Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney...
Response posted by Doug555...Michael,
I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.
I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.
My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...
At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.
So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.
Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
imm
"Refusal for Cause"
"Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
"Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
"Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"
My current response to this exchange...Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.
See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html
Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...
See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html
I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.
Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!
After reviewing the excellent videos by Marc Stevens (I have seen some prior to now), I'm perplexed relative to Marc's question: where are the facts and evidence that the Constitution and the IRC i.e. "the code", apply to 'me'?
1) In a general sense, I can see why Marc is saying that the IRC does not apply to us (it only does thru coercion, fear, and corruption); but why does he mention the Constitution in the same breath with the IRC, as though they are tied together and cannot apply exclusively without each other? In other words, can I not fight the IRS without the Constitution? Do I need to reference the Constitution when simply stating that "the code" does not apply to me should suffice?
2) Relative to Marc's WINNING arguments regarding 'jurisdiction' and the lack thereof by the State, I have a conundrum with my current IRS situation.
Due to my hasty departure to visit my ill father, I agreed to a conditional acceptance of their proposal in the 3176C 'your frivolous!' notice. Granted, I wish I had not, but here we are. So it would seem that I entered their jurisdiction when I agreed to their conditional terms, but...
...THEY have violated those conditional terms. There are no stipulations that the 'corrected' return must be a previously non-filed return (see IRM 4.10.12.4 below). I had already filed, so the 'corrected' return was the original filed return. Further to this IRM statement... "The letter also gives the taxpayer the opportunity to submit non-frivolous returns or statements within 30 days of the date of the letter to avoid assessment of the penalty." ...simply DENYING the amended return is frivolous is NOT a frivolous statement! [italics, mine]. Not to mention they NEVER cite what is actually frivolous, probably for fear of taking a 'position' that they SO love to label us with. Is it not Lords and Servants with them?
And there it is.
4.10.12.4 (09-05-2014)
Case Processing
When the Service receives what it determines to be a frivolous filing under IRC Section 6702, the Service issues Letter 3176C. The letter 3176C informs taxpayers that their return is frivolous and subject to a $5000 civil penalty under Section 6702. The letter also gives the taxpayer the opportunity to submit non-frivolous returns or statements within 30 days of the date of the letter to avoid assessment of the penalty. Issuance of this letter is required before assessment of an IRC 6702(b) penalty. See IRC 6702(b)(3). Failure to issue the letter does not indicate an IRC 6702(1) penalty should be abated.
Reply With Quote
