Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[David Merrill]

You shift tense and person. I do not know how to answer - or if you are directing your question at me.

[Chex]

shift tense and person, learn something new everyday, thank you

I put that question out there because some person authorized deductions from a friend’s paycheck without this personam signing a w4 form.

Therefore if you non-endorse the paycheck why not the w4 form as confirmation?

I’m taking a shot at this, so is this "against the person" similar to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure- Rule B(1)(a)? This might have no relationship at all it’s just the way I associated it.

I don’t understand what the meaning of “contain a prayer for process” suggests.

After I read Rule C(3)(a)(ii) from this I wanted to know if exigent circumstance exists and again if its related.

I’ve also noticed that the paycheck is always addressed to the true name of the recipient not to the corporate person.

[David Merrill]

shift tense and person, learn something new everyday, thank you

I put that question out there because some person authorized deductions from a friend’s paycheck without this personam signing a w4 form.

Therefore if you non-endorse the paycheck why not the w4 form as confirmation?

I’m taking a shot at this, so is this "against the person" similar to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure- Rule B(1)(a)? This might have no relationship at all it’s just the way I associated it.

I don’t understand what the meaning of “contain a prayer for process” suggests.

After I read Rule C(3)(a)(ii) from this I wanted to know if exigent circumstance exists and again if its related.

I’ve also noticed that the paycheck is always addressed to the true name of the recipient not to the corporate person.

Buy a stamp - put it on your signature as part of your signature. W-4 included.

That last sentence does not jibe for me. The paycheck is almost always written to the legal or full name.

"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."


If you want to integrate that into the Admiralty Rules go ahead. That sounds like a fun academic experience but you may create some complicated mental models that are more a headache than practicable. If you execute simply you probably will need not explore into such sophisticated elaboration.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[allodial]

Perhaps he is mistaking John Henry Doe as "true name" vs JOHN HENRY DOE or JOHN H DOE.

[earthshake]

More like; Thank You Brian!

That is very enlightening.

The warning I always give with Pete's CtC though is that without remedy written in the law, he leaves people hoping to argue certain interpretations of the IR Code. Fatal!


P.S. Please link us to PAUL's new bill.

Hi David,

I'm new to the forum as of today, directed here from the CtC forum - not by anyone in particular, just found a thread that linked to this forum.

I am in the situation you mention above, with our state DOR (MA). We are to the point of having filed a petition after they rejected or ctc filing for 2006. In response (though months late) they have submitted a motion for summary judgment. We have about 30 days to respond to it (unusual to have so much time, but we asked for an extension).

I have sent for our transcripts from auntie, which should arrive in about 10 days. We have a doc from auntie showing $0 taxable income for 06. I'll stop there in for now. Thanks in advance for any insight and hope you all have a great "Independence" Day:-)

earthshake

[David Merrill]

Hi David,

I'm new to the forum as of today, directed here from the CtC forum - not by anyone in particular, just found a thread that linked to this forum.

I am in the situation you mention above, with our state DOR (MA). We are to the point of having filed a petition after they rejected or ctc filing for 2006. In response (though months late) they have submitted a motion for summary judgment. We have about 30 days to respond to it (unusual to have so much time, but we asked for an extension).

I have sent for our transcripts from auntie, which should arrive in about 10 days. We have a doc from auntie showing $0 taxable income for 06. I'll stop there in for now. Thanks in advance for any insight and hope you all have a great "Independence" Day:-)

earthshake

You seem to have almost given me enough to start getting a picture. Are you in civil, administrative or criminal trouble?

[earthshake]

You seem to have almost given me enough to start getting a picture. Are you in civil, administrative or criminal trouble?

Feeling dense at this moment, lol! Not criminal. Our petition was filed with the Appellate Tax Board, so I am thinking that is administrative?

[powder]

Funny thing.

Every TAXPAYER volunteers to hold the status of TAXPAYER.

The rules of administrative law govern - if you keep the paper you own the liability...

[David Merrill]

The suitor strategy is to become judicial. Since all the "judges" are taxpayers, they cannot be judicial (unless you stamp them so).

These are true judgments.

[hvncb]

I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy? Hbert

I am new as well. I have already endorsed two checks via 12.411 and have the same questions to 'correct' previous redemptions to lawful money. Having read Mr. Merrill's comment that 'bank relied on our signature, etc' and part of me agrees it may be "water over the bridge" Nonetheless, question remains in my mind how UCS 12.411 applies ONLY at time of endorsement: "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..." this is open ended; ie, it does not state a specific time, event (endorsement) or has expiration period. Why not deposit a check w/ naked endorsement, take Fed Res notes and then demand 'lawful money'...who will say "oops, sorry, too late!".......also saw part of another post "By the time you are holding cash, you have already made your demand.." again...why is it too late?...not clear. regards!