Leave 1040 Line 74(a) Blank?

This suitor intuitively neglected to make a Claim for a Refund by leaving Item 74(a) blank. Therefore the IRS Agent who sent the Letter is doubly in error to threaten a $5K FrivPen.

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

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

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


Enjoy,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This suitor intuitively neglected to make a Claim for a Refund by leaving Item 74(a) blank. Therefore the IRS Agent who sent the Letter is doubly in error to threaten a $5K FrivPen.

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

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

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


Enjoy,

David Merrill.

---

IMO, the 1040 return in question certainly appears to be "frivolous" even though it technically may not be by IRS specs.

Leaving Line 74a blank certainly leaves the return "unfinished" and creates uncertainty about what the IRS should do with this return.

IMO, this kind of return has too many blanks and zeroes in it. It is NOT a typical and completed return.

See this post and realize that this return is missing all of the other transactions that should be "redeemed" as derivatives of the gross income transaction.

IMO, this return should be corrected and resubmitted to avoid tarnishing and defaming the "lawful money demand reduction" by association.

Questions:
1. Did this Suitor study all of the items in the "1040 Help" post before submitting this return?
2. If not, why not?
3. Is so, why did s/he not extend the courtesy of posting questions to this blog so senior members could prevent these sort of "frivolous penalty" letters from even being issued and possibly muddying the water for the rest of us who have been do this without repercussions?

P.S. Yes, I am upset by this type of return... It is detrimental to the cause here.

Thank you Doug555;


Your post is being considered carefully. It should be easy enough to amend the 1040 Form and as such with proper record of it. Thanks for your help with this.

Kurt way of saying: "Revenue Agent you failed to follow instructions, thread is loose...prepare to be fined."

That's right! Emotions aside - there is no down side from here.

I take the 1040 as a confession/assessment--its an affidavit to be used as evidence in U.S. Tax Court. On the other hand, when the IRS sends a notice of deficiency it is not yet an assessment until there is agreement. The U.S. Treasurer deals with funds committed to public use. Until there is assessment, the U.S. Treasurer has nothing to expect. Where there is a refund due, the U.S. Treasurer would be holding private property not subject to assessment and might like to know what to do with it.

Then, people are told to 'petition' the 'Tax Court' if they disagree with the assessment. The 'Petitioner' becomes the 'Plaintiff' (complainer) and must prove a negative (I do not owe...). The 'Defendant' ['IRS'] need not appear or testify.

Instead, require the original claimant appear and verify the claim of debt. No first hand testimony and/or verification, no case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph

Then, people are told to 'petition' the 'Tax Court' if they disagree with the assessment. The 'Petitioner' becomes the 'Plaintiff' (complainer) and must prove a negative (I do not owe...). The 'Defendant' ['IRS'] need not appear or testify.

Instead, require the original claimant appear and verify the claim of debt. No first hand testimony and/or verification, no case.

---

Wouldn't that equation change if you had photocopies of every paycheck where you demanded lawful money of the U.S.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

Wouldn't that equation change if you had photocopies of every paycheck where you demanded lawful money of the U.S.?

---

Paper is meaningless and powerless without living voice verification of what is written upon it; only man can testify, claim and verify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

Wouldn't that equation change if you had photocopies of every paycheck where you demanded lawful money of the U.S.?

---

Its evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph

Paper is meaningless and powerless without living voice verification of what is written upon it; only man can testify, claim and verify.

---

Blank paper or paper with writing on it? Writing is considered to be a memoralization (of testimony, agreemeent, etc.). Oral testimony for ceremonial or 'shoring up' is another matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Its evidence.



Blank paper or paper with writing on it? Writing is considered to be a memoralization (of testimony, agreemeent, etc.). Oral testimony for ceremonial or 'shoring up' is another matter.

---

In a code/statutory/legalese court, paper forms the record. In a common law court, the record is formed viva voce. Memorialization still requires verification else it is just ink on paper.

This is accomplished through notarization (with Commission Certificate). The notary verifies that there is a human signor.


P.S. We often verify a man or woman signor with a red thumbprint too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph

In a code/statutory/legalese court, paper forms the record. In a common law court, the record is formed viva voce. Memorialization still requires verification else it is just ink on paper.

---

Attachment 1636

U.S. Tax Court is probably moreso akin to the ancient Court of the Exchequer rather than otherwise. Shall we bring rope and gallows to a game of Monopoly? Or perhaps a Catherine Wheel?

A 'Notary' does not attest to the facts/claims written on the paper. I can claim to be 'Donald Duck' and have it 'notarized' - big deal.

Without first-hand testimony verification that what is written on paper is true, paper has no power in a common law court of record.

I feel like you are changing the subject. You cannot claim to be Donald Duck and have it notarized. I was talking about a notary attesting to a human man or woman signing in front of him or herself in the official capacity of a notary.

To avoid arguing about your definition of common law, I like Black's Fifth. Here in Colorado we have such standing from the Territorial Laws of 1861 as found in the State Archives:

Quote:

---

...or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph

A 'Notary' does not attest to the facts/claims written on the paper. I can claim to be 'Donald Duck' and have it 'notarized' - big deal.

---

This is how I comprehend it, too.

I may double-dog dare myself to get a doc notarized claiming I am Donald Duck and post it here, just for laffs. This place could use some.

Next extra $10 I have...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I feel like you are changing the subject. You cannot claim to be Donald Duck and have it notarized. I was talking about a notary attesting to a human man or woman signing in front of him or herself in the official capacity of a notary.

To avoid arguing about your definition of common law, I like Black's Fifth. Here in Colorado we have such standing from the Territorial Laws of 1861 as found in the State Archives:

---

Prove it.

The point being is that having something 'notarized' does NOT make what is written upon it automatically true without the one who created the document to verify it.

common law = unwritten law that is common to a particular society or set of people. (the word 'common' is an adjective modifying the word 'law')

The "Common Law" = a two-word noun signifying a specific type of law of a certain area; do you belong there? (the word 'common' is NOT an adjective modifying the word 'law' in this sense)

Another example: The "United States" is not equal to united States.

A common law court of record is the court of man, and; the record in said court is formed in living voice.

All other 'Courts' are for 'PERSONS' and the record is formed on paper since 'PERSONS' do NOT have vocal chords; man is NOT a part of the case in such a court unless he submits to a lower capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moxie

This is how I comprehend it, too.

I may double-dog dare myself to get a doc notarized claiming I am Donald Duck and post it here, just for laffs. This place could use some.

Next extra $10 I have...lol

---

Thanks for that comment.

Quote:

---

A notarial officer has satisfactory evidence that a person is the person whose true signature is on a document if that person (i) is personally known to the notarial officer, (ii) is identified upon the oath or affirmation of a credible witness personally known to the notarial officer or (iii) is identified on the basis of identification documents.

---

You can make up definitions for common law all you like. I disagree and will not have you foist them upon me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Thanks for that comment.

---

You are quite welcome! :D And I hope it made you laugh. Have a great day! :-)

You too! Always...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

You can make up definitions for common law all you like. I disagree and will not have you foist them upon me.

---

Disagree all you want; who's "foisting" anything upon you?

I was just correcting you with a proper law dictionary definition, that is all. No need to defend.

First you snip at me for supposedly "foisting" something upon you and then you say no need to defend, you're just correcting me?

I believe you have a bad case of N.G.S. ['Narcissistic Guru Syndrome']

Will you attempt to filter my posts on this forum as well David?

When I desire your "correction", I will let you know.

Thanks.

doug555,

you say that this return has too many blanks and zeroes on it. i am wondering, as in the "1040 help" section there is no example i am aware of that shows a full year of redeeming where you would have zero income because of it. i believe i would be in the same situation as the person who submitted that 1040. i have one job, with no other sources of income, no interest gained, so it seems to me that there is almost nothing to enter. i put in my income, refund of state taxes, and the lawful money deduction, then what? i could fill in interest paid on my student loans and that sort of thing as deductions, but as i have already redeemed every cent from the whole year, that would seem detrimental to me as it would be claiming an extra deduction on money that is already not taxable, plus it would have no effect because i am already seeking all money stolen from me in the first place. there is nothing left to be asked for.

Anthony Joseph: I correct for the general edification and in your case, safety of the Readers and Suitors. Your misconception of "common law" can be very dangerous. Your behavior indicates a great deal of insecurity about the guru you have chosen. I see why by the definition for common law you spout.

Both subjects and several others are in prison for creating their own definition of common law but in particular notice the justices and clerk of the Tenth Circuit filed my amicus curiae without consulting either of the parties for consent. So you might grant that I am in authority to correct you here.



The End Result;


Not to respond for Doug but discussing this with the Suitor I agree with you. He might have kept better peace with Doug by filling in a bunch of lines with "$0.00". Leaving the line making a claim blank is really the only item up for discussion as I see it. Filling in a bunch of "$0" amounts is not likely what Doug was indicating.

However, as you will learn as you study here the objective is to acquire an evidence repository. From the Counterclaim and the more common Libel of Review we get the precedent in the original filing:

Quote:

---

..The war on the Great Depression 1) does not count and 2) would only last the duration of the emergency if it did. Presentments will be treated as described by the following example of clerk instruction:

Petitioner
street address
Colorado Springs, Colorado.
[zip]

United States District Court Registered mail # RA XXX XXX XXX US
for the District of Colorado
901 19th Street - A105
Denver, Colorado.
[80294]

Dear clerk;

Please file this refusal for cause in the case jacket of Article III case 03-XXXX. This is evidence if this presenter claims I have obligations to perform or makes false claims against me in the future. A copy of this instruction has been sent with the original refusal for cause back to the presenter in a timely fashion.

Certificate of Mailing

My signature below expresses that I have mailed a copy of the presentment, refused for cause with the original clerk instruction to the district court and the original presentment, refused for cause in red ink and a copy of this clerk instruction has been mailed registered mail as indicated back to the presenter within a few days of presentment.

_______example________________________
Petitioner

Presenter's name Registered mail # RA XXX XXX XXX US
Address
Anywhere, State.
[presenter's code]

Respondent and all principals and agents are hereby properly notified...

---

So you might get it from the Clerk Instruction alone. What the federal judge says is moot. The objective is to be the court of record and therefore the court of competent jurisdiction according to the 'saving to suitors' clause.

But the $5K is great to have in the pocket and since the IRS owes it to this suitor I have fashioned this Counterclaim more to accommodate the Rules so to draw better testimony. The DoJ is tampering with the process server, which is a felony. This gets real interesting fast!


Regards,

David Merrill.

You have not demonstrated that "my conception" of common law is in error by any stretch. Your "concern for safety" of the Readers and Suitors presupposes that they are incapable of thinking, researching, studying and verifying on their own. You desire to keep total control over your little bubble and attempt to filter out anyone who "carries a pin" in that proximity.

Your own post attachment regarding "common law" supports my position:

"In a broad sense, "common law" may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs."

Sounds similar to what I "foisted upon you".

You say that my "misconception" can be very dangerous and my "behavior indicates a great deal of insecurity". Instead of dignifying that nonsense with a rebuttal, I will wait for ANYONE who agrees with it to step forward and stand with your "assessment".

You are like a modern-day politician who decides the people are too stupid to live their own lives by themselves so the politician will do it for them.

Again, because you are unpleasant and people like to have fun, your approach proves nothing. I used a regular and accepted definition as cited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Again, because you are unpleasant and people like to have fun, your approach proves nothing. I used a regular and accepted definition as cited.

---

Your own words renders it unnecessary for me to respond.

Thank you.

You are welcome AJ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

IMO, the 1040 return in question certainly appears to be "frivolous" even though it technically may not be by IRS specs.

Leaving Line 74a blank certainly leaves the return "unfinished" and creates uncertainty about what the IRS should do with this return.

IMO, this kind of return has too many blanks and zeroes in it. It is NOT a typical and completed return.

See this post and realize that this return is missing all of the other transactions that should be "redeemed" as derivatives of the gross income transaction.

IMO, this return should be corrected and resubmitted to avoid tarnishing and defaming the "lawful money demand reduction" by association.

Questions:
1. Did this Suitor study all of the items in the "1040 Help" post before submitting this return?
2. If not, why not?
3. Is so, why did s/he not extend the courtesy of posting questions to this blog so senior members could prevent these sort of "frivolous penalty" letters from even being issued and possibly muddying the water for the rest of us who have been do this without repercussions?

P.S. Yes, I am upset by this type of return... It is detrimental to the cause here.

---

Thanks, Doug. Your reply is very encouraging!