1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money

[LearnTheLaw]

Ok, I got the letter from the IRS, Here it is suggested replies?

Temporarily Deleted

I have to agree with Micheal Joseph that you must re-butt their proposal within 30 days or else you lose by default.

I appears that there have sent a proposed NEW contract to your all capitals Strawman in the hopes that you answer the letter, which in reality would be an acceptance to contract with them, which binds you back into their Jurisdiction.

Remember, they can not prosecute you outside of their Jurisdiction

It seems to me the best thing you could do is write across their letter in big bold red letters:

THAT'S NOT ME

REFUSED FOR CAUSE

Then get it Notarized and send it back registered mail receipt requested for your records

I may be wrong with my thinking so hopefully others on here can chime in


This not legal advise, it is only my opinion

[froze25]

I have to agree with Micheal Joseph that you must re-butt their proposal within 30 days or else you lose by default.

I appears that there have sent a proposed NEW contract to your all capitals Strawman in the hopes that you answer the letter, which in reality would be an acceptance to contract with them, which binds you back into their Jurisdiction.

Remember, they can not prosecute you outside of their Jurisdiction

It seems to me the best thing you could do is write across their letter in big bold red letters:

THAT'S NOT ME

REFUSED FOR CAUSE

Then get it Notarized and send it back registered mail receipt requested for your records

I may be wrong with my thinking so hopefully others on here can chime in


This not legal advise, it is only my opinion

I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).

[LearnTheLaw]

I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).

What would you expect them to say about it?

Remember, they are willing to lie to you in order to get you into their Jurisdiction

Like I said, hopefully others [like DM or MJ] will chime in

[Moxie]

What would you expect them to say about it?

Remember, they are willing to lie to you in order to get you into their Jurisdiction

Like I said, hopefully others [like DM or MJ] will chime in

Bingo.

And even though I'm just a lowly flea (apparently) in the forums, I will chime in and agree.

[fano24chevy]

Agreed, you MUST respond. Having seen multiple copies of this letter (thanks Pete/CTC), it's imperative you write, notarize, registered mail w receipt to Ogden. Once you receive the receipt, CALL and follow up w Odgen. Load Skype and an MP3 recorder that records automatically when a call is placed w Skype. Get names, ID #s, etc. Follow w another letter to the one you spoke with (again, notarize, registered mail w receipt) about your phone conversation. Even this may not be enough to stop a letter from Maureen Green, charging the penalty. However, you have a "name" to pursue if it becomes necessary. The key is stop the train before the ACS (Automated Collection System) kicks in.

BTW, it's documented (by others) that the frivpen is actually a "User Fee" based on their own codes. Credit to "woody" on that one.

Not Legal Advice, just my two bits...

[Moxie]

This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.

Group question, not so much directed to StoneFree:

So how does one tell the difference between an "agent sent to dissuade" and an innocent student making comments or mistakes in their learning process?

And I wonder how many innocent people have been driven away from these forums in the midst of their studies, never to return, all because some assumed them to be an agent based on their questions and learning process/learning style. This is tragic. Even shameful.

What does it take for someone to prove they are not an agent?

Does anyone take the time to pray over this forum daily? How about group prayer - is there a prayer team for this forum?

Where is the fellowship?

Does agape love exist in here? Because if this place is of the Father, agape love should be thriving in here.

I have already invested many many study hours in these threads, hence my strong feelings on this subject. I have questions about what I’ve studied, yet I’m terrified to ask because of this very issue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jeanne Marie

[froze25]

The letter has been mailed via certified return receipt. I will update as it progresses.

[LearnTheLaw]

It appears that people are making posts to this thread, however I seem to be having trouble seeing the posts.

Am I the only one having this problem

[LearnTheLaw]

I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).

duplicate post