Lawful Money Stops IRS Proposal

[Michael Joseph]

Michael,

You obviously know your way around such things. I have not been so lucky...

I am currently faced with a CP15 'pay us 5k' letter for a 'frivolous' return. I have about 8 days to respond. I filed a 2013 sheeple return and was paid. I then filed a 1040x amended return with a LM deduction. I believe I should have started a LM deduction with the 2014 return of which the LM deduction was honored; however I'm sure I will see a CP2000 at some point for 'unpaid taxes'.

Their initial 3176C letter ('we have identified your return as frivolous') I responded to 3 months ago with a denial of any liability and simultaneously rescinded that amended return (the 3176C language states I may rescind and send a 'corrected' return). However, the 'corrected' return is actually the original return already refunded. They recently assessed the 5k penalty anyway, I presume because I was ALREADY paid a refund from the original 2013 return. They will do anything to steal your money.

There is not much recourse but I thought someone might have suggestions as to my response. I was rushed into the 3176C response due to a family illness and I may have lost my 'right of inquiry' window to stall them. The CP15 is an actual 'invoice' from their MFT 55 'penalty' module in the IMF system. Insidious, but there it is. However, I believe there is a 'mistake' statute that may come into play here. Doug555 mentioned it somewhere in this forum and I need to find it to see if it might apply - D555 if you have that statute handy please forward if possible.

Any other thoughts are welcome.

Thanks.

Just stick to the facts and be unwilling to swerve from the truth. Simply put refuse to leave the battlefield of words. As such, there is no need to be alarmed at the clerks on the other end of the phone. In the end you will eventually come to see that "it is NOT your money".

Money is for the USE subject to the Statute. There exists trustees to understand the issue of money - but those who endorse fractional reserve banking accommodate that system. I have lost much in my struggle for truth but then too, I have gained much. The answer is simple - I demand lawful money and I refuse to understand any new private credit as surety or accommodation. The trust account held by United States whereof I have an Estate interest is not subject to the accommodation of "new credit" because I refuse to ORDER up new credit. My grant is to the United States and not the Federal Reserve Bank. Nevertheless it is my freewill choice.

Consider McDonalds. When you walk in what does the clerk ask you? "May I take your Order?" And for the consideration of your order you are billed for the service or thing delivered. Actually at McDonalds it is both. There is nothing new under the sun.

Have you called the clerks? Have you written the clerks explaining the causes upon which you must refuse their offer to charge the Estate? The government is truly upon your shoulders - will you undertake for the benefit of all? Should you remain silent then the Estate may be Latched - LACHES DOCTRINE.

Use of Money is Usufruct. For you, "itsmymoney", make a use of property that belongs to another.

In my opinion that is all that needs to be known regarding this matter. But only you alone can walk down into the Valley and face the Giant [Goliath].


Best Regards,
MJ