Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Response from the Secretary

  1. #1

    Response from the Secretary

    A member noticed that sometimes the Secretary of the Treasury responds to the Libel of Review with a Motion to Dismiss. This is logical since the Rules of Court and the Summons strongly suggest that the Respondent (Secretary) does not with to go into default.

    The very act of making the demand for lawful money is an instruction to the Secretary as principal appointed by congress over the Fed and the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency). That action of instruction describes and defines the relationship of the suitor over the Secretary.

    Understanding that, any and all responses from the USDC, "Judge" and Secretary are typicall Refused for Cause timely by the court of record, the only court of competent jurisdiction present, the new suitor.

    One way to explain this simply is to examine the modifications in procedure:

    1) on the Summons.
    2) that the USDC (at least some of them) is not accepting cash FRNs any longer.

    On Page 8 of the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements we find it that the Secretary is also the US Governor of the International Monetary Fund (or in charge of appointing one; same thing*). This has also panned out verified in Canada by them having a named Canadian Governor of the IMF. Traditionally with the old style summons the clerk would tend to change the term for response from 21 Days to 60 Days. Then over the years they seemed to "get the memorandum" as I call it [viewing the federal system as one court under one rule set] and quit altering the summonses. Then as it seems the federal attorneys had time to consider this revision:

    Notice how now the Summons simply reads that the term for response is dependent on whether the Respondent/Defendant is a government employee or not, avoiding that embarrassing clerk error to mistake the Secretary (US Governor for the IMF) for a government employee.

    The second instance is quite easy to understand as new suitors all around America buying case files instead of discharging the obligation against private credit from the Fed. For many years we have been demanding lawful money for the $350 filing fee and attaching that as the last page of the Filing:


    This has been going on for a long time. Here is an example for the filing of a Miscellaneous Case evidence repository:


    It is as though the US Government, Congress and clerks of court have gotten the Memorandum FROM NEW SUITORS!!

    As I hear it, May 1, the clerks of court are demanding a check or money order. In other words you specify legal tender FRNs, or Lawful Money of the US:

    Check: Pay to the Order of ____________
    USPS Money Order: Pay to ____________



    Regards,

    David Merrill.




    * Many smaller military bases do not have a Provost Marshal, in which case the Base Commander has chosen to keep that office within the office of Base Commander.

  2. #2
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    David,

    A few questions, as I am hoping to get a tax lien removed.

    What have suitors been able to do with their Libel of Review default judgments in terms of getting levies or liens withdrawn? Is IRS sufficiently alarmed that a suitor knows how this all works to just drop efforts to lien/levy? If not, what should a suitor do with the default judgment?

    I understand that whenever the Secretary has moved to dismiss a Libel of Review, the judge has dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, is that correct?

    Have judges dismissed cases sua sponte as well, even if the Secretary has not responded?

    I understand that at least in one case the judge called the libel of review frivolous in dismissing it. Is the judge just being purposely obtuse, or is the Court simply not recognizing the flesh and blood being and only seeing the PERSON that is property of the U.S. (which I guess would indeed make the action frivolous in the eyes of the Court?)

    In the event the Libel of Review does not make IRS back off a lien or levy, do you think a suitor could nonetheless effectively use all of this evidence in a wrongful lien suit? I would think that, given the need to keep the way these things work quiet, a wrongful levy suit making use of an argument that the suitor is redeeming lawful money and that admiralty rules require supervision by the federal courts might be enough to make a lien go away quietly.

    I have also seen it suggested that one having a notice of levy or lien issued against them might have a cause of action under IRC Sec. 7431 because notice of lien and notice of levy both violate confidentiality as described in that provision.
    Last edited by ManOntheLand; 06-07-13 at 06:10 AM.

  3. #3
    The original Libel in Review Notice of Federal Tax Lien was not removed, it dissappeared! That is the only instance I have ever heard about where the county clerk and recorder "unfiled" a publication.

    We have this thread about what the IRS thinks.

    The purpose of the Libel of Review is for a new suitor to form an evidence repository and become the court of record; the court of competent jurisdiction. The federal "judge" is a taxpayer and is therefore not a judge at all.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  4. #4
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    The original Libel in Review Notice of Federal Tax Lien was not removed, it dissappeared! That is the only instance I have ever heard about where the county clerk and recorder "unfiled" a publication.

    So,if they do not "unfile" or remove the Federal tax lien, what is the suitor supposed to do then?


    We have this thread about what the IRS thinks.

    That thread seems to be focused on 1040 filings. I am interested in how they react to the Libel of Review in the event one is already dealing with a notice of lien or levy and trying to get it withdrawn or "unfiled".


    Has any suitor tried filing for a Form 843 abatement of amounts that are the subject of a notice of lien or levy, informing IRS in the abatement request that they are redeeming lawful money and/or that they filed a Libel of Review?


    The purpose of the Libel of Review is for a new suitor to form an evidence repository and become the court of record; the court of competent jurisdiction. The federal "judge" is a taxpayer and is therefore not a judge at all.
    Understood, but my employer receiving an IRS order to garnish my wages will probably think he is a judge and is not likely to recognize me as the "court of record" over the man in the black robe, is he? So if my Libel of Review case has been dismissed or even called frivolous on the record, how does that help me? Am I still left having to convince third parties not to obey the IRS?
    Last edited by ManOntheLand; 06-07-13 at 10:47 PM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by ManOntheLand View Post
    Understood, but my employer receiving an IRS order to garnish my wages will probably think he is a judge and is not likely to recognize me as the "court of record" over the man in the black robe, is he? So if my Libel of Review case has been dismissed or even called frivolous on the record, how does that help me? Am I still left having to convince third parties not to obey the IRS?
    This is why I do not espouse these methods as a silver bullet. They are quite dependable but it would seem that the suitor has to have a certain degree of metaphysical prowess. We like to sling: Remedy is between your ears.

    For whatever reason you insist on slicing a snapshot or some kind of single-dimensional perception of what is going on here. I do not control the behavior of others. I simply guide them in the basics of being in authority (court of record) over the record. This is why I keep getting this feeling that you are a shill slurring remedy rather than genuinely here to learn and improve your conditions. If you trust me any more than I trust you maybe you could sanitize up a bill and PM an image?

    Another possibility is that you believe there are merits to Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code. So I will explain once again how as intelligence nexus for a group of very intelligent people one suitor involved with the Lost Horizons doctrine had Pete over for a visit. During this time I visited the suitor in his office and he disclosed something about Pete that I do not believe he discloses to any of the CtC adherents.

    Pete HENDRICKSON depends solely on The Right to be Heard. The Signature Line on the 1040 is signed under penalty of perjury. So it is very convenient for all these 1040 Forms in America to presume the Taxpayer is indeed telling the truth. Therefore the Refund Checks are issued out of electronic machinery and people post their Refund on Lost Horizons and then the 1099 or W-4 comes in from the Client/employer and the IRS runs an assessment on that sworn testimony and then recants on the Refund. When the Taxpayer tries to withdraw the image of the Refund from Lost Horizons they are summarily banished and have no voice to warn others.


    So,if they do not "unfile" or remove the Federal tax lien, what is the suitor supposed to do then?

    The suitor will continue to have the NOFTL. Refusal for Cause properly done through the Libel of Review evidence repository and including a formal Notice and Demand will likely keep any enforcement actions like levy and lien from being executed against the billing. There are noticibly sparse injuries after a proper evidence repository is established.


    That thread seems to be focused on 1040 filings. I am interested in how they react to the Libel of Review in the event one is already dealing with a notice of lien or levy and trying to get it withdrawn or "unfiled".

    There is very little "reaction" to the Libel of Review (LoR) because it is dismissed. There is however very little repeated billing.

    Has any suitor tried filing for a Form 843 abatement of amounts that are the subject of a notice of lien or levy, informing IRS in the abatement request that they are redeeming lawful money and/or that they filed a Libel of Review?

    Here it helps to understand the concept of presentments - affidavit and rebuttal. Just recently a suitor got a $5K FrivPen with $.53 accrued interest and ten days to pay up. - The three-page letter urging he call for more information. Well he utilized the 843 Form for late September in the amount of some $13K.

    It is a big hassle considering the IRS agent is being paid to create these presentments. To a skilled eye though, the new presentment is obviously unrelated to the R4C and 843 Form. Therefore the process in the evidence repository worked fine! It is easy to think that the presentments should have ended there but the IRS agent can offer up contracts all day long and is being paid to do so. A R4C would probably work real nifty but I suggest the 843 Form too with the R4C process since that is what it is for. [The agent is compelled to see the Form and therefore the R4C has a built-in Proof of Service in addition to the Registered Mail and PACER services.] Since the suitor redeems lawful money there is no assumption of jurisdiction, like you have argued about filling and signing their forms.

    I am filling out a response because you insist on pressing around here. - This time in red font even. If you want to show me an image of a bill - what was it? $80K? Then upon confirmation you are not just here to undermine remedy for everybody else I will likely take an interest in your implementation of remedy. Maybe even let you into the brain trust and then you can actually report here your progress on the forums?

    I should warn you in advance that there are skeptics watching this website who are either IRS agents or are in contact with IRS agents so do not disclose anything on the forums unless you want that additional burden - to be a target for an example.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 06-08-13 at 09:00 AM.

  6. #6
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    This is why I do not espouse these methods as a silver bullet. They are quite dependable but it would seem that the suitor has to have a certain degree of metaphysical prowess. We like to sling: Remedy is between your ears.

    For whatever reason you insist on slicing a snapshot or some kind of single-dimensional perception of what is going on here. I do not control the behavior of others. I simply guide them in the basics of being in authority (court of record) over the record. This is why I keep getting this feeling that you are a shill slurring remedy rather than genuinely here to learn and improve your conditions. If you trust me any more than I trust you maybe you could sanitize up a bill and PM an image?

    Another possibility is that you believe there are merits to Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code. So I will explain once again how as intelligence nexus for a group of very intelligent people one suitor involved with the Lost Horizons doctrine had Pete over for a visit. During this time I visited the suitor in his office and he disclosed something about Pete that I do not believe he discloses to any of the CtC adherents.

    Pete HENDRICKSON depends solely on The Right to be Heard. The Signature Line on the 1040 is signed under penalty of perjury. So it is very convenient for all these 1040 Forms in America to presume the Taxpayer is indeed telling the truth. Therefore the Refund Checks are issued out of electronic machinery and people post their Refund on Lost Horizons and then the 1099 or W-4 comes in from the Client/employer and the IRS runs an assessment on that sworn testimony and then recants on the Refund. When the Taxpayer tries to withdraw the image of the Refund from Lost Horizons they are summarily banished and have no voice to warn others.

    Yes I am aware Pete has done this. He also bans people from his forum who have the nerve to think critically about his approach and methods. He has left lots of people in the lurch. Nobody understands the flaws of CTC better than I. If you find me to be a pain in the ass on this forum it is not because I espouse CTC or any other doctrine or that I am trying to slur yours--I just want to know how much I can rely on this stuff to work in the real world. Pete thinks everybody should just keep beating their head against the wall with his method even though it obviously doesn't work. I am encouraged by the comparatively scientific approach here.

    I appreciate that you have not espoused these methods as a silver bullet. I have high hopes for what remedy can accomplish. I ask pointed questions only so that I can understand the likely limitations.


    So,if they do not "unfile" or remove the Federal tax lien, what is the suitor supposed to do then?

    The suitor will continue to have the NOFTL. Refusal for Cause properly done through the Libel of Review evidence repository and including a formal Notice and Demand will likely keep any enforcement actions like levy and lien from being executed against the billing. There are noticibly sparse injuries after a proper evidence repository is established.


    That thread seems to be focused on 1040 filings. I am interested in how they react to the Libel of Review in the event one is already dealing with a notice of lien or levy and trying to get it withdrawn or "unfiled".

    There is very little "reaction" to the Libel of Review (LoR) because it is dismissed. There is however very little repeated billing.

    Has any suitor tried filing for a Form 843 abatement of amounts that are the subject of a notice of lien or levy, informing IRS in the abatement request that they are redeeming lawful money and/or that they filed a Libel of Review?

    Here it helps to understand the concept of presentments - affidavit and rebuttal. Just recently a suitor got a $5K FrivPen with $.53 accrued interest and ten days to pay up. - The three-page letter urging he call for more information. Well he utilized the 843 Form for late September in the amount of some $13K.

    Just trying to understand clearly--was he asking for an abatement of $13K in tax he had previously self-assessed? Or is the $13k from something else?

    It is a big hassle considering the IRS agent is being paid to create these presentments. To a skilled eye though, the new presentment is obviously unrelated to the R4C and 843 Form.

    An 843 is not one of the specified frivolous submissions IRS can penalize under 6702. IRS would be blatantly misapplying the Code in that case. More likely they are penalizing a return he filed.

    Therefore the process in the evidence repository worked fine! It is easy to think that the presentments should have ended there but the IRS agent can offer up contracts all day long and is being paid to do so. A R4C would probably work real nifty but I suggest the 843 Form too with the R4C process since that is what it is for. [The agent is compelled to see the Form and therefore the R4C has a built-in Proof of Service in addition to the Registered Mail and PACER services.] Since the suitor redeems lawful money there is no assumption of jurisdiction, like you have argued about filling and signing their forms.

    I may seem inconsistent on that point, but my logic is this--I am not worried about any jurisidictional issues with submitting an 843 to try to abate a frivolous penalty, because if they are sending me bills for frivolous penalties, they already think I am in their jurisdiction for that tax year (and in fact I unknowingly reinforced that perception by filing a 1040 form, even though I was just trying to claim a 100% refund). I don't think filing a 1040 actually puts a suitor in their jurisdiction, but I think I will try to avoid confusing them and giving them an opportunity to harass me with more frivolous penalties. If they have some kind of targeted people list I am definitely on it. So that's where I am coming from on the use of "their" forms. If I can avoid having any more frivolous return penalties imposed , I can avoid having to file an 843 in the future as well.

    I am getting ready to try an abatement of frivolous penalties on Form 843 (which does not have "U.S. Individual" in its title by the way, as the 1040 does). I will let you know how it goes. I am redeeming lawful money now, always would have if I had known about it, and will mention that. But even before I learned about LMR I was refusing their presentments for cause, and I have a mountain of correspondence prior to that which they never replied to in good faith. They are required under IRM to make a quality response to inquiries, but they never have. Before they imposed penalties, they had sent me a letter demanding that I correct my purported "frivolous return" but gave me no guidance on what was wrong so that I could correct it. I wrote back to ask, but they just responded by imposing the penalty. The imposition of the penalty was therefore arbitrary and capricious. So I think in any case I have a good argument for abatement based on violation of administrative due process. I really would have corrected the return if they had just told me what was wrong with it. But they would have to reveal how the whole thing works in order to do that, wouldn't they?

    I am filling out a response because you insist on pressing around here. - This time in red font even. If you want to show me an image of a bill - what was it? $80K? Then upon confirmation you are not just here to undermine remedy for everybody else I will likely take an interest in your implementation of remedy. Maybe even let you into the brain trust and then you can actually report here your progress on the forums?

    Thank you. I will find the notice of lien and PM it to you.

    I should warn you in advance that there are skeptics watching this website who are either IRS agents or are in contact with IRS agents so do not disclose anything on the forums unless you want that additional burden - to be a target for an example.

    Yeah, I kinda know what that's like already.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Thanks for answering my questions David.
    Last edited by ManOntheLand; 06-08-13 at 07:33 PM.

  7. #7
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    HA! I find it comical that the quatloser posting as ManOntheLand (likely behind a fake IP-address) thinks he can steer anyone away from remedy with his agenda-driven shenanigans. And single-handedly at that. Where are your colleagues, Famspear, Demo, LPC, & fortinbras? From your posts I can tell you're clearly versed in law, likely a lawyer, yet you don't post as yourself nor as an attorney. You make up new usernames and pretend to be one of us. I've listened to attorneys before and found their answers & contributions very helpful. Yet you hide behind a fake persona. That speaks to an admission of defeat on your part, it tells me you cannot win this on the merits, you cannot debate us with facts, logic & law. You call us numbskulls and play games. That's quite a validation of David Merrill as well as a huge admission of defeat on your part there, MOtL. Thanks for being here!

    My own Libel of Review was filed pre-emptively as I was without (and still without) IRS trouble. It did receive a lengthy response from a high-powered attorney but one thing stands as a point of interest to me. That response steered clear of the core of the counterclaim, it made no mention of "private credit of the Fed" nor "lawful money."
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 06-09-13 at 02:23 PM.

  8. #8
    We find that same evasion (and sidewinder aspersions from MOtL) in this opinion to another preemptive Tax Return style record.

  9. #9
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    We find that same evasion (and sidewinder aspersions from MOtL) in this opinion to another preemptive Tax Return style record.
    David Merrill: I am sanitizing a couple of notices (lien and a final intent to levy) today so I can PM them to you. Hopefully at that point you can stop wasting your time and energy being defensive, dissecting old posts of mine, and making tiresome and paranoid accusations about my motives.

    Thanks to the good feedback to my posts I have managed to get at this site (to your credit, most of that has been from you,D.M., but much thanks to Michael Joseph and Anthony Joseph as well) and some direct answers to my direct questions from you, D.M., I have truly learned a lot here in a very short time, and have had some breakthroughs in my mental model of how remedy works.

    The hardest part for me coming from the CTC paradigm was to truly realize the pervasiveness of the Federal Reserve Note's role in all of this. It seems that it is assumed that you will bond your paycheck into the Fed Reserve system. Once you are redeeming lawful money, you should of course give notice that you are not taking part in that system. That part I grasped no problem.

    What I had difficulty understanding (and was the most skeptical about) was the idea that other perceived nexuses of taxation are also being undone by the redemption of lawful money (more to the point, whether Auntie would respect that). It seemed a little too simple. This idea caused me some cognitive dissonance due to the CTC and SEDM paradigm in my head, i.e. that the W-2 and 1099 are used fraudulently to create an illusion of a federally connected taxable payment from what is actually a private sector work agreement with no obvious federal connection. Within that paradigm, the information returns create a presumption of compensation or "wages" for performance of a service that is "effectively connected to a trade or business within the United States", which is false and must be rebutted, or else one will be presumed liable for the income tax.

    The key for me was to understand that the transfer of FRN's itself from employer to employee makes an otherwise private sector transaction (the exercise of a right) into one that is indeed "effectively connected to a trade or business within the United States." (a taxable privilege). The W-2 is therefore not false at all. Eureka!!

    Hendrickson of course does not recognize the nexus conferred by transfer of FRN's, or by the bonding into the FR system from endorsement of one's paycheck. As a result Pete is left with arguing that what he was paid was not actually "wages". From the perspective of remedy, it is not hard to see why this does not work as a legal position.

    My fuller understanding of remedy also illuminates for me what happened to Hendrickson at his trial, which I had previously dissected to determine where Pete's legal arguments went wrong. For other CTC graduates, and other suitors, it may be helpful to see how the tax nexus conferred by FRN's helps make sense of what otherwise looks like pure judicial corruption at Pete's trial. Picking apart a couple of events from Pete's trial gives indirect confirmation (in my opinion) that the transfer of Federal Reserve Notes from an employer to an employee, unless redeemed for lawful money, confers a silently presumed federal tax nexus.

    1) At Pete's trial, Pete did not even disagree that his employer correctly reported the amounts Pete was paid. This was all it took for the judge to instruct the jury that Pete had received taxable income. Obviously Pete was not redeeming lawful money. Pete relied on his personal interpretation of the definition of "wages" to argue that what he was paid did not constitute "wages", but the judge instructed the jury that Pete had received "wages" and that they were taxable.

    When the role of the FRN is understood, this makes sense. Without that, it just looks like the judge is misapplying the law, misconstruing the definition of the word "includes" etc. as Pete has argued. As I pointed out in a recent post on this site, since the transfer from employer to employee of FRN's confer a "trade or business" nexus, than you are indeed within the Code's meaning of "employee" and what you are paid is within the Code's meaning of "wages" even if you are working in the private sector. Demanding redemption in lawful money reduces the gross income by the amount so redeemed.

    2) Pete moved to dismiss his case at one point, arguing that he is not a "person" as that term is defined in IRC Sec. 7343 (the applicable definition for the charges he was defending against). It took five months for the judge to return with a denial of this motion. In my opinion, this was because the judge needed to find a way to deny the motion without revealing the REAL reason Pete is a "person" under that provision.

    This caution by the judge is indicated not only by the five month delay in making the ruling, but by the absurd reasoning the judge used to apply the general definition of "person" under IRC 7701 to Pete. The judge claimed that the Sec. 7343 definition of "person" (which refers to a "duty" as an officer of a corporation to perform the act with respect to which the violation occured) BUILDS UPON the general definition of "person" in Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7701. Under this logic, the 7343 definition of person is totally superfluous.

    The judge stated in his decision that "individuals such as defendant are persons within the meaning of the term". The judge used the phrase "individuals such as defendant" twice. Pete interpreted this as the judge claiming that all individuals are persons under the Code. It seems to me that it is hoped we will all interpret it that way, because of the myth of the direct tax on "all that comes in". The judge actually made the correct ruling in denying the motion, because Pete actually is a "person" as defined in IRC 7343. But in my opinion the judge had to rule against Pete while avoiding explaining why the 7343 definition of "person" does indeed apply to Pete--that Pete indeed assumed a duty to pay tax as an officer of the Federal Corporation by bonding his paychecks into the Federal Reserve System (more precisely, by his failing to demand redemption of his checks in lawful money, since the tax nexus was created by the transfer of FRN's from Pete's employer to Pete).

    By saying the broader 7701 definition of person was the one that really matters, we are meant to come away thinking the judge said the tax applies to everybody. But the judge was only saying that individuals "such as defendant" are persons, implying some unspoken qualification. I believe that qualification is the receipt of FRN's that are presumed to have been bonded into the system.

    Pete has actually agreed that he did not read the judge's decision carefully enough to pick up on this "qualification" at first. He has moved to vacate his conviction, but unfortunately has not deviated from the same argument that lost at trial and on appeal, that he is "excluded by the plain language" of the definition of "person" in the law.

    Now I understand why a suitor would attach a W-2 to a 1040 and deduct the amount he redeemed. (I still believe there is a risk that Auntie may mishandle such a return, but I can now see how the suitor is on sound legal ground.)

    You guys can think whatever you want to think about me. I don't care. If you still perceive some sneaky attempt to undermine remedy in what I say, it's your problem.
    Last edited by ManOntheLand; 06-10-13 at 11:33 PM.

  10. #10
    Does Pete seem a little bit like the woman in this video ?
    Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •