; but I could be wrong ...
Re. your TC-memo ... I'll be commenting later after I've looked over its statutory context (IRC 6214 / 7460 / 7463 / 7459 etc).
LearnTheLaw
04-27-13, 01:09 AM
all this came on a document with no seal and unsigned!
If this document is unsigned and without an official seal, is it even a legal document???
Doesn't the IRS operate with deception?
LTL, Thank you very much...that was exactly my point.
Ime (rather limited, I must admit) TC memos are not issued under Official Seal, nor signed. After looking over @ Thornberry (http://www.codebusters.org/136-t-c-16-thornberry-2011-04-19-t115.html) and Mooney (http://www.codebusters.org/mooney-vs-cir-t-c-memo-2011-35-t162.html) once again (among others), the pattern becomes quite clear. Not surprisingly, I learned that the statutory context for TC memos derives from IRC 7459 and 7460 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7459). Specifically, we're looking @ 7459(b) which provides the looked-for "backdoor" to the TC, the proverbial escape-hatch for keeping its "findings of fact ..." out of the official record, to wit:
... Subject to such conditions as the Tax Court may by rule provide, the requirements of this subsection and of section 7460 are met if findings of fact or opinion are stated orally and recorded in the transcript of the proceedings. Imho, unless you get the actual transcript (more expenses!) of the judges/panels-proceeding, you won't really know what facts / evidence the judge(s) based the ruling on. Lastly, the TC's final order should be issued under both TC-Seal & judge-signature, along with a CoS (Certificate of Service) by the Clerk.
David Merrill
04-28-13, 09:25 AM
David, what was the outcome of the petition filed at the end of "Are you Lost at C"?
It appears it was filed under admiralty jurisdiction...... I am very curious as to the outcome.
Anyone here have any experience with admiralty jurisdiction as related to the IRS?
The pilot case was filed by James Harlan in mid-to-late 1995. Jim awaited the "judge" Wiley Young DANIEL to dawn an Article III cap and send the matter to State Court for trial. That of course never happened. However Jim did note that his Notice of Federal Tax Lien was not released, it just disappeared!
Christopher Theodore
03-21-15, 05:00 PM
Wait a minute; is it an interest-bearing account? They might have to change that to non-interest-bearing. You are not granting the benefit of fractional lending so they should not be compelled to give you the benefit of interest. That might be what they are standing on for a cause to reject the non-endorsement.
They may not be able to utilize fractional lending practices, but they will certianly be able to utilize traditional lending practices.
That said, I don't think a bank has an obligation to offer anyone a cut of the interest they make from lending your money out (be it lawful money or private credit). The banks do this because they want you to bank with them and not another bank.. and you always have the option of going to another bank if you don't want to do business with them.
As more people start redeeming lawful money, there will eventualy be more competition between banks to have any money to lend, and you will see that the banks will be less willing to lose your business to another bank due to the fact they won't provide you a cut of the traditional lending interest.
Right now tho, they have plenty of uninformed people they can rely upon enabling their fractional lending practices and are trying to make the redemption of lawful money less attarctive because they can generate more interest dealing with private credit.
But consider this: If a banker can make $300,000 per year in interest loaning out someones private credit, are they really gonna wanna give up making $100,000 because people are redeeming lawful money? (thats the ratio right David? with fractional lending, they can loan out 3x what they have on hand? And with traditional lending, they can only loan out what is avaliable?)
Give it time... and don't give into the idea that you have an obligation to forfit your share of the interest banks make from loaning out your lawful money (it is actually more valuable then the private credit all things considered).
And hold fast to reality: It's not the banks doing you a favor by holding your money, its you doing them one by allowing them to make an income via loaning it out.
Magnanimously,
Christopher Theodore of the family of RHODES
P.S.
David, Nice to see you and the site are alive and well. Kindly forgive my lack of participation over the last few years, Life has kept me quite busy, and as I am sure you know, being active on these forum is quite time consuming. :-)
P.P.S. It just dawned on me this post is way off the topic of the substance of the refusal for cause. Kindly forgive that...
Christopher Theodore
03-21-15, 06:31 PM
Has anyone successfully rescinded their SSN? I know SEDM has a lengthy ( AND I MEAN LENGTHY) article and Docs on it, but I do not know of anyone claiming success.
Disengaging from your SSN, IMHO, would be a great start to combat the FED WEB. It is sticky, and when you think you have it cleaned off , you find more of it.
gdude;
David had pointed out earlier in the thread (and other threads and forums) the importance of identity. Allow me to elaborate his point a bit by using my self as an example, and then ask you a few questions.
My name is Christopher Theodore. It's what my parents called me when I was born. You will find alot of the members here refering to this as the True Name, or given name. The Family name is RHODES. RHODES existed before i was born. In law, RHODES is a type of resulting or implied trust. RHODES is properly an artificial person.
Now, when I was born, like most people, a CITIZENSHIP was created for my use, and the name of the CITIZENSHIP is CHRISTOPHER THEODORE RHODES. It is also an artificial person (some will say its a corporation, a strwaman, a trust, etc... from my research, i am quite certian that Citizen, as used in the Constitution for the United States, is technically a PUBLIC OFFICE seeing as the Constitution is the articles of incorporation for the political corporation UNITED STATES OF AMERICA). Anyways, the debate about what the CITIZENSHIP is aside, there is no debate about the fact that it is an artificial person.
In addition to the creation of the CITIZENSHIP, a social security number was aquired for it.
Now to my questions for you.
In light of the above, what purpose would rescending the ssn serve?
Why would you want to disengage it from the CITIZENSHIP?
Would it not be much simpler to ceace acting in the role of the CITIZEN (unless your are performing specific public function that require acting in this OFFICIAL capacity, like voting, or some form of public employeement, etc..), then trying to dismantel or destroy it?
I have found it is much clearer and simpler to explain that, while I have a CITIZENSHIP and it has a ssn, that I only make use of it for very specific public functions, like voting. The rest of the time, I am simply me, and my name is Christopher Theodore...and I don't have a ssn.
Granted, this may be difficult if someone has been working, doing business and signing stuff as FIRST MIDDLE LAST/LAST, FIRST MIDDLE all their lives, but once you grasp your identity, and the simplicity of the 3 seperate names and what each are, it will open up a lot of options for you in the future. It is also much easier to explain then trying to tell a Judge that "I am not the ALL CAPS NAME..." or "Saying thingks like, " I am not a strawman..." etc..
Besides, you may find there are actually times where you really want to use the CITIZENSHIP for something. It is not a bad thing, it has just been seriously misused and misunderstood over the last 100 years or so.
From my research, as best as I can tell, the office of Citizen was originally, in addition to common short term public functions like voting, it was a role intended to be a type of apprenticeship for people interested in public employeement or who wanted to hold higher offices. Apprinticeship was a very common practice when the States and the United States were founded. Also note, that many of the time stipulations found in the Constitution for holding higher offices were common lengeths of apprenticeship for most of the more advanded types of trades at that time.
Granted, being forced into an apprenticeship is a form of slavery... but, none the less, the CITIZENSHIPS remains a useful tool to the people they are created for... so long as they comprehend it (and aren't press ganged into it).
I hope this helps you get a grasp of what David Merrill (of the family of VAN PELT) was saying about identity. You seemed to not be grasping this key concept by some of the questions you were asking.Kindly forgive me if This presumption is in error.
Magnanimously,
Christopher Theodore of the family of RHODES
P.S.
One of the worst uses of the CITIZENSHIP I see people commonly use, is holding their propery in it. Better, in mho, is to hold it in the FAMILY name, or ones True Name, or a private trust.
P.P.S.
I think if you, acting in the role of CITIZEN, try to r4c anything, you will get into trouble. Again, from my research, i honestly find it is a role akin to an apprentice, and the way the citizenry is treated is consistent with this paradigm. Why else would a public servant dare to treat you as a subordinate?
Clueless Tax Agent? No, There Just Isn't Any Evidence Laws Apply - MarcStevens.net (http://marcstevens.net/articles/clueless-tax-agent-no-just-isnt-evidence-laws-apply.html)
What is a U.S. person? From http://www.cba.ca/en/consumer-information/40-banking-basics/597-fatca-and-the-canada-us-intergovernmental-agreement-iga-information-for-clients-
According to U.S. tax law, you may be considered a U.S. person if you are:
• A citizen of the U.S. (including an individual born in the U.S. but resident in Canada or another country, who has not renounced U.S. citizenship);
• A lawful resident of the U.S. (including a U.S. green card holder)
• A person residing in the U.S.
You may also be considered a U.S. person if you spend a considerable amount of time in the U.S. on a yearly basis. If you are unsure if this affects you, contact your tax advisor.
U.S. corporations, estates and trusts may also be considered U.S. persons.
U.S. persons generally have an obligation to file annual tax returns and other information with the U.S. government.
For more information about these U.S. tax obligations, visit the IRS website at the following link or speak to your tax advisor.
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/U.S.-Citizens-and-Resident-Aliens-Abroad
itsmymoney
08-09-15, 10:31 PM
Going out on a limb here with some Crosstalk:
Dear Suitors;
I have been considering the report of being vexed by suitors being charged frivolous penalties after redeeming lawful money. I have a fairly clear memory and also filter even suitor testimony through loose rules of evidence.
It seems to me that there are to date no instances of a suitor filing a redeemed lawful money Income Tax Return and actually being fined a frivolous filing penalty. We have one suitor who a couple years ago received inappropriate threats about frivolous correspondence and interpreted that to mean there would be a $5K bill coming if the R4C’s continued. In another case a suitor resorted to a tax attorney who reported the IRS agent was threatening the $5K FrivPen by phone. The most credible evidence that somebody has been charged a frivpen on a fully executed Lawful Money Return (2011) has only received the Notice that there will be a $5K FrivPen coming some time – not an actual bill for the $5K.
The two suitors who have been dealing with FrivPens from HENDRICKSON’s Cracking the Code Zero-Returns do not come into the same category as Redeemed Lawful Money tax returns. I believe those suitors have inadvertently attracted a slur on our process because the IRS agents are looking for ways to boil HENDRICKSON’s conviction and prison stay onto redeeming lawful money process.
I would like to be kept up on any of these developments so that I may respond to such skepticism on the brain trust broadcasts with accurate information for everyone. I do not like to have one “researcher” (suitors technically have default judgments published) among us with the impression that many suitors are being charged FrivPens and casting aspersions on process, when I am under the impression that there has been no such billing infractions against Title 12 USC §411 by any IRS agents to date. Remember an actual bill is a bill of indictment against the IRS/Treasury and we can use that if it exists.
Please email to me, or us, if you have an actual bill for a FrivPen resulting from a tax return based entirely on redeeming lawful money accounting. Please consider and be willing to discuss prosecuting the IRS agent if you have an actual $5K bill of indictment.
Regards,
David Merrill.
David,
Not sure if my current situation fits your criteria in your above post, but in a nutshell here are the bullets...
1) Filed normal return (no LM deduction at all) due to other circumstances where I had to file this return post haste; I was duly paid the refund.
2) Then I filed an Amended 1040x with a LM deduction.
3) Received 3176C letter saying that I have filed a 'frivolous return'. No specifics (never are) on 'what' is 'frivolous'.
4) Back in May due to a sudden illness in family I had to fly out of state and hastily drafted my response that morning before I left, accepting an option in their letter to rescind the 'frivolous return' to abate the penalty, and send a 'corrected return'. The 'corrected return' was the original already filed so I stated that I denied any frivolous return or position but will rescind the return to avoid the penalty, and that the original return is the standing return. Messy yes, but there was much stress on me that morning and I thought I might default if I could not send 'something', so that was the hasty choice. Very bad timing though, given my ill father.
5) Two days ago I got a CP15 'Notice of 5k Penalty Due' for that presumed (they didn't specified which) Amended 1040x LM return.
So here we are. I have about 8 days to respond or default. I am considering R4C but I need to learn more about how to employ that. They lied on the terms of the 3176C, and regardless I don't believe the 1040x LM return is frivolous. I have the proof of the novated checks and deposit slips via publishing the cloud storage link on the 1040x so they could view the evidence. If they even looked at the evidence; in which case they not only ignored it but are trying to extort me AGAIN.
I have also spelled out this situation starting at post #6 in this topic...
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1682-Lawful-Money-Stops-IRS-Proposal
Thank you, and I'd like to hear your thoughts here.
imm
David Merrill
08-10-15, 09:55 AM
David,
Not sure if my current situation fits your criteria in your above post, but in a nutshell here are the bullets...
1) Filed normal return (no LM deduction at all) due to other circumstances where I had to file this return post haste; I was duly paid the refund.
2) Then I filed an Amended 1040x with a LM deduction.
3) Received 3176C letter saying that I have filed a 'frivolous return'. No specifics (never are) on 'what' is 'frivolous'.
4) Back in May due to a sudden illness in family I had to fly out of state and hastily drafted my response that morning before I left, accepting an option in their letter to rescind the 'frivolous return' to abate the penalty, and send a 'corrected return'. The 'corrected return' was the original already filed so I stated that I denied any frivolous return or position but will rescind the return to avoid the penalty, and that the original return is the standing return. Messy yes, but there was much stress on me that morning and I thought I might default if I could not send 'something', so that was the hasty choice. Very bad timing though, given my ill father.
5) Two days ago I got a CP15 'Notice of 5k Penalty Due' for that presumed (they didn't specified which) Amended 1040x LM return.
So here we are. I have about 8 days to respond or default. I am considering R4C but I need to learn more about how to employ that. They lied on the terms of the 3176C, and regardless I don't believe the 1040x LM return is frivolous. I have the proof of the novated checks and deposit slips via publishing the cloud storage link on the 1040x so they could view the evidence. If they even looked at the evidence; in which case they not only ignored it but are trying to extort me AGAIN.
I have also spelled out this situation starting at post #6 in this topic...
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1682-Lawful-Money-Stops-IRS-Proposal
Thank you, and I'd like to hear your thoughts here.
imm
Greetings;
Please forgive me if I am mistaken but I believe you are an intrepid member here who redeems lawful money upon perceptions gained here on the forums. Some members have been through the Lesson Plan.
The Lesson Plan involves:
1) True Identity
2) (administrative) Record Forming
3) Redeeming Lawful Money
While I enjoy that people apply and often have great success learning from the website, it looks like you may have benefited from a more well-rounded approach. That is to say Steps 1) and 2) of the Lesson Plan may be missing from your conversation with the IRS attorneys. These attorneys may be looking for somebody like you who has made an appearance and it would seem, that you have appeared in the subjective (subjugation) form offered by the projectors of the illusion.
Fear is always illusion. The IRS agents are misled by fraudulent omissions by the IRS attorneys to prod you into reacting fearfully with $5K and $10K frivolous penalty letters and from there the paper system is designed to keep you reacting. Sometimes this system is exacerbated by the State taxation and especially with California's State Franchise Board, the state system of policies seems independent of the US' Federal Reserve's IRS Code.
Mainly it would seem that you lack in an evidence repository. The evidence repository is a Libel of Review or even a Miscellaneous Case file in the federal courthouse so that your Refusals for Cause are published on PACER. I do not direct anybody to any particular suitor but your thought processes might guide you... Trained attorneys will usually pick up on how you are now a court of record and there is authority there; you are already publishing a Finding of Fact and the IRS testimony is going on the record.
As indicated that you are feeling bound to their forms and deadlines it would seem at first blush that you have fallen into the routine of being frightened into reacting to their presentments, rather than non-responsive Refusals for Cause timely on presentments. Sadly, the reaction process not only turns out badly for you but it also looks to others as though the non-endorsement redemption of lawful money is ineffective against IRS persecution.
I recall when we were children we played with a lawnmower. Stupid as it sounds we were daring each other to kill the running lawnmower by grabbing and shorting the spark plug. Dangerous as it was one quickly learned that you had to commit to fully becoming an electrical conduit, preferred to just pussyfooting around, or of course just watching and risk the peer pressure of being chicken. Becoming a court of record is kind of like that. You have to publish it for all to see. You might, however redact any SSN and even the home mailing address and phone number too.
At this point, and at a glance from a couple posts, that is what I would suggest. You should open up an evidence repository showing how long you have been redeeming lawful money and publish simple Refusals for Cause in it. No need to explain any more than the facts. The evidence repository is more for the IRS testimony than your testimony. Picture some day you will explain your claim to a jury. You were redeeming lawful money and holding the IRS to behave honorably. When the IRS agents began issuing papers anyway, then you opened an evidence repository to establish that you redeem lawful money and began R4C process.
Finding of fact. Make it easy on this hypothetical jury. All you will need to do is open your evidence repository for them to read.
Regards,
David Merrill.
allodial
08-10-15, 08:34 PM
Fear is always illusion. The IRS agents are misled by fraudulent omissions by the IRS attorneys to prod you into reacting fearfully with $5K and $10K frivolous penalty letters and from there the paper system is designed to keep you reacting. Sometimes this system is exacerbated by the State taxation and especially with California's State Franchise Board, the state system of policies seems independent of the US' Federal Reserve's IRS Code.
The State revenue agencies at times have seemed more like willing captives to the FRB Franchise eager to get their share of crumbs from the Fed table. Similarly in there is the arrangement in Canada, except the sales and use tax are reserved to the States. Even the State of California FTB probably has an EIN.
itsmymoney
08-10-15, 09:02 PM
Greetings;
Please forgive me if I am mistaken but I believe you are an intrepid member here who redeems lawful money upon perceptions gained here on the forums. Some members have been through the Lesson Plan.
The Lesson Plan involves:
1) True Identity
2) (administrative) Record Forming
3) Redeeming Lawful Money
While I enjoy that people apply and often have great success learning from the website, it looks like you may have benefited from a more well-rounded approach. That is to say Steps 1) and 2) of the Lesson Plan may be missing from your conversation with the IRS attorneys. These attorneys may be looking for somebody like you who has made an appearance and it would seem, that you have appeared in the subjective (subjugation) form offered by the projectors of the illusion.
Fear is always illusion. The IRS agents are misled by fraudulent omissions by the IRS attorneys to prod you into reacting fearfully with $5K and $10K frivolous penalty letters and from there the paper system is designed to keep you reacting. Sometimes this system is exacerbated by the State taxation and especially with California's State Franchise Board, the state system of policies seems independent of the US' Federal Reserve's IRS Code.
Mainly it would seem that you lack in an evidence repository. The evidence repository is a Libel of Review or even a Miscellaneous Case file in the federal courthouse so that your Refusals for Cause are published on PACER. I do not direct anybody to any particular suitor but your thought processes might guide you... Trained attorneys will usually pick up on how you are now a court of record and there is authority there; you are already publishing a Finding of Fact and the IRS testimony is going on the record.
As indicated that you are feeling bound to their forms and deadlines it would seem at first blush that you have fallen into the routine of being frightened into reacting to their presentments, rather than non-responsive Refusals for Cause timely on presentments. Sadly, the reaction process not only turns out badly for you but it also looks to others as though the non-endorsement redemption of lawful money is ineffective against IRS persecution.
I recall when we were children we played with a lawnmower. Stupid as it sounds we were daring each other to kill the running lawnmower by grabbing and shorting the spark plug. Dangerous as it was one quickly learned that you had to commit to fully becoming an electrical conduit, preferred to just pussyfooting around, or of course just watching and risk the peer pressure of being chicken. Becoming a court of record is kind of like that. You have to publish it for all to see. You might, however redact any SSN and even the home mailing address and phone number too.
At this point, and at a glance from a couple posts, that is what I would suggest. You should open up an evidence repository showing how long you have been redeeming lawful money and publish simple Refusals for Cause in it. No need to explain any more than the facts. The evidence repository is more for the IRS testimony than your testimony. Picture some day you will explain your claim to a jury. You were redeeming lawful money and holding the IRS to behave honorably. When the IRS agents began issuing papers anyway, then you opened an evidence repository to establish that you redeem lawful money and began R4C process.
Finding of fact. Make it easy on this hypothetical jury. All you will need to do is open your evidence repository for them to read.
Regards,
David Merrill.
David,
Thanks for the detail and for responding so quickly.
Some clarification about the Lesson Plan: " Step 1 (yes, I have not been signing True Name but will now); Steps 2 and 3 are established. I do have an evidence repository with the County Recorder that is a Miscellaneous Case file of my affidavit for redeeming lawful money. It was created and recorded before I started demanding lawful money, which has been for 2.5 years. I do not have a LOR or R4C at the moment. I have the checks/deposit slips of all LM transactions maintained at home, but not in the evidence repository. I presume I need to file these copies at the County in the repository?
DM said...
"As indicated that you are feeling bound to their forms and deadlines it would seem at first blush that you have fallen into the routine of being frightened into reacting to their presentments, rather than non-responsive Refusals for Cause timely on presentments. Sadly, the reaction process not only turns out badly for you but it also looks to others as though the non-endorsement redemption of lawful money is ineffective against IRS persecution."
Is it proper to send the R4C in response to the CP15 'Pay up' letter (their 'presentment')? I'm presuming I need to first record the R4C as an addendum to my already-established Misc Case File at the County. I'll search for a template of an R4C.
Would appreciate if possible, a follow up on the questions posed above. Thank you.
Regards,
imm
David, Sadly, the reaction process not only turns out badly for you but it also looks to others as though the non-endorsement redemption of lawful money is ineffective against IRS persecution."
IMM it not David's law he only showed what other people have been missing; as far as the IRS goes their in no position to make a judicial decision, it might been a different story if you have to go to court; is the judge and the prosecutor going to go against the law? There are forms for that too.
David Merrill
08-11-15, 06:03 AM
The State revenue agencies at times have seemed more like willing captives to the FRB Franchise eager to get their share of crumbs from the Fed table. Similarly in there is the arrangement in Canada, except the sales and use tax are reserved to the States. Even the State of California FTB probably has an EIN.
Sometimes even to the point that when states are not getting enough federal crumbs, the threat of revolt brings in returns again.
David,
Thanks for the detail and for responding so quickly.
Some clarification about the Lesson Plan: " Step 1 (yes, I have not been signing True Name but will now); Steps 2 and 3 are established. I do have an evidence repository with the County Recorder that is a Miscellaneous Case file of my affidavit for redeeming lawful money. It was created and recorded before I started demanding lawful money, which has been for 2.5 years. I do not have a LOR or R4C at the moment. I have the checks/deposit slips of all LM transactions maintained at home, but not in the evidence repository. I presume I need to file these copies at the County in the repository?
DM said...
"As indicated that you are feeling bound to their forms and deadlines it would seem at first blush that you have fallen into the routine of being frightened into reacting to their presentments, rather than non-responsive Refusals for Cause timely on presentments. Sadly, the reaction process not only turns out badly for you but it also looks to others as though the non-endorsement redemption of lawful money is ineffective against IRS persecution."
Is it proper to send the R4C in response to the CP15 'Pay up' letter (their 'presentment')? I'm presuming I need to first record the R4C as an addendum to my already-established Misc Case File at the County. I'll search for a template of an R4C.
Would appreciate if possible, a follow up on the questions posed above. Thank you.
Regards,
imm
The county clerk and recorder sounds inadequate alone. You might open a Miscellaneous Case in the federal courthouse and file all your county publications there. Then R4C this latest presentment as you do so.
allodial
08-11-15, 02:42 PM
Sometimes even to the point that when states are not getting enough federal crumbs, the threat of revolt brings in returns again.
That might explain all of the police killings and distress and desperation of law enforcement. The higher ups in the State and County level threaten the street cops to be fired or to keep up steep up quotas (fines) or to beef up arrests (i.e. chattel/asset monetization-amortization--asset backed securities and the prisons that warehouse them). The provokation of riots and protests results in even more arrests which enhances the "asset pool" at the State and County levels. Or are the Egregores and Servitors desperate to feed? Maybe once the Princes and Princesses of State & County get their coffers filled with comfortable levels of bloo--I mean money ... then the news will go back to "who had sex with who" and to stories about boys flushing pet alligators down toilets. In the meantime....
It might be that Wall Street feeds off the blood, sweat and suffering of "Blacks"--without poverty and oppression in Black and White communities, there would hardly be as much crime and drug trade, and there would hardly be enough drug money to keep Wall Street propped up.
Related:
Jean Keating Prison Treaties (http://freedom-school.com/keating/jean-keating-prison-treatise.html)
The Myth of the Rule of Law (Catherine Austin Fitts) (http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/CAFmrl.html)
The Myth of the Rule of Law (magazine-style PDF version) (http://www.solari.com/gideon/q301.pdf)
itsmymoney
08-11-15, 09:21 PM
Sometimes even to the point that when states are not getting enough federal crumbs, the threat of revolt brings in returns again.
The county clerk and recorder sounds inadequate alone. You might open a Miscellaneous Case in the federal courthouse and file all your county publications there. Then R4C this latest presentment as you do so.
Ok, so I noticed within "Refusal For Cause" in "Modification to R4C Clerk Instruction" a R4C that was filed (Connecticut). It has a Case Number and the document appears to be very 'court-like' in the formatting. But I am creating a new Miscellaneous Case here at the Federal Court...
So will I be given a case file number and must it appear on the initial R4C document that I provide? I presume I need a Plaintiff V. Defendant styled 'header' above the R4C text. I want to file this and all of my prior County-recorded lawful-money demand documents at the same time - also adding the LM evidence as well (copies of checks/slips).
If I am way off here in my understanding of the filing process then someone please inform if possible.
Thank you.
imm
David Merrill
08-12-15, 03:15 AM
If you are going with a Miscellaneous Case file you might best use a professional process server to file it for you. Basically service of process on the clerk of court by somebody over eighteen and not interested in the Case, with a filing fee.
Remember to redact social security numbers.
itsmymoney
08-12-15, 07:13 PM
If you are going with a Miscellaneous Case file you might best use a professional process server to file it for you. Basically service of process on the clerk of court by somebody over eighteen and not interested in the Case, with a filing fee.
Remember to redact social security numbers.
David,
Is using the service to insure it will be filed vs. me 'Joe Blow' maybe getting it rejected? I guess just put everything in a packet addressed to the court and hand it to the server? I assume court will send me copies with case file number stamped or similar, a week or so later? How do I 'instantly' prove the R4C is filed when I send response to IRS? I want to be prompt and file before or overnight by 19th of next week. Or maybe it's not that critical, the timing?
Connecticut, you say? Renowned gold expert Jim Sinclair is from Connecticut.
Plunge Protection Team Losing Control of Markets-Jim Sinclair (http://usawatchdog.com/plunge-protection-team-losing-control-of-markets-jim-sinclair/)
The US Plunge Protection Team is losing control of the markets, and Sinclair warns, “They got the dickens scared out of them. They actually backed off providing the funds necessary. . . . That’s your warning. The warning is markets can overrun plunge protection teams. Markets can and will overrun the manipulation of metals and currencies. The market will overrun the false strength in the US dollar. The idea that a lift in interest rates would be beneficial to the dollar is absolutely incorrect. We do know the limits of the Plunge Protection Team, and we do know the omnipotent power of the Fed is a total fallacy.”
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.