Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[Chex]

With that said I like to bump this thread a little before a march on the treasury.

Your not a NAME your a NUMBER = IRS BMF,IMF, NMF IRAF and EPMF

[Chex]

I can see where he is coming from................

On December 10, the good guys come together, or a final nail goes into the rule of law's coffin.

LET IT BE SAID PLAINLY: Forcing someone to declare herself indebted to another party-- whether by court order or threat of penalty for not making such a declaration-- is not a legitimate, lawful act of any organ of the state. Instead, it is a corrupt, tyrannical act, and prohibited by the United States Constitution's speech, due process and equal protection provisions.

LET IT BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD: Compelling someone to declare a belief that her earnings are "income" taxable by the United States is compelling her to declare herself indebted to the United States (or to declare her agreement with material facts under which the tax debt then arises as a matter of law). Compelling someone to declare her earnings on a line in the "income" section of a testimonial document like a 1040-- whether by direct command or by threat of a penalty for not doing so-- is compelling her to declare a belief that those earnings are "income" and subject to the tax.

LET IT BE RECOGNIZED: If someone's earnings ARE actually subject to the tax as a matter of law, and the government is aware of them sufficiently to command their declaration on a 1040, there can be no legitimate purpose for compelling their declaration, even were doing so not Constitutionally prohibited. Such an effort to compel can only serve a government interest if those earnings ARE NOT actually subject to the tax as a matter of law.
Earnings actually subject to the tax are so subject whether the recipient agrees or not. Compelling agreement with that fact is pointless as well as illegal. All the government needs to do is create its own return declaring the earnings to be "income" over a sworn signature-- which it is, in fact, required to do by law if the recipient of the earnings hasn't already agreed to the tax. Needless to say, this is both simpler, cheaper and easier than attempting to compel agreement from the recipient, and involves no Constitutional issues. (And again, it is mandated by law in any event).

Compulsion of declared "agreement" is only of use to the government where the earnings in question are NOT actually taxable. Its purpose is to eliminate the recipient's ability to dispute the application of the tax to those earnings, and allow the government to proceed as though those earnings are taxable as a matter of law.

Declared agreement creates a false appearance of "no dispute over material facts".

The government is relieved of what otherwise would be its burdens of proof (or, more exactly, its obligation to walk away from the untaxable earnings and confine its attention to gains legitimately subject to the tax, in regard to which no coerced fiction of agreement is needed).

The tax can then collected-- improperly, but with a superficial appearance of legitimacy which is impenetrable by anyone not educated about the actual objects of the tax and how it is applied under the law.

BUT THERE COULD NEVER BE SUCH COMPELLED AGREEMENT IN AMERICA, you say! Such a thing could never happen here!!

Wrong. It IS happening here, right now. And you'd better pay attention and get involved.

Continued...

[pumpkin]

I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS.

My suggestion is to demand a preliminary injuction in the state courts against the IRS. This way it cannot be removed to federal court, as the anti-injunction act forbids the federal courts to entertain an action against any federal tax collecting agency. The state constitution is the power here, also the compact between the people and the states, The Ordinance of 1789. The compact in in Article 4 which irrevocably places the authority to collect a direct tax in the hands of the state legislatures. Also demand findings of facts and conclusions of law, if not required by the rules of court.

[Chex]

I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS. The compact in in Article 4 which irrevocably places the authority to collect a direct tax in the hands of the state legislatures. Also demand findings of facts and conclusions of law, if not required by the rules of court.

U.S. Constitution› Article I

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 10.
The Constitution is the Solution Temecula Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs August 19, 2010

But xxxx "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a gxxxxxxxd piece of paper!"

PRO SE

Polly A. Graves-Taylor, Plaintiff

(A) there is an installment agreement between the taxpayer and the Secretary, prior to the date which is 90 days after the expiration of any period for collection agreed upon in writing by the Secretary and the taxpayer at the time the installment agreement was entered into; or

If a timely proceeding in court for the collection of a tax is commenced, the period during which such tax may be collected by levy shall be extended and shall not expire until the liability for the tax (or a judgment against the taxpayer arising from such liability) is satisfied or becomes unenforceable.

[David Merrill]

I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS.

My suggestion is to demand a preliminary injuction in the state courts against the IRS. This way it cannot be removed to federal court, as the anti-injunction act forbids the federal courts to entertain an action against any federal tax collecting agency. The state constitution is the power here, also the compact between the people and the states, The Ordinance of 1789. The compact in in Article 4 which irrevocably places the authority to collect a direct tax in the hands of the state legislatures. Also demand findings of facts and conclusions of law, if not required by the rules of court.

Keep in mind that endorsement is the signature contract. Contracts are protected in Article I, Section 10.

Therefore the class must be non-endorsers redeemed in lawful money.

[Chex]

I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS. by the rules of court.

With who, when, where? What do you have in mind? I don't have FB.

Suitors comes to mind. A Class has to have the same characteristics for all intents and purposes.

Order up your stamp and use it instead of, as your signature whenever possible. Be in the class that is outside the Federal Reserve Districts.

[Chex]

Last edited by David Merrill; Today at Today at 03:35 PM.

How did you edit my post above?

[doug555]

Originally Posted by pumpkin
I am seriously considering a class action lawsuit against the IRS. by the rules of court.

With who, when, where? What do you have in mind? I don't have FB.

Suitors comes to mind. A Class has to have the same characteristics for all intents and purposes.

Order up your stamp and use it instead of, as your signature whenever possible. Be in the class that is outside the Federal Reserve Districts.

I am One suitor who would NOT want to participate in a class action since the IRS is honoring my demands for lawful money.

[David Merrill]

I am One suitor who would NOT want to participate in a class action since the IRS is honoring my demands for lawful money.

Exactly! But like with April's Memorandum if suitors start having troubles getting Refunds then we might be able to address this with Class Action or even qui tam.

[pumpkin]

"Keep in mind that endorsement is the signature contract. Contracts are protected in Article I, Section 10.

Therefore the class must be non-endorsers redeemed in lawful money."

You must also keep in mind the parties and the relationship between them. A duty was owed from the very beggining. When trustees embark into commercial contracts, from within their official offices, it must be in the best interest of the settlor / beneficiary.