Inventing America by Garry WILLS is a good read about this too.
Printable View
Inventing America 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?
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?
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).
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 and Mooney 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. 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:
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.Quote:
... 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.
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!
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...
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
What is a U.S. person? From http://www.cba.ca/en/consumer-inform...n-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/Inter...-Aliens-Abroad
David,Quote:
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.
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/showt...s-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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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
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
Quote:
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.”