Response from the Secretary

A member noticed that sometimes the Secretary of the Treasury responds to the Libel of Review with a Motion to Dismiss. This is logical since the Rules of Court and the Summons strongly suggest that the Respondent (Secretary) does not with to go into default.

The very act of making the demand for lawful money is an instruction to the Secretary as principal appointed by congress over the Fed and the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency). That action of instruction describes and defines the relationship of the suitor over the Secretary.

Understanding that, any and all responses from the USDC, "Judge" and Secretary are typicall Refused for Cause timely by the court of record, the only court of competent jurisdiction present, the new suitor.

One way to explain this simply is to examine the modifications in procedure:

1) on the Summons.
2) that the USDC (at least some of them) is not accepting cash FRNs any longer.

On Page 8 of the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements we find it that the Secretary is also the US Governor of the International Monetary Fund (or in charge of appointing one; same thing*). This has also panned out verified in Canada by them having a named Canadian Governor of the IMF. Traditionally with the old style summons the clerk would tend to change the term for response from 21 Days to 60 Days. Then over the years they seemed to "get the memorandum" as I call it [viewing the federal system as one court under one rule set] and quit altering the summonses. Then as it seems the federal attorneys had time to consider this revision:

Quote:

---

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/847...onsnew2013.jpg

---

Notice how now the Summons simply reads that the term for response is dependent on whether the Respondent/Defendant is a government employee or not, avoiding that embarrassing clerk error to mistake the Secretary (US Governor for the IMF) for a government employee.

The second instance is quite easy to understand as new suitors all around America buying case files instead of discharging the obligation against private credit from the Fed. For many years we have been demanding lawful money for the $350 filing fee and attaching that as the last page of the Filing:

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/4...tredemptio.jpg

This has been going on for a long time. Here is an example for the filing of a Miscellaneous Case evidence repository:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4...tredemptio.jpg

It is as though the US Government, Congress and clerks of court have gotten the Memorandum FROM NEW SUITORS!!

As I hear it, May 1, the clerks of court are demanding a check or money order. In other words you specify legal tender FRNs, or Lawful Money of the US:

Check: Pay to the Order of ____________
USPS Money Order: Pay to ____________



Regards,

David Merrill.




* Many smaller military bases do not have a Provost Marshal, in which case the Base Commander has chosen to keep that office within the office of Base Commander.

David,

A few questions, as I am hoping to get a tax lien removed.

What have suitors been able to do with their Libel of Review default judgments in terms of getting levies or liens withdrawn? Is IRS sufficiently alarmed that a suitor knows how this all works to just drop efforts to lien/levy? If not, what should a suitor do with the default judgment?

I understand that whenever the Secretary has moved to dismiss a Libel of Review, the judge has dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, is that correct?

Have judges dismissed cases sua sponte as well, even if the Secretary has not responded?

I understand that at least in one case the judge called the libel of review frivolous in dismissing it. Is the judge just being purposely obtuse, or is the Court simply not recognizing the flesh and blood being and only seeing the PERSON that is property of the U.S. (which I guess would indeed make the action frivolous in the eyes of the Court?)

In the event the Libel of Review does not make IRS back off a lien or levy, do you think a suitor could nonetheless effectively use all of this evidence in a wrongful lien suit? I would think that, given the need to keep the way these things work quiet, a wrongful levy suit making use of an argument that the suitor is redeeming lawful money and that admiralty rules require supervision by the federal courts might be enough to make a lien go away quietly.

I have also seen it suggested that one having a notice of levy or lien issued against them might have a cause of action under IRC Sec. 7431 because notice of lien and notice of levy both violate confidentiality as described in that provision.

The original Libel in Review Notice of Federal Tax Lien was not removed, it dissappeared! That is the only instance I have ever heard about where the county clerk and recorder "unfiled" a publication.

We have this thread about what the IRS thinks.

The purpose of the Libel of Review is for a new suitor to form an evidence repository and become the court of record; the court of competent jurisdiction. The federal "judge" is a taxpayer and is therefore not a judge at all.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The original Libel in Review Notice of Federal Tax Lien was not removed, it dissappeared! That is the only instance I have ever heard about where the county clerk and recorder "unfiled" a publication.

So,if they do not "unfile" or remove the Federal tax lien, what is the suitor supposed to do then?


We have this thread about what the IRS thinks.

That thread seems to be focused on 1040 filings. I am interested in how they react to the Libel of Review in the event one is already dealing with a notice of lien or levy and trying to get it withdrawn or "unfiled".


Has any suitor tried filing for a Form 843 abatement of amounts that are the subject of a notice of lien or levy, informing IRS in the abatement request that they are redeeming lawful money and/or that they filed a Libel of Review?


The purpose of the Libel of Review is for a new suitor to form an evidence repository and become the court of record; the court of competent jurisdiction. The federal "judge" is a taxpayer and is therefore not a judge at all.

---

Understood, but my employer receiving an IRS order to garnish my wages will probably think he is a judge and is not likely to recognize me as the "court of record" over the man in the black robe, is he? So if my Libel of Review case has been dismissed or even called frivolous on the record, how does that help me? Am I still left having to convince third parties not to obey the IRS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManOntheLand

Understood, but my employer receiving an IRS order to garnish my wages will probably think he is a judge and is not likely to recognize me as the "court of record" over the man in the black robe, is he? So if my Libel of Review case has been dismissed or even called frivolous on the record, how does that help me? Am I still left having to convince third parties not to obey the IRS?

---

This is why I do not espouse these methods as a silver bullet. They are quite dependable but it would seem that the suitor has to have a certain degree of metaphysical prowess. We like to sling: Remedy is between your ears.

For whatever reason you insist on slicing a snapshot or some kind of single-dimensional perception of what is going on here. I do not control the behavior of others. I simply guide them in the basics of being in authority (court of record) over the record. This is why I keep getting this feeling that you are a shill slurring remedy rather than genuinely here to learn and improve your conditions. If you trust me any more than I trust you maybe you could sanitize up a bill and PM an image?

Another possibility is that you believe there are merits to Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code. So I will explain once again how as intelligence nexus for a group of very intelligent people one suitor involved with the Lost Horizons doctrine had Pete over for a visit. During this time I visited the suitor in his office and he disclosed something about Pete that I do not believe he discloses to any of the CtC adherents.

Pete HENDRICKSON depends solely on The Right to be Heard. The Signature Line on the 1040 is signed under penalty of perjury. So it is very convenient for all these 1040 Forms in America to presume the Taxpayer is indeed telling the truth. Therefore the Refund Checks are issued out of electronic machinery and people post their Refund on Lost Horizons and then the 1099 or W-4 comes in from the Client/employer and the IRS runs an assessment on that sworn testimony and then recants on the Refund. When the Taxpayer tries to withdraw the image of the Refund from Lost Horizons they are summarily banished and have no voice to warn others.


So,if they do not "unfile" or remove the Federal tax lien, what is the suitor supposed to do then?

The suitor will continue to have the NOFTL. Refusal for Cause properly done through the Libel of Review evidence repository and including a formal Notice and Demand will likely keep any enforcement actions like levy and lien from being executed against the billing. There are noticibly sparse injuries after a proper evidence repository is established.


That thread seems to be focused on 1040 filings. I am interested in how they react to the Libel of Review in the event one is already dealing with a notice of lien or levy and trying to get it withdrawn or "unfiled".

There is very little "reaction" to the Libel of Review (LoR) because it is dismissed. There is however very little repeated billing.

Has any suitor tried filing for a Form 843 abatement of amounts that are the subject of a notice of lien or levy, informing IRS in the abatement request that they are redeeming lawful money and/or that they filed a Libel of Review?

Here it helps to understand the concept of presentments - affidavit and rebuttal. Just recently a suitor got a $5K FrivPen with $.53 accrued interest and ten days to pay up. - The three-page letter urging he call for more information. Well he utilized the 843 Form for late September in the amount of some $13K.

It is a big hassle considering the IRS agent is being paid to create these presentments. To a skilled eye though, the new presentment is obviously unrelated to the R4C and 843 Form. Therefore the process in the evidence repository worked fine! It is easy to think that the presentments should have ended there but the IRS agent can offer up contracts all day long and is being paid to do so. A R4C would probably work real nifty but I suggest the 843 Form too with the R4C process since that is what it is for. [The agent is compelled to see the Form and therefore the R4C has a built-in Proof of Service in addition to the Registered Mail and PACER services.] Since the suitor redeems lawful money there is no assumption of jurisdiction, like you have argued about filling and signing their forms.

I am filling out a response because you insist on pressing around here. - This time in red font even. If you want to show me an image of a bill - what was it? $80K? Then upon confirmation you are not just here to undermine remedy for everybody else I will likely take an interest in your implementation of remedy. Maybe even let you into the brain trust and then you can actually report here your progress on the forums?

I should warn you in advance that there are skeptics watching this website who are either IRS agents or are in contact with IRS agents so do not disclose anything on the forums unless you want that additional burden - to be a target for an example.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This is why I do not espouse these methods as a silver bullet. They are quite dependable but it would seem that the suitor has to have a certain degree of metaphysical prowess. We like to sling: Remedy is between your ears.

For whatever reason you insist on slicing a snapshot or some kind of single-dimensional perception of what is going on here. I do not control the behavior of others. I simply guide them in the basics of being in authority (court of record) over the record. This is why I keep getting this feeling that you are a shill slurring remedy rather than genuinely here to learn and improve your conditions. If you trust me any more than I trust you maybe you could sanitize up a bill and PM an image?

Another possibility is that you believe there are merits to Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code. So I will explain once again how as intelligence nexus for a group of very intelligent people one suitor involved with the Lost Horizons doctrine had Pete over for a visit. During this time I visited the suitor in his office and he disclosed something about Pete that I do not believe he discloses to any of the CtC adherents.

Pete HENDRICKSON depends solely on The Right to be Heard. The Signature Line on the 1040 is signed under penalty of perjury. So it is very convenient for all these 1040 Forms in America to presume the Taxpayer is indeed telling the truth. Therefore the Refund Checks are issued out of electronic machinery and people post their Refund on Lost Horizons and then the 1099 or W-4 comes in from the Client/employer and the IRS runs an assessment on that sworn testimony and then recants on the Refund. When the Taxpayer tries to withdraw the image of the Refund from Lost Horizons they are summarily banished and have no voice to warn others.

Yes I am aware Pete has done this. He also bans people from his forum who have the nerve to think critically about his approach and methods. He has left lots of people in the lurch. Nobody understands the flaws of CTC better than I. If you find me to be a pain in the ass on this forum it is not because I espouse CTC or any other doctrine or that I am trying to slur yours--I just want to know how much I can rely on this stuff to work in the real world. Pete thinks everybody should just keep beating their head against the wall with his method even though it obviously doesn't work. I am encouraged by the comparatively scientific approach here.

I appreciate that you have not espoused these methods as a silver bullet. I have high hopes for what remedy can accomplish. I ask pointed questions only so that I can understand the likely limitations.


So,if they do not "unfile" or remove the Federal tax lien, what is the suitor supposed to do then?

The suitor will continue to have the NOFTL. Refusal for Cause properly done through the Libel of Review evidence repository and including a formal Notice and Demand will likely keep any enforcement actions like levy and lien from being executed against the billing. There are noticibly sparse injuries after a proper evidence repository is established.


That thread seems to be focused on 1040 filings. I am interested in how they react to the Libel of Review in the event one is already dealing with a notice of lien or levy and trying to get it withdrawn or "unfiled".

There is very little "reaction" to the Libel of Review (LoR) because it is dismissed. There is however very little repeated billing.

Has any suitor tried filing for a Form 843 abatement of amounts that are the subject of a notice of lien or levy, informing IRS in the abatement request that they are redeeming lawful money and/or that they filed a Libel of Review?

Here it helps to understand the concept of presentments - affidavit and rebuttal. Just recently a suitor got a $5K FrivPen with $.53 accrued interest and ten days to pay up. - The three-page letter urging he call for more information. Well he utilized the 843 Form for late September in the amount of some $13K.

Just trying to understand clearly--was he asking for an abatement of $13K in tax he had previously self-assessed? Or is the $13k from something else?

It is a big hassle considering the IRS agent is being paid to create these presentments. To a skilled eye though, the new presentment is obviously unrelated to the R4C and 843 Form.

An 843 is not one of the specified frivolous submissions IRS can penalize under 6702. IRS would be blatantly misapplying the Code in that case. More likely they are penalizing a return he filed.

Therefore the process in the evidence repository worked fine! It is easy to think that the presentments should have ended there but the IRS agent can offer up contracts all day long and is being paid to do so. A R4C would probably work real nifty but I suggest the 843 Form too with the R4C process since that is what it is for. [The agent is compelled to see the Form and therefore the R4C has a built-in Proof of Service in addition to the Registered Mail and PACER services.] Since the suitor redeems lawful money there is no assumption of jurisdiction, like you have argued about filling and signing their forms.

I may seem inconsistent on that point, but my logic is this--I am not worried about any jurisidictional issues with submitting an 843 to try to abate a frivolous penalty, because if they are sending me bills for frivolous penalties, they already think I am in their jurisdiction for that tax year (and in fact I unknowingly reinforced that perception by filing a 1040 form, even though I was just trying to claim a 100% refund). I don't think filing a 1040 actually puts a suitor in their jurisdiction, but I think I will try to avoid confusing them and giving them an opportunity to harass me with more frivolous penalties. If they have some kind of targeted people list I am definitely on it. So that's where I am coming from on the use of "their" forms. If I can avoid having any more frivolous return penalties imposed , I can avoid having to file an 843 in the future as well.

I am getting ready to try an abatement of frivolous penalties on Form 843 (which does not have "U.S. Individual" in its title by the way, as the 1040 does). I will let you know how it goes. I am redeeming lawful money now, always would have if I had known about it, and will mention that. But even before I learned about LMR I was refusing their presentments for cause, and I have a mountain of correspondence prior to that which they never replied to in good faith. They are required under IRM to make a quality response to inquiries, but they never have. Before they imposed penalties, they had sent me a letter demanding that I correct my purported "frivolous return" but gave me no guidance on what was wrong so that I could correct it. I wrote back to ask, but they just responded by imposing the penalty. The imposition of the penalty was therefore arbitrary and capricious. So I think in any case I have a good argument for abatement based on violation of administrative due process. I really would have corrected the return if they had just told me what was wrong with it. But they would have to reveal how the whole thing works in order to do that, wouldn't they?

I am filling out a response because you insist on pressing around here. - This time in red font even. If you want to show me an image of a bill - what was it? $80K? Then upon confirmation you are not just here to undermine remedy for everybody else I will likely take an interest in your implementation of remedy. Maybe even let you into the brain trust and then you can actually report here your progress on the forums?

Thank you. I will find the notice of lien and PM it to you.

I should warn you in advance that there are skeptics watching this website who are either IRS agents or are in contact with IRS agents so do not disclose anything on the forums unless you want that additional burden - to be a target for an example.

Yeah, I kinda know what that's like already.



Regards,

David Merrill.

---

Thanks for answering my questions David.

HA! I find it comical that the quatloser posting as ManOntheLand (likely behind a fake IP-address) thinks he can steer anyone away from remedy with his agenda-driven shenanigans. And single-handedly at that. Where are your colleagues, Famspear, Demo, LPC, & fortinbras? From your posts I can tell you're clearly versed in law, likely a lawyer, yet you don't post as yourself nor as an attorney. You make up new usernames and pretend to be one of us. I've listened to attorneys before and found their answers & contributions very helpful. Yet you hide behind a fake persona. That speaks to an admission of defeat on your part, it tells me you cannot win this on the merits, you cannot debate us with facts, logic & law. You call us numbskulls and play games. That's quite a validation of David Merrill as well as a huge admission of defeat on your part there, MOtL. Thanks for being here!

My own Libel of Review was filed pre-emptively as I was without (and still without) IRS trouble. It did receive a lengthy response from a high-powered attorney but one thing stands as a point of interest to me. That response steered clear of the core of the counterclaim, it made no mention of "private credit of the Fed" nor "lawful money."

We find that same evasion (and sidewinder aspersions from MOtL) in this opinion to another preemptive Tax Return style record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

We find that same evasion (and sidewinder aspersions from MOtL) in this opinion to another preemptive Tax Return style record.

---

David Merrill: I am sanitizing a couple of notices (lien and a final intent to levy) today so I can PM them to you. Hopefully at that point you can stop wasting your time and energy being defensive, dissecting old posts of mine, and making tiresome and paranoid accusations about my motives.

Thanks to the good feedback to my posts I have managed to get at this site (to your credit, most of that has been from you,D.M., but much thanks to Michael Joseph and Anthony Joseph as well) and some direct answers to my direct questions from you, D.M., I have truly learned a lot here in a very short time, and have had some breakthroughs in my mental model of how remedy works.

The hardest part for me coming from the CTC paradigm was to truly realize the pervasiveness of the Federal Reserve Note's role in all of this. It seems that it is assumed that you will bond your paycheck into the Fed Reserve system. Once you are redeeming lawful money, you should of course give notice that you are not taking part in that system. That part I grasped no problem.

What I had difficulty understanding (and was the most skeptical about) was the idea that other perceived nexuses of taxation are also being undone by the redemption of lawful money (more to the point, whether Auntie would respect that). It seemed a little too simple. This idea caused me some cognitive dissonance due to the CTC and SEDM paradigm in my head, i.e. that the W-2 and 1099 are used fraudulently to create an illusion of a federally connected taxable payment from what is actually a private sector work agreement with no obvious federal connection. Within that paradigm, the information returns create a presumption of compensation or "wages" for performance of a service that is "effectively connected to a trade or business within the United States", which is false and must be rebutted, or else one will be presumed liable for the income tax.

The key for me was to understand that the transfer of FRN's itself from employer to employee makes an otherwise private sector transaction (the exercise of a right) into one that is indeed "effectively connected to a trade or business within the United States." (a taxable privilege). The W-2 is therefore not false at all. Eureka!!

Hendrickson of course does not recognize the nexus conferred by transfer of FRN's, or by the bonding into the FR system from endorsement of one's paycheck. As a result Pete is left with arguing that what he was paid was not actually "wages". From the perspective of remedy, it is not hard to see why this does not work as a legal position.

My fuller understanding of remedy also illuminates for me what happened to Hendrickson at his trial, which I had previously dissected to determine where Pete's legal arguments went wrong. For other CTC graduates, and other suitors, it may be helpful to see how the tax nexus conferred by FRN's helps make sense of what otherwise looks like pure judicial corruption at Pete's trial. Picking apart a couple of events from Pete's trial gives indirect confirmation (in my opinion) that the transfer of Federal Reserve Notes from an employer to an employee, unless redeemed for lawful money, confers a silently presumed federal tax nexus.

1) At Pete's trial, Pete did not even disagree that his employer correctly reported the amounts Pete was paid. This was all it took for the judge to instruct the jury that Pete had received taxable income. Obviously Pete was not redeeming lawful money. Pete relied on his personal interpretation of the definition of "wages" to argue that what he was paid did not constitute "wages", but the judge instructed the jury that Pete had received "wages" and that they were taxable.

When the role of the FRN is understood, this makes sense. Without that, it just looks like the judge is misapplying the law, misconstruing the definition of the word "includes" etc. as Pete has argued. As I pointed out in a recent post on this site, since the transfer from employer to employee of FRN's confer a "trade or business" nexus, than you are indeed within the Code's meaning of "employee" and what you are paid is within the Code's meaning of "wages" even if you are working in the private sector. Demanding redemption in lawful money reduces the gross income by the amount so redeemed.

2) Pete moved to dismiss his case at one point, arguing that he is not a "person" as that term is defined in IRC Sec. 7343 (the applicable definition for the charges he was defending against). It took five months for the judge to return with a denial of this motion. In my opinion, this was because the judge needed to find a way to deny the motion without revealing the REAL reason Pete is a "person" under that provision.

This caution by the judge is indicated not only by the five month delay in making the ruling, but by the absurd reasoning the judge used to apply the general definition of "person" under IRC 7701 to Pete. The judge claimed that the Sec. 7343 definition of "person" (which refers to a "duty" as an officer of a corporation to perform the act with respect to which the violation occured) BUILDS UPON the general definition of "person" in Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7701. Under this logic, the 7343 definition of person is totally superfluous.

The judge stated in his decision that "individuals such as defendant are persons within the meaning of the term". The judge used the phrase "individuals such as defendant" twice. Pete interpreted this as the judge claiming that all individuals are persons under the Code. It seems to me that it is hoped we will all interpret it that way, because of the myth of the direct tax on "all that comes in". The judge actually made the correct ruling in denying the motion, because Pete actually is a "person" as defined in IRC 7343. But in my opinion the judge had to rule against Pete while avoiding explaining why the 7343 definition of "person" does indeed apply to Pete--that Pete indeed assumed a duty to pay tax as an officer of the Federal Corporation by bonding his paychecks into the Federal Reserve System (more precisely, by his failing to demand redemption of his checks in lawful money, since the tax nexus was created by the transfer of FRN's from Pete's employer to Pete).

By saying the broader 7701 definition of person was the one that really matters, we are meant to come away thinking the judge said the tax applies to everybody. But the judge was only saying that individuals "such as defendant" are persons, implying some unspoken qualification. I believe that qualification is the receipt of FRN's that are presumed to have been bonded into the system.

Pete has actually agreed that he did not read the judge's decision carefully enough to pick up on this "qualification" at first. He has moved to vacate his conviction, but unfortunately has not deviated from the same argument that lost at trial and on appeal, that he is "excluded by the plain language" of the definition of "person" in the law.

Now I understand why a suitor would attach a W-2 to a 1040 and deduct the amount he redeemed. (I still believe there is a risk that Auntie may mishandle such a return, but I can now see how the suitor is on sound legal ground.)

You guys can think whatever you want to think about me. I don't care. If you still perceive some sneaky attempt to undermine remedy in what I say, it's your problem.

Does Pete seem a little bit like the woman in this video ?

Quote:

---

Once you are redeeming lawful money, you should of course give notice that you are not taking part in that system.

---

There you have it. System parameters - system definition. From inside the system you cannot detect anything without it.



P.S. Rick STRASSMAN is giving a shot at describing something of the sort in DMT-The Spirit Molecule:

Its not too late for Pete to claim fraud by omission, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Howard

Its not too late for Pete to claim fraud by omission, is it?

---

Never. How effective it may be is the question.

About a year ago the brain trust started seeing indications that the IRS attorneys are no longer wary of the accusation. - After three years of it being fairly effective. It is still written into the Libel of Review.

Thank you. I apologize. If you were to study my posts closely you might find me subject to imagination attacks. The manner in which you kept skirting the border between being in contract with the Fed or not led me to be quite suspicious.

That paperwork is quite revealing. One of the suitors was battling on the premise that no such Assessments ever exist - like the one you show in your link. Interesting that you have shown us that. All else, the garbage my suspicions generated - THANK YOU! That is some great fuel for edifying conversation right there.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Howard

Its not too late for Pete to claim fraud by omission, is it?

---

Pete would first have to acknowledge that he didn't have this all figured out as much he thought he did. That is probably the biggest hurdle right there. He already did his time, and he has his books to sell and his guru-dom to maintain. It looks to me like he would rather be "right" than win.

Even if he could clear the formidable hurdle that is his own ego, Pete would have to finally realize that he cannot simply argue to the Court that the plain meaning of the words in the Code definition of "person" excludes him, without at least explaining why he is excluded from that definition, by way of a factual statement.

In my opinion, Pete could again move to vacate his conviction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, supporting the motion with a factual statement under penalty of perjury that he was not knowingly under any obligation to the United States through which he waived his rights as a knowing, voluntary act, per Brady v United States.

Jurisdiction, once challenged, must be proven. Technically the opposing side would have the burden of providing facts to rebut those put forth by the party challenging the jurisdiction. The problem for Pete so far is that throughout the trial, the appeal and even his attempt he already made to vacate his conviction, he has never actually presented any fact in support of his argument that he is not a "person" within the meaning of the Code section he violated. Pete only made conclusory legal arguments. So all the Court has had to do to shoot him down is say, "yes you are a person" because the presumption is that Pete is such a "person" and the Court has no evidence before it to indicate otherwise.

If Pete were to present any facts indicating he is not such a "person", would the Court risk exposing what the nexus of jurisdiction really was in Pete's trial? What are they going to say, that Pete DID somehow know he was waiving his rights? Just getting on the record the idea that one is presumed in federal court to have waived his rights knowingly and voluntarily through a contractual nexus of any kind would blow way too big a hole in the myth of the direct tax on "all that comes in", if you ask me.

If Pete were to also embrace the idea of redeeming lawful money, he could make the claim that he would always have done so if he had only known about it, and use that to further support a case that his waiver of rights was not a knowing, voluntary act, and therefore actually no waiver at all. This is not exactly the same as claiming fraud by omission, a claim which asserts that it is somebody else's fault that you didn't know, and therefore requires a higher standard of proof. Just the fact that you did not know about remedy before (even if that is considered to be your fault) is enough to invalidate an obligation if it constitutes a waiver of a fundamental right, such as the right to acquire property in exchange for one's labor, which is a right the Supreme Court stated is "among the most sacred and inviolable" in Coppage v. Kansas.

Who knows how IRS attorneys or the Court would react? Perhaps Pete would get his conviction vacated just so they could avoid having a public conversation about lawful money redemption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Thank you. I apologize. If you were to study my posts closely you might find me subject to imagination attacks. The manner in which you kept skirting the border between being in contract with the Fed or not led me to be quite suspicious.

That paperwork is quite revealing. One of the suitors was battling on the premise that no such Assessments ever exist - like the one you show in your link. Interesting that you have shown us that. All else, the garbage my suspicions generated - THANK YOU! That is some great fuel for edifying conversation right there.


Regards,

David Merrill.

---

No worries David! I took my post down though once I realized there are unique certified mail numbers and document locator codes still on there. If you think it is important for people to see, I will sanitize it some more and re-post.

Assessments for frivolous penalties do exist, but the IRS does not seem to follow their own assessment rules in the Code--a supervisor is required by the Code to give written authorization to make the frivolous penalty assessment (or it "shall not be assessed") and according to IRM they are required to keep that written authorization in the exam file. My Privacy Act requests turned up no such documents in the file.
Also note that the only narrative information in the 8728 assessment document is "no response to 3176". This is false, because I indeed responded to the 3176 letter. They just ignored my response so they could go ahead and assess the penalty anyway.

Further, the assessments do not typically appear in the Individual Master File transcript. Believe it or not, my IMF for all these years indicate that I owe nothing (with the exception of the 2009, for which they did a summary audit and re-assessed $2477 tax, rather than imposing a frivolous penalty.) They have to create a whole separate transcript from the master file in order to get their computer to accept these frivolous penalty assessments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

There you have it. System parameters - system definition. From inside the system you cannot detect anything without it.



P.S. Rick STRASSMAN is giving a shot at describing something of the sort in DMT-The Spirit Molecule:

---

Just noticed that the DMT book excerpt quotes David Deutsch, who has authored two very mind-blowing books I have read in the last year--The Beginning of Infinity and The Fabric of Reality. In Fabric--he offers actual proof of infinite parallel universes, citing the abilities of quantum computers to solve factorization problems that should require more calculations than are physically possible in our universe.

In Infinity, as I recall he argues in one chapter that it is mathematically impossible to have equal representation in Congress, as the apportionment clause requires. He goes on to far far more interesting points though, explaining that a culture of self-correction is the key to survival of a civilization. Without that, a culture destroys itself by suppressing innovation and thus hindering its ability to solve problems that arise to threaten its survival. Great read for those who enjoy their paradigm shifts! :)

Yes please. - Do sanitize the Doc and link it. I was about to broadcast it to the brain trust (suitors) and prefer you be comfortable with the Information shared on it.

That is very exciting about the DMT and quantum physics. The point I was bringing forth is about how from our frame of reference we cannot see outside our own story/filter. I have often used being in a bowl. If the bowl is big enough one might think the horizon he sees is the true horizon... I am pleased how you found so much more in the quote.

Synchronicity is the conscious memory that everything is happening at once, time being an illusion.

Quote:

---

In my opinion, Pete could again move to vacate his conviction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, supporting the motion with a factual statement under penalty of perjury that he was not knowingly under any obligation to the United States through which he waived his rights as a knowing, voluntary act, per Brady v United States.

---

I have been pondering this lately. There is an operation of arraignment by attorney. If you reject the attorney, you reject arraignment and that leads the court to question traditionally if you are from another jurisdiction and incapable of understanding what is going on - touched by God ex visitation Dei. This of course evolved into psychological evaluation to determine whether or not you are fit for trial.

[QUOTE=David Merrill;10977]Yes please. - Do sanitize the Doc and link it. I was about to broadcast it to the brain trust (suitors) and prefer you be comfortable with the Information shared on it. [QUOTE]

Attachment 1233 Here they are again, extra sanitized.

Something I forgot to point out about the 4340 Assessment Record--on the final page, it is very clearly signed by someone other than the officer named on the signature line. The accompanying certificate of official record (not included in this file) bears the same signature and the same obviously different name for the certifying officer.

Quote:

---

I have been pondering this lately. There is an operation of arraignment by attorney. If you reject the attorney, you reject arraignment and that leads the court to question traditionally if you are from another jurisdiction and incapable of understanding what is going on - touched by God ex visitation Dei. This of course evolved into psychological evaluation to determine whether or not you are fit for trial.

---

That reminds me of the Gail Sinocki tax evasion case in California in 1981, which Otto Skinner talks about in his books. Sinocki had representation forced on her by the Court. Sinocki challenged the indictment against her as lacking any factual allegations and consisting of mere legal conclusions. Soon after, Sinocki's forced representation moved the Court to send Sinocki for a psychological evaluation. Sinocki moved the court herself to provide other counsel. Sincoki's case was apparently dismissed. Skinner has in the appendix of his books Sinocki's Motion to be assigned alternate counsel, which tells the whole story. She seemed frightened by the psych evaluation tactic--claiming persecution for her unconventional views on income tax and comparing the whole scenario to a "star chamber".

My understanding is that appearance by the attorney representing the defendant perfects the in personam jurisdiction of the court. A challenge to jurisdiction must be made by the defendant himself in special appearance. The Federal Court very strongly encourages representation. Otto Skinner gets into this in his book "If You Are the Defendant"--the 6th amendment guarantees the right to assistance of counsel (which does not require defendant to have the attorney actually represent him). The Court strongly discourages defendants in criminal cases from self-representation because of lack of competency in general of pro se litigants--but a defendant who wants to control his own case may (in theory) have the best of both worlds by employing counsel to assist with procedure in dealing with the Court.

Subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time--even years after the trial. I am not sure about this, but the tax prosecution is really all about the charges in the indictment against the res (thing) is it not? This would seem to make it appropriate to challenge subject matter jurisdiction if, like Hendrickson, a defendant had been unaware at the time of the nature and cause of the charges, and had unknowingly waived his common law right to work for a living in the private sector by failing to make his demand for lawful money. Realizing that later, it seems to me one could challenge the presumed waiver of rights that gives the Court jurisdiction over the res for purposes of the indictment for violation of IRC. No valid contract, no subject matter jurisdiction.

Or maybe they push a lawyer on you because:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argersinger_v._Hamlin

You have NO STANDING before the court, not being a member of the BAR, and thus cannot speak for the legal fiction (ACTOR) whose name sounds exactly like yours (idem sonans). For you to attempt a court appearance perpetrates fraud upon the court and NOTHING you say or file with the court may be recognized or heard, in spite of your best intentions and most diligent efforts.

The judge will take silent notice immediately.

Hiring an attorney only complicates issues because it makes you a ward of the court (incompetent-to-handle your own affairs) AND it compromises your interests (attorneys are officers of the court whose first allegiance is to the court and not to their clients). Representing yourself pro se is no solution, either, unless you conveniently happen to be a member of the BAR (perish the thought!).

So what do you suggest one does when they are dragged into court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LearnTheLaw

You have NO STANDING before the court, not being a member of the BAR, and thus cannot speak for the legal fiction (ACTOR) whose name sounds exactly like yours (idem sonans). For you to attempt a court appearance perpetrates fraud upon the court and NOTHING you say or file with the court may be recognized or heard, in spite of your best intentions and most diligent efforts.

The judge will take silent notice immediately.

Hiring an attorney only complicates issues because it makes you a ward of the court (incompetent-to-handle your own affairs) AND it compromises your interests (attorneys are officers of the court whose first allegiance is to the court and not to their clients). Representing yourself pro se is no solution, either, unless you conveniently happen to be a member of the BAR (perish the thought!).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Lyn

So what do you suggest one does when they are dragged into court?

---

When you enter THEIR court, you submit yourself to THEIR jurisdiction

14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside..."


RULE: Never accept a presentment without contesting it, but remember that the ONLY thing you want to contest is the "style of the case," i.e. the corruption of your Christian appellation into a corporate fiction form. To argue anything else in the pleading (even a contention that you are an ax murderer) instantly causes you to traverse into the opposition's jurisdiction-and you're dead!


The burden is upon them to prove that they have jurisdiction over you.

Did you 'knowingly and willingly' volunteer to become a US citizen?

Did you fully comprehend the fact that you were 'voluntarily' waving your constitutional rights to become a 14th amendment debt slave?



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


================================================== ================================================== ============

17. Under the Federal and State Constitutions, "... We the People" did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers "delegated" do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority simply because some "law" is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do, so long as it does not damage, injure or impair the same Right of another individual. The concept of a corpus delicti is relevant here, in order to prove some "crime" or civil damage.

18. The case law surrounding the 13th and 14th Amendments all rings with the same message: "These amendments did not change the status of Common Law Citizenship of the white Citizens of one of the several States of the Union" (now 50 in number).

19. This goes to the crux of the controversy because, under the so-called 14th Amendment, citizenship is a privilege and not a "Right". (See American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 (1828); Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).)

20. It was never the intent of the so-called 14th Amendment to change the status of the Common Law Citizens of the several States. (See People v. Washington, 36 C. 658, 661 (1869); French v. Barber, 181 U.S. 324 (1900); MacKenzie v. Hare, 60 L.Ed. 297). Intent is always decisive and conclusive on the courts.

21. However, over the years, the so-called 14th Amendment has been used to create a fiction and to destroy American freedom through administrative regulation. How is this possible? The answer is self-evident to anyone who understands the law, namely, a "privilege" can be regulated to any degree, including the alteration and even the revocation of that privilege.

22. Since the statutory status of "citizen of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (1866 Civil Rights Act) is one of privilege and not of Right, and since the so called 14th Amendment mandates that both Congress and the several States take measures to protect these new "subjects", then both the Federal and State governments are mandated to protect the privileges and immunities of ONLY these "citizens of the United States".
(See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).)

23. Of course, the amount of protection afforded has a price to pay, but the important fact is that the "privilege" of citizenship under the so-called 14th Amendment can be regulated or revoked because it is a "privilege" and not a RIGHT. It is here that the basic, fundamental concept of "self-government" turns into a King "governing his subjects".


http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter9.htm

Since most of us here know, I hope, that the NAME called upon and charged against in court is not we the living, why not just ask the simple question...

Who has best evidence of title to that NAME?

Hint: The answer is signed and sealed on the trust receipt/indemnity certificate created shortly after we were born into this world.

Whoever claims title (the NAME) bears the burden.

Good point AJ!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph

Since most of us here know, I hope, that the NAME called upon and charged against in court is not we the living, why not just ask the simple question...

Who has best evidence of title to that NAME?

Hint: The answer is signed and sealed on the trust receipt/indemnity certificate created shortly after we were born into this world.

Whoever claims title (the NAME) bears the burden.

---

I believe it would better, and more accurate, to say:

Who has best evidence of LEGAL title to that NAME?

The LEGAL title holder is liable, NOT the EQUITABLE title holder.

IMHO,
Douglas Raymond

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

I believe it would better, and more accurate, to say:

Who has best evidence of LEGAL title to that NAME?

The LEGAL title holder is liable, NOT the EQUITABLE title holder.

IMHO,
Douglas Raymond

---

Do you have EQUITABLE title to [the] Douglas Raymond SURNAME?

If not, who does?

If so, where's the evidence?

I ask these questions not as an antagonist but merely to see the answers in order to study and learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph

Do you have EQUITABLE title to [the] Douglas Raymond SURNAME?

If not, who does?

If so, where's the evidence?

I ask these questions not as an antagonist but merely to see the answers in order to study and learn.

---

Everyone wants to sit at the right hand of the Father. Yehovah Sabbaoth is the King of Glory and the government of the Kingdom of Heaven is structured.

quote" for Ourselves and our Posterity" - Beneficiaries

Trustees are unnamed but the Offices are settled.

Settlor = We the People

I cannot trace my ancestry to the 55 - so I am not a PRIMARY beneficiary. However, I can benefit - in third party.

Equitable Title you say? I am not with Equitable or Legal title. I did not settle or grant the trust and I am not an heir. Notice the trustees are unnamed and so are the heirs - why is this the case - because if you name a party, then the trust is for Life - unnamed parties but named offices continue even after those who created the Will are long dead.

shalom,
mj

A police officer on the beat finds your automobile parked in front of a fire hydrant.

The police officer immediately tickets and tows and your automobile is now impounded. http://www.cityofboston.gov/transportation/abandoned/ .

Your looking for your automobile finds out it’s in the automobile pound http://www.cityofboston.gov/towing/ and “you” go to pick it up and pay the fine Boston http://www.cityofboston.gov/Parking/payment.asp

The person in charge asks for identification. What are you going to give the person for identification?

The LEGAL title holder identification or the EQUITABLE title identification card?

Because without I.D. you are getting nothing.

You say "I am not with Equitable or Legal title."

The person in charge who is asking for identification says “come back when you find the owner.”

Show me the best evidence of LEGAL title to that NAME (other than a drivers licenses) for the automobile.

Tell me what are you going to give the person for identification to get your automobile back?

By the way: http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...n_parking.html .

I also would say that I am not with equitable title to the Anthony Joseph SURNAME. ALL titles have been seized since 1933 and individual "ownership", according to Senate Document No.43 of the 73rd Congress 1st Session, is "by virtue of Government" and "amounting to mere user" (see attached page 13).

If that doesn't spell it out...

I believe there is a choice for "mere user" as well; we either use in trustee de son tort (adverse claims) or in naked use (render unto Caesar) with an acknowledged assignment of all reversionary interest in the NAME to and for the account of the United States - 12USC95a(2).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

A police officer on the beat finds your automobile parked in front of a fire hydrant.

The police officer immediately tickets and tows and your automobile is now impounded. http://www.cityofboston.gov/transportation/abandoned/ .

Your looking for your automobile finds out it’s in the automobile pound http://www.cityofboston.gov/towing/ and “you” go to pick it up and pay the fine Boston http://www.cityofboston.gov/Parking/payment.asp

The person in charge asks for identification. What are you going to give the person for identification?

The LEGAL title holder identification or the EQUITABLE title identification card?

Because without I.D. you are getting nothing.

You say "I am not with Equitable or Legal title."

The person in charge who is asking for identification says “come back when you find the owner.”

Show me the best evidence of LEGAL title to that NAME (other than a drivers licenses) for the automobile.

Tell me what are you going to give the person for identification to get your automobile back?

By the way: http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...n_parking.html .

---

If you plan on going to "pay" the fine, then provide the DL that they are required to ask for. There are ways to provide what is needed without agreeing the DL is an identification card. Everyone must individually decide what the law of necessity dictates at any given moment in their lives.

If there still exists evidence of adverse claims in the NAME, it will be extremely difficult to get the car out without going about it by "conventional" means. If one has evidence, however, that all interest in the NAME has been assigned to and for the account of the United States, then perhaps a different route could be taken. I have never been in that situation so this is my opinion only.

This is why the Lesson Plan begins with:


1) True Identity.
2) Record Forming.
3) Redeeming Lawful Money.


It is not a silver bullet but it certainly helps get the new suitor as competent as possible.

As a Bostonian, I can tell you that the approach described by Chex is guaranteed to get you only a surly attitude from the person in charge, and not get you the return of your vehicle. They are used to hearing all sorts of stories from people whose cars have been towed; and a sense of humor and/or a willingness to listen to claims of legal v. equitable title, and so on, are not part of their job skills. Anthony Joseph's approach is much better, since it will get you out of there with your vehicle. Otherwise, you have to decide if standing on principle is worth the loss of your vehicle, since it will remain on the tow lot until it is sold at auction to help cover the unpaid fines and stowage charges.

its a custody issue.
security is needed.