Basis in Law

[John Howard]

Not to worry, I've had my share of senior moments.

I seem to remember that there are 4 essential elements to a legal note:

1. The absolute signature of the maker-

2. A specific amount of money-

3. A payee-

4. A time/date of redemption.

As in 1. The United States, 2. Shall pay 5 Dollars, 3. To the Bearer, 4. On Demand.

[David Merrill]

Not to worry, I've had my share of senior moments.

I seem to remember that there are 4 essential elements to a legal note:

1. The absolute signature of the maker-

2. A specific amount of money-

3. A payee-

4. A time/date of redemption.

As in 1. The United States, 2. Shall pay 5 Dollars, 3. To the Bearer, 4. On Demand.

So in context of the latest posts you are saying that even "bearer" as payee has been removed?

[John Howard]

So in context of the latest posts you are saying that even "bearer" as payee has been removed?

Exactly. Once upon a time I admired a man named Armen Condo, the founder of Your Heritage Protection Association. But it turned out that he did not understand equity the way George Mercier did. His letter to Mr Condo is very interesting and almost reaches to the point of redeeming lawful money. If only I knew then what I know now.

I was reminded of all of this when I found an old stamp from YHPA. I'll try to post it.

[John Howard]

Here it is. YHPA.pdf Its a shame that judges are not required to tell people WHY their position is frivolous.

[David Merrill]

Here it is. YHPA.pdf Its a shame that judges are not required to tell people WHY their position is frivolous.

Thank you for finding that image.

In context again your point is that the US notes at that time no longer promise to PAY anybody at all?

Then there is this link with equity that you are showing us...

[John Howard]

More proof of the type that Mr NYG is seeking.

[John Howard]

Judges in tax cases frequently say " the constitution does not apply here". What a shame the defendant did not ask "Why not?" Its an equity case, that's why.

[John Howard]

In context again your point is that the US notes at that time no longer promise to PAY anybody at all?

That was the position expressed by Mr Condo. I know, it is an easily destroyed position in court. Don't try this at home, boys and girls.

[David Merrill]

Here is some crosstalk. The researcher has made comment about his perspective that I cannot leave out:

26 USC ? 2002 - Liability for payment

The tax imposed by this chapter shall be paid by the executor.



All of this presumes that you are receiving a 1099 or a W-2 which is classified as a Gift Tax under IRS 6209 Manual.
--------------------------------


Subject: Re: transfer of the taxable estate of every decedent



Understand I am just exploring here - Let it be known I have found that Redemption per 12USC411 is recognized by the IRS, the banks, etc. Think of this as an exercise in turning over rocks.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1040



(a) General rule

If the executor of the estate of any decedent transfers to a qualified heir (within the meaning of section 2032A (e)(1)) any property with respect to which an election was made under section 2032A, then gain on such transfer shall be recognized to the estate only to the extent that, on the date of such transfer, the fair market value of such property exceeds the value of such property for purposes of chapter 11 (determined without regard to section 2032A).

(b) Similar rule for certain trusts

To the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a rule similar to the rule provided in subsection (a) shall apply where the trustee of a trust (any portion of which is included in the gross estate of the decedent) transfers property with respect to which an election was made under section 2032A.

(c) Basis of property acquired in transfer described in subsection (a) or (b)

The basis of property acquired in a transfer with respect to which gain realized is not recognized by reason of subsection (a) or (b) shall be the basis of such property immediately before the transfer increased by the amount of the gain recognized to the estate or trust on the transfer.

(e) Definitions; special rules - For purposes of this section?

(1) Qualified heir

The term ?qualified heir? means, with respect to any property, a member of the decedent?s family who acquired such property (or to whom such property passed) from the decedent. If a qualified heir disposes of any interest in qualified real property to any member of his family, such member shall thereafter be treated as the qualified heir with respect to such interest.

[David Merrill]

I am guessing that we have seen the last of NYGman.

The big NY tort attorney slurring remedy on 'that other place' has been enlisting collegues to search out Libels of Review using PACER and has been discovering a few. This example caught his eye and they must have run searches on the deputy clerk initials or whatever and found the case. It being dismissed SERRA jumped on it for ridicule in that infantile way of theirs.

But what he did was only to show the side of it for his own purposes. He did not show the Default Judgment properly published at the Register of Deeds and also marked FILED (as a foreign judgment) in the USDC. Of course not.

As I explained above to NYGman the purpose of the case is not to win it in the USDC. The federal judge is a taxpayer and is recused by the simple fact and conflict of interest. That is difficult for many conditioned into politically correct sociopathy (understanding only what is necessary of the law to function and stay out of jail) to comprehend. The judge is a taxpayer therefore he is recused. He cannot judge matters of tax liability. Period. If you can accept that then you might have a chance of comprehending this post.

The suitor utilizes the dismissed case for an evidence repository. So I took a look at the docket report and even with people using my intellectual property that I have not met I will not post links that breach a certain trust, more a hope that home addresses and other billing information will not be splashed about the Internet. So you are free to surf and probe for yourself I suppose. I prefer you consider accepting my word true because any of you who want to verify I am speaking the truth will find out that I am.

Since I have been heavily moderated on that ugly website to avoid the frustration of having my posts deleted I have opened another thread on a website where many of them read. So I will just copy the post from there:

Hilarious!

You should ask about Doc 23 showing that the husband is being assessed for about $1K in back taxes while the joint filing is being fined the frivpens for $10K. Both bills were Refused for Cause around 2/27/12. Then Doc 25 shows that the same jointly-named account to have dropped the frivpen and be billing the both of them for the $1K in back taxes only around 8/7/12. The bill was of course Refused for Cause and apparently forgiven completely, so far.

Like I said above, when the R4C's stop, that means there are no more bills coming. Think about it! Why would the couple stop Refusing for Cause when the IRS dropped $10K in frivolous filing penalties? No more R4C's means that the IRS quit pestering them. If the IRS does anything more it will show up on the docket as a R4C!

The hilarious part is that it is indeed Wserra being dishonest. No wonder he is threatening to banish me for defending against his accusations - LOL! This is fraud by omission and parataxic distortion too.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Not only was that post rejected on SERRA's thread, he has permanently banished me from the Website. I really detest him ridiculing honest and intelligent people even more than misusing PACER to splash private information around the web. So please respect I have a sore spot about direct links and quoting names etc. here. I am enjoying that his antics feel so crappy except to a certain very small crowd that since he started this breach of anonymity that site is enjoying an average of less than 5 guests. My presumption is that it feels bad and most people just jockey their little mouses to more pleasant and interesting reading - like here. So this is about as ugly as I want it to be around here.

The Libel of Review is fluff around an initial Refusal for Cause. It opens up a process of record forming because the 'saving to suitors' clause guarantees us the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government. Therefore about any docket of a LoR reveals that the suitor uses it for R4C's for a while, and then stops when the IRS attorneys find they cannot proceed, even with laibilities from before the suitor began redeeming lawful money - fraud by omission vitiates all contracts. Especially naked contracts where the consideration is not plainly understood and utilized (fractional lending and FDIC rescue as a "state bank").

I find it amusing that SERRA posted this knowing he was distorting the truth for the readers there - but more that he stipulated that if I defended against his accusations he would be banishing me. Amazing!