You shift tense and person. I do not know how to answer - or if you are directing your question at me.
Printable View
You shift tense and person. I do not know how to answer - or if you are directing your question at me.
shift tense and person, learn something new everyday, thank you
I put that question out there because some person authorized deductions from a friend’s paycheck without this personam signing a w4 form.
Therefore if you non-endorse the paycheck why not the w4 form as confirmation?
I’m taking a shot at this, so is this "against the person" similar to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure- Rule B(1)(a)? This might have no relationship at all it’s just the way I associated it.
I don’t understand what the meaning of “contain a prayer for process” suggests.
After I read Rule C(3)(a)(ii) from this I wanted to know if exigent circumstance exists and again if its related.
I’ve also noticed that the paycheck is always addressed to the true name of the recipient not to the corporate person.
Buy a stamp - put it on your signature as part of your signature. W-4 included.
That last sentence does not jibe for me. The paycheck is almost always written to the legal or full name.
"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."
If you want to integrate that into the Admiralty Rules go ahead. That sounds like a fun academic experience but you may create some complicated mental models that are more a headache than practicable. If you execute simply you probably will need not explore into such sophisticated elaboration.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Perhaps he is mistaking John Henry Doe as "true name" vs JOHN HENRY DOE or JOHN H DOE.
Hi David,
I'm new to the forum as of today, directed here from the CtC forum - not by anyone in particular, just found a thread that linked to this forum.
I am in the situation you mention above, with our state DOR (MA). We are to the point of having filed a petition after they rejected or ctc filing for 2006. In response (though months late) they have submitted a motion for summary judgment. We have about 30 days to respond to it (unusual to have so much time, but we asked for an extension).
I have sent for our transcripts from auntie, which should arrive in about 10 days. We have a doc from auntie showing $0 taxable income for 06. I'll stop there in for now. Thanks in advance for any insight and hope you all have a great "Independence" Day:-)
earthshake
Funny thing.
Every TAXPAYER volunteers to hold the status of TAXPAYER.
The rules of administrative law govern - if you keep the paper you own the liability...
The suitor strategy is to become judicial. Since all the "judges" are taxpayers, they cannot be judicial (unless you stamp them so).
These are true judgments.
I am new as well. I have already endorsed two checks via 12.411 and have the same questions to 'correct' previous redemptions to lawful money. Having read Mr. Merrill's comment that 'bank relied on our signature, etc' and part of me agrees it may be "water over the bridge" Nonetheless, question remains in my mind how UCS 12.411 applies ONLY at time of endorsement: "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..." this is open ended; ie, it does not state a specific time, event (endorsement) or has expiration period. Why not deposit a check w/ naked endorsement, take Fed Res notes and then demand 'lawful money'...who will say "oops, sorry, too late!".......also saw part of another post "By the time you are holding cash, you have already made your demand.." again...why is it too late?...not clear. regards!
There are a couple suitors who have no choice but to try it. They just cannot submit to a payment plan for the remainder of their days. So I am helping give them a shot at it. The sad part about it is that if you have been endorsing private credit from the Fed, that is your signature bond. All you have is ignorance of the law to plead in order to get your money back. If they are penalizing you though; the new $5K frivolous penalty fines, I feel that there is some good chance you can shut that up. You really don't owe them a penalty when you are the victim of fraud by omission!
So get straight about making your demand for lawful money first. There is no harm whatsoever and you do not need to be very brave to start writing a non-endorsement on your paychecks and Signature Card. It is not until April 15th that you have to decide if you are going to be brave.
Regards,
David Merrill.
sorry, hard to understand....whose 'fraud by omission'? No, not April 15, I mean demand lawful money to the beginning of IRS filings. These are obligations of the United States...for taxes, customs and....dues. As I read it, nothing about OUR obligations. Why can't a demand for lawful money be made back to the beginning of one's earnings and IRS filings?
Because they (international bankers/central bankers/fellow Americans endorsing) have been banking on your signature bond - fractional lending. The currency on your bond has already been created. It is all created off loans - all currency in circulation was created by lending. Look at the first sentence:
You as a typical borrower/debtor have been operating as a Fed bank. Right up until the moment you started non-endorsing by demanding lawful money.
It is defensive at best - suppose the IRS is after you for $5K for saying you filed frivolous with Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code plan. Now you are demanding lawful money and you will get your Refund of Withholdings but the best you might hope for by exposing the fraud by omission is for them to back off about before with Pete.
The fraud by omission is that you cannot be expected to sue everybody who led you to believe endorsement was the only option.
If I had known in good faith that I could have redeemed lawful money I would have been doing so since my first paycheck ever!
Post August 2nd, I feel this thread deserves a bump.
Potential Candidate informally accuses the Fed of Treason.
Updating you all.
This fellow got a latter about 45 days ago saying the IRS would be considering his Return for another 45 days. He sounded optimistic that the IRS will be sending his full Refund, however late.
I noticed how long the IRS contemplated sending him his Refund for the latter half of 2009:
Check out the handbook link on this page. (scroll down a little) Very interesting.
http://rayservers.com/blog
Here are a couple other interesting things...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmwQTAA8H7Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QKD1ivLJfo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYviBBV3Qj8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcQElYhRvpY
--------------
On February 15, 1791 Jefferson wrote Washington to tell him his
objections of the establishment of a National Bank.
The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:
1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants
of land; and so far is against the laws of mortmain.
3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far
is against the laws of alienage.
4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a
certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of
descents.
5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat;
and so far is against the laws of forfeiture and escheat.
6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line;
and so far is against the laws of distribution.
7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the
national authority; and so far is against the laws of monopoly.
8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the
laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the
institutions from the control of the State legislatures; and so,
probably, they will be construed.
-----
Isn't it great how they prey upon peoples desire to do the right thing? Look at the big print on top of the return that Donald is filling out. Too Funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrB2kz7SIIw
Faithless Public Officials
While I am at it..might as well post this one too...for those of you seeking the truth.
http://www.drdino.com/seminar-part-1...-of-the-earth/
Here is an update to the Notices.
Click Here.
With a little looking I found the manual that was updated February 23, 2012:
Click Here.
It has 50 points and I noticed there is no reference to "lawful", "redeem" or "Rickman". I find that interesting indeed.
Here is another interesting memorandum to IRS Agents!
Click Here.
In the above posts I have cited the recent memorandums and manual that the IRS agent is to utilize in judging any Return as frivolous. One suitor filed for 2010 and had no evidence repository - too much confidence in the law - and received a $5K penalty notice. He published his Libel of Review and things let up on that billing. When he filed for 2011 though, he got a new styled Letter.
Quote:
The only thing I can think why the $10K is because $5K is for the actual "filing" while the other $5K was from my stupidity of calling in to follow up on the refund due and to talk to those people you have to give your social and name. Stupid me. But again, remember that I am the suitor who has the Notice CP 12 where their own form for calendar year 2010 says they owe the account $10,680.
This has been R4C'd properly using his Libel of Review for evidence repository but I had to pay attention to detail and found the citation is slightly altered. You have to pay attention carefully too, to get this affirmation.
On top is a photo of a Letter from May (2012) with a citation of the friv_tax.pdf file found above and which has no reference to redeeming lawful money as frivolous. But the recent Letter cites a Memo from 2010 in which the letters "redeem" occur three times.
Here is 2010-33 (Page 9).
(6) A taxpayer has been untaxed, detaxed,
or removed or redeemed from the
Federal tax system though the taxpayer remains
a United States citizen or resident, or
similar arguments described as frivolous in
Rev. Rul. 2004?31, 2004?1 C.B. 617.
(12) Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable
income when paid to a taxpayer because
they are not gold or silver and may
not be redeemed for gold or silver.
(21) A taxpayer may use a Form 1099-
OID, Original Issue Discount, (or another
Form 1099 Series information return) as a
financial or other instrument to obtain or
redeem (under a theory of ?redemption?
or ?commercial redemption?) a monetary
payment out of the United States Treasury
or for a refund of tax?
In the recent Letter the agent has resorted to a 2010 citation that seems similar (to the layman/agent anyway) to what we are doing here.
By studying the citations provided in any rendition of the Letter, a suitor can surmise:
Resulting in:Quote:
Said quote hereinbefore looks to time when I reached the age of majority; and, I have carefully read your Notice and I cannot find that demanding Lawful Money is a Frivolous Argument; and, it comes down to this simple principle, what is my intent; and, It is my express intent to operate [the] FIRST M. SURNAME in honor...
Quote:
They garnished my wifes wages. I wrote a one page letter to the agent. In twenty seven days they zeroed out the balance. This year we received one hundred percent of our increase from state and feds.
I don't buy any of this [IMF Decode conversation context] rhetoric. But then again I am not in the market [to buy into fear].
I find it worth bumping that the brain trust of suitors having these two recent letters to share with each other may be an unprecedented weapon of intelligence in the arsenal. - That we share IRS responses with one another!
With the IMF Head blaming burgeoning national debt for loss of interest in China buying up more American debt, can we frame a valid accusation against GEITHNER for being irresponsible as fiduciary if he continues to interfere with the redemption of lawful money?
Here is a glimpse of the new "Libel of Review" - in the rough.
Gdude was asking about help setting up an evidence repository. Find the example clerk instruction in the LoR and that should offer some explanation. Furthermore though there is a brain trust of suitors operating to critique the new form and template. Now with this post though, that editing process has opened up to you too Gdude. I call this an echo chamber and it is among several echo chambers. The brain trust is an echo chamber too.
Steel sharpens steel.Quote:
Awesome job DM!
My only suggestion is to add the word "contract" into the civil action, since a Claim rests on violation of a contract which then caused an injury by the violator.
I feel the use of the word trust in the opening paragraph as a synonym to contract is adaquate but discussion may change that word.
P.S. A new suitor contributed just this morning:
That looks like the Informer to me and I hope my inquiring where it came from works a worthwhile lesson about rules of evidence.Quote:
IRS FORM 843 - Redeeming Lawful Money
Although IRS Form 843 cannot be used for claiming back income tax, it can be used for an abatement of the fee paid for the presumed use of private credit in the form of Federal Reserve Notes that is based on the amount of income denominated thereby, when said presumed use has been consistently rebutted by lawful money being demanded for all transactions per 12 USC 411, with a substantive record of same created as admissible evidence by all related financial institutions in their normal course of business documentation. This IRS Form 843 is a good tool to further expose the unspoken legal foundation of the “income tax” – that it is a legitimate usage fee for the use of the private credit and script of the Federal Reserve System.
Part
500 [Reserved]
501 Australia ..........................
502 Greece ............................x
503 Germany .........................x
504 Belgium ...........................
505 Netherlands ....................
506 Japan ...............................
507 United Kingdom .............
509 Switzerland .....................x
510 Norway ............................
511 Finland ...........................
512 Italy .................................
513 Ireland............................x
514 France ...........................x
515 Honduras .....................
516 Austria ...........................x
517 Pakistan ........................x
518 New Zealand ..................
519 Canada ........................
520 Sweden .........................x
521 Denmark.........................x
My oh my has times changed http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/...I/subchapter-G
I am bumping this thread with the intention to update the links to the latest memorandums. I do not have any dealings at all with the IRS and so have been neglecting to stay abreast of the memorandums.
This page is no longer helpful.
As with this link.
I am working from this post on Page 6. It is starting to look as though we, the commoners, no longer get to read the IRS agent's memorandums. - At least that we no longer get to read the directories that include the recent Memos, if there are any?
The reason I am looking around for the new memorandums is that there is a report:
[I propose by the timing that he did not file before the April 15, 2012 deadline and therefore opened a door for quibbling about penalties.]Quote:
David – IRS called my 2011 LM money filing frivolous (most likely as it was based on the LOR and the Notice and Demand.
In any event I have come to see that there may be an EXACT method of filing a LM return BUT simply making demand for LM is not sufficient.
In addition redeeming LM does not protect your accounts, the LOR does not stop them and R4C while effective in some ways ultimately just infuriates them and makes them more determined to find “ways to encourage voluntary compliance” as one revenue office said to me a couple of years ago before he retired.
So it makes sense that they are keeping the new memorandum about Redeeming Lawful Money from my view so I cannnot link it here. If anybody knows how to find any newer memorandums to update I hope you will update this thread.
On the other hand we have plenty of good testimony but as indicated people do not want to agitate the attorneys and when they have the good fortune of full refunds they hope not to be made an example of:
Another suitor, experienced in such capacity like CPA wrote that any review would come within six months - which may be the case. So mark this on your calendars. Keep in mind please that there are many good reports and success stories that you will never see. The IRS might feel compelled to change their mind about refunds and I will not supply the IRS agent specific targets here.Quote:
I wanted to pass along the information that I received refunds in full from the US Treasury and the Treasurer of the State of XXXXXX.
A few points to note:
Each form was novated by striking "Under penalties of perjury" and "under penalty of perjury" within the Federal and State signature block, respectively
Occupation listed on the Federal form was "DEMANDER OF LAWFUL MONEY"
I truthfully provided 'Your Signature' with the one I use, or, True Name, not First M SURNAME
I have attached a copy of the refund and signature sections of each Form, along with the Federal Statement I used to provide an explanation in regard to the corresponding reductions throughout the Federal Forms. Also included is a copy of the checks I received. Several interesting details with the checks are how the US Treasury check is written "Pay to the order of" while the check from the Treasurer of the State of XXXXX is written "Pay," and the endorsement instructions/notices on the backside of each check.
With the prior experience I had, through the person I use in capacity of CPA, working with the IRS and other State tax authorities, I understand that these refunds were most likely sent without a review of the actual tax return. The Tax Agencies operate behind, to say the least, and it could be several years before any type of review is completed, if ever. And if either agency decides, or automatically sends out any kind of notice related to these filings, I know that my faith and trust in God will show me the way to testify to them so they can see and understand what has taken place.
Finally, this information and attachment can be shared with the Brain Trust, if you wish, but I do not want any part of the attachment to be posted, in any form, on the greater internet.
Thanks,
True Name
This approach, Notice and Demand to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank was found independently in 1999 by a couple who had never heard of me until recently. They show the cards at every transaction and the tellers and other bank employees enjoy the running joke - Get out the Good Stuff! or Open up the Lawful Money safe! So this joviality keeps the couple loaded with witnesses to their demand.Quote:
Here is the complete redacted Complaint and the Response from the FDIC.
I am contemplating writing a response to the bank I use which would in as many words state:
"I appreciate your testimony to the FDIC that I have used 'Demand for lawful money in accord with 12 U.S.C. 411' on checks I have tried to deposit. You have helped me form a more complete record that I have made a Demand for lawful money all while showing you, the bank, is cognizant of that fact."
Regards,
David Merrill.
It coincidental that you mentioned the FDIC in this post. I was looking to see what the real differences were in Public and private sectors.
I found this one from Canada. If personal information is collected and an organization finds a new purpose for it, unless the new purpose is required by law, an organization cannot use that personal information for another purpose without consent. http://www.privacysense.net/10-priva...ying-purposes/
The 10 Privacy Principles of PIPEDA, also known as the 10 Fair Information Principles, come from a national standard called the CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. http://www.privacysense.net/10-priva...les-of-pipeda/
So did the United States have to say?
This is the GAO opinion: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-674
Personal Information required by law. IBM said In addition, we reserve the right to disclose your personal information as required by law and when we believe that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, ...where then are my rights?
Link
It started from here right of privacy: access to personal information Personal Information required by law
United States. 5 USC § 552a - Records maintained on individuals | LII / Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a
Of course it would be better posted under the identity portion of the forum although some significance of the post is relevant to this post such as this legal term:
(1 ) the term “agency” means agency as defined in section 552(e) [1] of this title;
(1) “agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include—http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552#e
(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a#FN-1REF
But you have this term person again and I have read all over the internet that I am not a person.
So what exactly who is this person they say without respect to persons?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oa...ffice2009.aspx and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453 except for here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii for this
http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/swearing-in/bibles
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
So is this vice president going to back (me) the “individual” or “person” up when the law says redeem?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/53375.html
Note that there is no such prohibition against Congress, or any delegated power to make anything legal tender. Congress was originally understood to have no power to make anything legal tender outside of federal territories, under Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17and Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2, but in 1868 a Supreme Court packed by Pres. Ulysses S. Grant, in the Legal Tender Cases, allowed Congress to make paper currency issued by the U.S. Treasury, backed by gold, legal tender on state territory, a precedent that remains controversial to this day, when courts allow paper currency not backed by anything to be considered "legal tender".
John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html
So why is it that commerce is unfair to this "PERSON"?
(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
(2)The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
(11)The term “commerce” means commerce between any State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, and any place outside thereof; or between points within the same State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, but through any place outside thereof; or within any Territory or possession, or the District of Columbia. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/182
Vieira Delivers
And why is it then so difficult to redeem:
(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes—
(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.
(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.
Dept of Commerce, Independent agency, Internal Revenue Service http://www.fedstats.gov/agencies/
Use this page to find bills and resolutions in the U.S. Congress going back to 1973. You Searched for “USC Title 12 411 ”, but you have a choice... http://www.govtrack.us/start
So now that I am off topic again because I was looking to be in the private and go into the courts as private looks like I have to find the protocol to do it.
Not only that but this is what I am talking about: http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0157.pdf
The insideous part of all that is the US Supreme Court has ruled there to be three viable definitions for the United States.
Importing RIVERA's work here might be best with this warning, for what it is worth. I have not seen any results or delivery - but then because he is an attorney (or was before he was disbarred?) and three definitions for the US, I have not spent any time looking at his school and lesson plan.
When he started telling people that Hawaii had Article III courts I inquired by email if they had ever terminated the Article I employees. He went silent and never answered, except that he did seem to quit preaching it...
If he had been courteous enough to email me back with some kind of acknowledgement I might be more inclined to follow his work.
Do your own due diligence.
“Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.”
Q: Who appoints federal judges?
Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential nominees are often recommended by senators or sometimes by members of the House who are of the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary Committee typically conducts confirmation hearings for each nominee. Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term. The federal Judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts play no role in the nomination and confirmation process. http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx
Our Founding Fathers understood the need for an independent Judiciary, which was created under Article III of the United States Constitution. The Judicial Branch is one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. The other two are the legislative and executive branches. http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts.aspx
The Constitution describes what cases may be decided in the federal courts. Congress may and has determined that some of these cases also may be tried in state courts, giving federal and state courts concurrent jurisdiction.
Congress has provided that suits between citizens of different states may be heard in the federal courts or the state courts, but they may be heard in the federal courts only if the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.
Congress also has provided that maritime cases and suits against consuls may be tried only in the federal courts. When a state court decides a case involving federal law, it in a sense acts as a federal court, and its decisions on federal law may be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a149.htm
Before a federal court can hear a case, or "exercise its jurisdiction," certain conditions must be met. First, under the Constitution, federal courts exercise only "judicial" powers. This means that federal judges may interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes, referred to in Article III of the Constitution as "Cases or Controversies." A court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative, or to answer a hypothetical legal question.
Second, assuming there is an actual case or controversy, the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit also must have legal "standing" to ask the court for a decision. That means the plaintiff must have been aggrieved, or legally harmed in some way, by the defendant. http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourt...isdiction.aspx
But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable?
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest.
I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.
To speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
You can find a whole slew of Article III federal judges
http://judgepedia.org/index.php?titl...+judges+&go=Go
That is preaching to the choir. Every suitor who has filed a Libel of Review inquires upon judge appointment, Is this an Article III Judge? The clerk's affirmation to a falsity is where the new suitor is understanding his or her authority to sign and seal the resulting judgment.
I think that you understood my point about acknowledging my question about Hawaii.
Hmm, I don't see any Ed RIVERA work here. I do see Chex has linked to Edwin VIEIRA, a different attorney altogether.
Chapter 4:*
The Three United States
By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall's singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:
The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.
[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]
This same Court authority is cited by Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of "United States":
United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]
In the first sense, the term "United States*" can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The "United States*" is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where "U.S.*" refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this "United States*" as follows:
1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a "Citizen of the United States*." This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital "C" in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]
Secondly, the term "United States**" can also refer to "the federal zone", which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term "United States**" is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, "The United States** is ..." or "Its jurisdiction is ..." and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:
2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the "United States**" the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]
Thirdly, the term "United States***" can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term "United States***" does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term "United States***" is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, "These United States***" or "The United States*** are ..." and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these "United States***" as follows:
3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.
[Which One Are You?, pages 11-12]
[emphasis added]
Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:
It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and sovereign states of the United States*** of America are NOT joined under the title of "United States." The president represents the sovereign United States* in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States** in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States*** united by and under the Constitution .... After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term "United States**" is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends.
[A Ticket to Liberty, Nov. 1990, pages 22-23]
[emphasis added, italics in original]
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/chapter4.pdf
You should explore this site at some point:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm
What fails to be typical about me (apparently) is that my perceptions and conclusions change in time by allowing my understanding of Rules of Evidence to process new information (once verified) into new perceptions. In other words please take note of the date I wrote that paper. It got Ron's money and recently I learned that the entire action seizing all those accounts was completely reversed, I think with Ron being about the only one who got any money back. That does not mean that everything I wrote in the paper is factual.
Many of the assertions might just be my perceptions at the time. Ron being restored of his life savings does not prove that all my perceptions were factual.
The United States of America is an association composed of States only.
The government of the United States is a public corporation.
The government of the United States is private international law.
Government of the United States is foreign to the several (individual States).
Government of the United States operates on Roman Civil Law.
The law of the District of Columbia is Lex Fori.
Recommendation: Acquiescence.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-aod/mccorm.pdf
Excellent find! Thank you.
Why must the form be made under penalties of perjury? Why cant it just be a declaration. If the information matches the record what is the need to 'ceremonialize' it to such an extent? Is it because you have to 'risk' something to make the return 'valid'?
Quote:
In the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure is the following section:
§ 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury.
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)".
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)".
(Added Pub.L. 94-550, § 1(a), Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534.)
My theory of the week is that swearing subjegates one to government - which government can take on many different forms in life. It is the means to become a government servant. Jesus was awarded upon birth (gold) funds for the family tomb, starting with his generation and also a scholarship, giving him access to all the mystery schools in Egypt, Israel and Babylon. Jesus never, in other words swore in to the government of any Lodge.
There is more to this though. There was a mountain man living in leathers (in exile). The King of Israel had been in exile for over twenty years - his name was Archelaus HEROD. The HEROD who took John's head (after John spoke out against him as ruler) was Antipater HEROD and was never King - but remained Tetrarch. There was another brother Philip HEROD but that was in another province so he never really got into the Bible Story. Archelaus was exiled in about 6 AD or when Jesus was about ten.
Upon Archelaus dying the title had a Vacancy and finally Jesus took an oath of office. The dunking in the Jordan really has very little explanation so please accept that Planet Merrill abhors a void. This fits so nicely.
However the Gospels carry two firm admonishions against swearing at all. - Not by heaven or earth.
When you are sworn in even to testify are you not giving that Lodge permission to punish you for perjury? Does this bring you into position as a party in interest to the court? How about the 1040 Form? What about anything you swear to?
Chex;
Thank you again - the brain trust offers insight too about how the IRS agent/attorneys think!
Quote:
Crosstalk: Did anyone else besides me notice the glaring typo in the closing sentence of this document?
The last sentence says the opposite of the court opinion being talked about in the IRS memorandum - instructing the IRS agents to consider the Return invalid. This might be sleezy attorney artistry. But writing about it here brings some insight for the brain trust! (Echo chamber return.)Quote:
We now agree with the court that adding the words "under protest" without modifying the words of the jurat does not cast doubt on the validity of the jurat and, accordingly, does invalidate the document as a return.
That sentence is missing the “not” in the final clause!
The IRS attorneys may be instructing the IRS agents that while they cannot charge a frivolous fine - when the taxpayer declares the signature under protest, the Return is indeed invalid because it is "unvoluntary".
Furthermore notice how the IRS attorneys filed an immediate Notice of Appeal into the Second Circuit. The USCA was notified - meaning the United States Code Annotated and quickly the IRS decided they did not want the justices opining about this at all so it was withdrawn.
Chex;
Please show us your search engine path leading you to this memorandum. Are there other memos that I am missing for this thread?
P.S. Some more Crosstalk:
Quote:
While relaying this to the members and readers on StSC it struck me that it is not a typo. – An echo chamber Return if you will.
This sentence in the context of an internal memorandum to IRS agents might mean exactly what it says. Although the IRS agent cannot call it frivolous, the “under protest” does indeed invalidate the tax return because it is no longer voluntary compliance.Quote:
We now agree with the court that adding the words "under protest" without modifying the words of the jurat does not cast doubt on the validity of the jurat and, accordingly, does invalidate the document as a return.
The main reason that this struck me as significant at all is that it opens up the availability to us, should we be compelled to submit IRS forms at all, to put the Non-Endorsement stamp on our Jurat, or Signature Line. The USDC NY is saying that any alterations do not affect the validity of the document so long as the taxpayer does not affect the validity of swearing and the IRS attorneys say that for the internal purposes of the Form, they do indeed have to listen to the additions/stipulations to the Signature itself, on the Signature Line.
Meaning that a tax return for a full refund of withholdings should also include the Redeeming Lawful Money stamp on the signature line and that the IRS has to recognize that stipulation added to the signature itself.