Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 201 to 209 of 209

Thread: Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

  1. #201
    I can see how "commercial war of genocide and temple desecration" would bring that to mind.

  2. #202
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Fractional lending and reserve banking depend entirely on insurance. FDIC is the primary insurance but all endorsed bills are insured against the national debt for security. Therefore redemption restores one to that Mandatory Exception from the false balances of elastic currency.

    But there is more. A FrivPen is Waiver of Tort...
    Name:  waiveroftort_Blacks9.jpg
Views: 329
Size:  99.0 KB

    I get it. The IRS presumes everyone is endorsing private credit (of the Federal Reserve). This is their default position ... assuming your income is federal income; you are contracting. Therefore when their computer database shows you with unreported income (ie. W2, 1099) or unpaid tax as an unjust benefit, instead of suing in court (tort) they elect to treat the facts as establishing an implied contract - all the rules & regs of Title 26. Therefore their system issues the Frivolous Penalty, per contract.

    But, I am redeemed. Non-contracting. So in my case the IRS is in error.

    It occurs to me that your five suitors could also go after the Garnishees bank accounts by Trustee Process. But that would require judgement by judge in favor of the suitor. And that seems unlikely given the invalid oaths and that judges almost always favor the banks. I suppose the odds are slightly better with the clerks - if you can get them to do their job.

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post
    Name:  waiveroftort_Blacks9.jpg
Views: 329
Size:  99.0 KB

    I get it. The IRS presumes everyone is endorsing private credit (of the Federal Reserve). This is their default position ... assuming your income is federal income; you are contracting. Therefore when their computer database shows you with unreported income (ie. W2, 1099) or unpaid tax as an unjust benefit, instead of suing in court (tort) they elect to treat the facts as establishing an implied contract - all the rules & regs of Title 26. Therefore their system issues the Frivolous Penalty, per contract.

    But, I am redeemed. Non-contracting. So in my case the IRS is in error.

    It occurs to me that your five suitors could also go after the Garnishees bank accounts by Trustee Process. But that would require judgement by judge in favor of the suitor. And that seems unlikely given the invalid oaths and that judges almost always favor the banks. I suppose the odds are slightly better with the clerks - if you can get them to do their job.
    Thank you for paying attention and being so smart. That makes it worthwhile for me. Much better than finding out I imagine these things because of a tumor putting pressure on my pituitary gland or something like that.

    About the clerks; Angela CAESAR took two months but finally published a Notice of Clerk's Bad Behaviors on PACER. I imagine that was pretty difficult for her.

    About Waiver of Tort action. I am having trouble finding any difference in a CP-15 FrivPen billing and Waiver of Tort. I do not think that I have ever seen a frivolous filing penalty ever turn into a prosecution for tax evasion. So maybe that is waiver of tort; when the IRS decides to bill a taxpayer that is the decision to waive a criminal prosecution?

    So what is good for the gander is good for the goose?

    This is why it helps to hit the clerk with malfeasance accusations. The Rules of Court are published and that is the authority, combined with bonding for the "judges". So this has all paid off.

  4. #204
    Greetings;

    This is one of the more useful threads around here. I am crosstalking from another thread...

    Automated Under Reporter (AUR) is the IRS codename for their system that detects & responds to reported income mismatches: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleae...cp-2000-notice

  5. #205
    Hi Everybody!

    A new suitor sent me this link. I think this is the same memorandum as before though, already posted here. If you see anything that might relate to redemption please comment.


    https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosu...ction-i-a-to-c

  6. #206
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    260
    Ah, new edition of the Frivolous List, March 2018, but still the GLARING OMISSION - no mention of redemption of lawful money.

    CONTENTION: U.S. notes are not income.
    Taxpayer claims his U.S. note income can be non-taxable. Taxpayer claims to have learned the secret of the federal income tax: that it's an excise on receipt of Federal Reserve currency. While it is true one can avoid taxation on income by redeeming one's income in lawful money (U.S notes in the form of FRN's), we (the owners of the central bank and all who profit from it) would prefer you don't tell anyone. Thanks.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post
    This is what you're looking for...

    Contention: U.S. notes are not income.

    Some assert that U.S. notes are not taxable income under the Revenue Acts of Congress; that a worker who redeems a paycheck in U.S. notes (lawful money) owes no federal tax on that income.

    The Law:

    The U.S. Supreme court has said “…taxation on income was [is] in its nature an excise…” and excise taxes can be avoided by avoiding the privileged activity - endorsing private credit of the FED.

    Relevant Case Law:

    United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10 th Cir. 1980) - Court affirms "that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money."

    Milam v. United States, Appellees, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974) - Holder of $50 Federal Reserve Note sought to require Federal Reserve board to redeem the note in gold or silver. Court affirms that "Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal."
    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...24/629/430631/

    United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9 th Cir. 1984) - Taxpayer argued that receipt of Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute "income", the bass ackwards argument of Contention above. Of course FRNs are taxable. George Mercer wrote a letter to taxpayer Armen Condo who was highly unreceptive, continued using FRNs, and the court upheld his criminal conviction.
    https://famguardian.org/Publications...ondoLetter.htm

    Conclusion: True
    I have copied this from another thread.

    Also, this MENDOZA Order might be being misused already, I don't know.

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    My suspicion lately is that the DoJ is keeping tabs here and the Albany Remand, seeing that we have no judicial oversight to run to - except maybe the Dragon Court (NEPHALIM) and then maybe above that, the Truth. So they are experimenting.



    I am copying this post over to What does the IRS agent think?
    Thank you David,

    I received a copy of my 2017 signed W4 with Lawful Money stamp today from the IRS along with form 3699 (rev. 1-83) attached to the front, it has a box checked on the form that reads "Forms W4 (To be filed with your employers to enable them to determine the amount of income tax to withhold from your wages.) See photo attached.

    After much searching I found this on the IRS site:

    "General OCEP Audit Guidelines

    Return cancelled checks, receipts and other original records the taxpayer submitted during the audit. Use Form 3699, Return of Documents to Taxpayer, or Letter 1020 (DO), Correspondence and Interview Examination. Letter 1020 (DO) advises the taxpayer of the status of the audit and documents returning records to the taxpayer.
    Place all pertinent correspondence in the back of the file. (Correspondence enclosures may not be pertinent, see IRM 4.75.16.7.3(1)) Contact the taxpayer to determine whether they submitted any original documents. If so, make copies of the documents and return the originals.
    Keep only records you need to document workpaper conclusions in the files.
    Caution:
    At the first indication of a revocation, the agent must be careful to keep all records that were received from the taxpayer. At the same time the agent must begin compiling an administrative record. For a discussion on proposed revocations and administrative records, refer to IRM 4.75.32, Declaratory Judgment Cases and The Administrative Record.

    General on-site audit guidelines are in IRM 4.75.11, On Site Examination Guidelines. They may be useful in an OCEP audit. Refer also to Exempt Organization’s, Audit Technique Guides, for audit guidelines appropriate for an OCEP based on the type of organization under audit."

    Are they really going to audit me for claiming LM?

  9. #209
    This is still one of the more informative threads on the entire Internet, in my opinion. This image indicates we are making progress as it is the second report in one day that instead of slapping on the $5K FrivPens the IRS is simply losing returns!

    Name:  Notice 2566 no 1040 received.jpg
Views: 57
Size:  331.1 KB

    With this particular new suitor, it is a godsend considering he mistakenly added the FICA SSI stuff to his claim. Now he gets a chance to correct it. I think it should be difficult for the IRS to admit that they lost two Returns in a row!

    Last edited by David Merrill; 08-26-19 at 04:02 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •