Once you are redeeming lawful money, you should of course give notice that you are not taking part in that system.
There you have it. System parameters - system definition. From inside the system you cannot detect anything without it.
P.S. Rick STRASSMAN is giving a shot at describing something of the sort in DMT-The Spirit Molecule:
Last edited by David Merrill; 06-11-13 at 12:49 AM.
Its not too late for Pete to claim fraud by omission, is it?
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
Never. How effective it may be is the question.Originally Posted by John Howard
About a year ago the brain trust started seeing indications that the IRS attorneys are no longer wary of the accusation. - After three years of it being fairly effective. It is still written into the Libel of Review.
Thank you. I apologize. If you were to study my posts closely you might find me subject to imagination attacks. The manner in which you kept skirting the border between being in contract with the Fed or not led me to be quite suspicious.
That paperwork is quite revealing. One of the suitors was battling on the premise that no such Assessments ever exist - like the one you show in your link. Interesting that you have shown us that. All else, the garbage my suspicions generated - THANK YOU! That is some great fuel for edifying conversation right there.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Pete would first have to acknowledge that he didn't have this all figured out as much he thought he did. That is probably the biggest hurdle right there. He already did his time, and he has his books to sell and his guru-dom to maintain. It looks to me like he would rather be "right" than win.
Even if he could clear the formidable hurdle that is his own ego, Pete would have to finally realize that he cannot simply argue to the Court that the plain meaning of the words in the Code definition of "person" excludes him, without at least explaining why he is excluded from that definition, by way of a factual statement.
In my opinion, Pete could again move to vacate his conviction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, supporting the motion with a factual statement under penalty of perjury that he was not knowingly under any obligation to the United States through which he waived his rights as a knowing, voluntary act, per Brady v United States.
Jurisdiction, once challenged, must be proven. Technically the opposing side would have the burden of providing facts to rebut those put forth by the party challenging the jurisdiction. The problem for Pete so far is that throughout the trial, the appeal and even his attempt he already made to vacate his conviction, he has never actually presented any fact in support of his argument that he is not a "person" within the meaning of the Code section he violated. Pete only made conclusory legal arguments. So all the Court has had to do to shoot him down is say, "yes you are a person" because the presumption is that Pete is such a "person" and the Court has no evidence before it to indicate otherwise.
If Pete were to present any facts indicating he is not such a "person", would the Court risk exposing what the nexus of jurisdiction really was in Pete's trial? What are they going to say, that Pete DID somehow know he was waiving his rights? Just getting on the record the idea that one is presumed in federal court to have waived his rights knowingly and voluntarily through a contractual nexus of any kind would blow way too big a hole in the myth of the direct tax on "all that comes in", if you ask me.
If Pete were to also embrace the idea of redeeming lawful money, he could make the claim that he would always have done so if he had only known about it, and use that to further support a case that his waiver of rights was not a knowing, voluntary act, and therefore actually no waiver at all. This is not exactly the same as claiming fraud by omission, a claim which asserts that it is somebody else's fault that you didn't know, and therefore requires a higher standard of proof. Just the fact that you did not know about remedy before (even if that is considered to be your fault) is enough to invalidate an obligation if it constitutes a waiver of a fundamental right, such as the right to acquire property in exchange for one's labor, which is a right the Supreme Court stated is "among the most sacred and inviolable" in Coppage v. Kansas.
Who knows how IRS attorneys or the Court would react? Perhaps Pete would get his conviction vacated just so they could avoid having a public conversation about lawful money redemption.
No worries David! I took my post down though once I realized there are unique certified mail numbers and document locator codes still on there. If you think it is important for people to see, I will sanitize it some more and re-post.
Assessments for frivolous penalties do exist, but the IRS does not seem to follow their own assessment rules in the Code--a supervisor is required by the Code to give written authorization to make the frivolous penalty assessment (or it "shall not be assessed") and according to IRM they are required to keep that written authorization in the exam file. My Privacy Act requests turned up no such documents in the file.
Also note that the only narrative information in the 8728 assessment document is "no response to 3176". This is false, because I indeed responded to the 3176 letter. They just ignored my response so they could go ahead and assess the penalty anyway.
Further, the assessments do not typically appear in the Individual Master File transcript. Believe it or not, my IMF for all these years indicate that I owe nothing (with the exception of the 2009, for which they did a summary audit and re-assessed $2477 tax, rather than imposing a frivolous penalty.) They have to create a whole separate transcript from the master file in order to get their computer to accept these frivolous penalty assessments.
Just noticed that the DMT book excerpt quotes David Deutsch, who has authored two very mind-blowing books I have read in the last year--The Beginning of Infinity and The Fabric of Reality. In Fabric--he offers actual proof of infinite parallel universes, citing the abilities of quantum computers to solve factorization problems that should require more calculations than are physically possible in our universe.
In Infinity, as I recall he argues in one chapter that it is mathematically impossible to have equal representation in Congress, as the apportionment clause requires. He goes on to far far more interesting points though, explaining that a culture of self-correction is the key to survival of a civilization. Without that, a culture destroys itself by suppressing innovation and thus hindering its ability to solve problems that arise to threaten its survival. Great read for those who enjoy their paradigm shifts!
Yes please. - Do sanitize the Doc and link it. I was about to broadcast it to the brain trust (suitors) and prefer you be comfortable with the Information shared on it.
That is very exciting about the DMT and quantum physics. The point I was bringing forth is about how from our frame of reference we cannot see outside our own story/filter. I have often used being in a bowl. If the bowl is big enough one might think the horizon he sees is the true horizon... I am pleased how you found so much more in the quote.
Synchronicity is the conscious memory that everything is happening at once, time being an illusion.
I have been pondering this lately. There is an operation of arraignment by attorney. If you reject the attorney, you reject arraignment and that leads the court to question traditionally if you are from another jurisdiction and incapable of understanding what is going on - touched by God ex visitation Dei. This of course evolved into psychological evaluation to determine whether or not you are fit for trial.In my opinion, Pete could again move to vacate his conviction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, supporting the motion with a factual statement under penalty of perjury that he was not knowingly under any obligation to the United States through which he waived his rights as a knowing, voluntary act, per Brady v United States.
[QUOTE=David Merrill;10977]Yes please. - Do sanitize the Doc and link it. I was about to broadcast it to the brain trust (suitors) and prefer you be comfortable with the Information shared on it. [QUOTE]
REDACTED DOCS.pdf Here they are again, extra sanitized.
Something I forgot to point out about the 4340 Assessment Record--on the final page, it is very clearly signed by someone other than the officer named on the signature line. The accompanying certificate of official record (not included in this file) bears the same signature and the same obviously different name for the certifying officer.
That reminds me of the Gail Sinocki tax evasion case in California in 1981, which Otto Skinner talks about in his books. Sinocki had representation forced on her by the Court. Sinocki challenged the indictment against her as lacking any factual allegations and consisting of mere legal conclusions. Soon after, Sinocki's forced representation moved the Court to send Sinocki for a psychological evaluation. Sinocki moved the court herself to provide other counsel. Sincoki's case was apparently dismissed. Skinner has in the appendix of his books Sinocki's Motion to be assigned alternate counsel, which tells the whole story. She seemed frightened by the psych evaluation tactic--claiming persecution for her unconventional views on income tax and comparing the whole scenario to a "star chamber".I have been pondering this lately. There is an operation of arraignment by attorney. If you reject the attorney, you reject arraignment and that leads the court to question traditionally if you are from another jurisdiction and incapable of understanding what is going on - touched by God ex visitation Dei. This of course evolved into psychological evaluation to determine whether or not you are fit for trial.
My understanding is that appearance by the attorney representing the defendant perfects the in personam jurisdiction of the court. A challenge to jurisdiction must be made by the defendant himself in special appearance. The Federal Court very strongly encourages representation. Otto Skinner gets into this in his book "If You Are the Defendant"--the 6th amendment guarantees the right to assistance of counsel (which does not require defendant to have the attorney actually represent him). The Court strongly discourages defendants in criminal cases from self-representation because of lack of competency in general of pro se litigants--but a defendant who wants to control his own case may (in theory) have the best of both worlds by employing counsel to assist with procedure in dealing with the Court.
Subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time--even years after the trial. I am not sure about this, but the tax prosecution is really all about the charges in the indictment against the res (thing) is it not? This would seem to make it appropriate to challenge subject matter jurisdiction if, like Hendrickson, a defendant had been unaware at the time of the nature and cause of the charges, and had unknowingly waived his common law right to work for a living in the private sector by failing to make his demand for lawful money. Realizing that later, it seems to me one could challenge the presumed waiver of rights that gives the Court jurisdiction over the res for purposes of the indictment for violation of IRC. No valid contract, no subject matter jurisdiction.
Last edited by ManOntheLand; 06-11-13 at 07:56 PM.
Or maybe they push a lawyer on you because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argersinger_v._Hamlin
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote