Cracking the Code Failure - Doreen Indicted

[walter]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

A significant economic injury or burden is sufficient to provide standing to sue, but in most situations a taxpayer does not have standing to challenge policies or programs that she is forced to support. In Frothingham v. Mellon, 288 F. 252 (C.A.D.C. 1923), the Supreme Court denied a federal taxpayer the right to challenge a federal program that she claimed violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states. The Court said that a party must show some "direct injury as the result of the statute's enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way common with people generally."

Although the Supreme Court made a narrow exception to this prohibition on taxpayer suits in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968), granting standing to a taxpayer to challenge federal spending that would benefit parochial schools, the Court has never gone beyond that. In fact, there is some doubt as to the vitality of the Flast decision. In 1974 the Court denied standing to a taxpayer who sought to challenge Congress's exempting the Central Intelligence Agency from the constitutional requirement under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, that government expenditures be publicly reported (United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 94 S. Ct. 2940, 41 L. Ed. 2d 678). Since Richardson the Court has continued to maintain the traditional barrier against taxpayer lawsuits.

[Chex]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. Once you file an income, the contract is formed.

I bet they do.

Excerpt from Uniform Commercial Code in a Nutshell, 6th ed. page 228: (With respect to negotiable instruments)

If A signs the name of A to an instrument and the signature is an authorized signature of P, the following rules apply:

1) If the form of the signature shows unambiguously that the signature is made on behalf of P who is identified in the instrument, A is not liable on the instrument. [Sections] 3-402(b)(1), 1-201(b)(33). Example: Peter Principal Corporation, by Alice Agent, Treasurer.

2) If (i) the form of the signature does not show unambiguously that the signature is made in a representative capacity (Case #3 in Sec. 3-402 Comment 2) or (ii) P is not identified in the instrument (Cases #1 & 2 in Sec. 3-402 Comment 2): A is liable on the instrument to a holder in due course that took the instrument without notice that A was not intended to be liable on the instrument.

END OF EXCERPT

So basically Pete and Doreen are not really fighting the irs, they are fighting the private owned federal reserve bank because Pete and Doreen used their product and not paying for the usage of it.

Then the hired irs the authorized representative http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/aut...ative-hearing/ are seeking the damages from Pete and Doreen inflicted on the FRB because the FRB paper duped as money has not been paid for the usage of the product.

Funny how the same principal stands as the privately held Legal status of the ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership of the FRB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve_bank

Search

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

Corporation Search Results aka the players http://www.corporationwiki.com/searc...e+bank&x=0&y=0

Business is business as in In 1933, Ingram bought out Anderson, and the following year the company moved its corporate headquarters to Columbus, Ohio.

The company remains privately held and its restaurants are company-owned; they are not franchised in the United States. Co-founder Billy Ingram was followed as head of the firm by his son E. W. Ingram, Jr. and grandson E. W. Ingram, III. http://www.whitecastle.com/faqs

The business keeps going http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/i...-to-expire.htm

But remedy has been given. http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

[John Howard]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. Once you file an income, the contract is formed.

"Once you file an income," I am not familiar with this phrase, do you mean once you file an income tax return?"

"the contract is formed." What contract? Where are its terms and conditions disclosed?

[Chex]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. The only relevant "rights" to the court are "contractual" rights per the terms of the contract. .

Exactly what contract and what does it say?

[walter]

"Once you file an income," I am not familiar with this phrase, do you mean once you file an income tax return?"

"the contract is formed." What contract? Where are its terms and conditions disclosed?

By filling UP the FORM you are making a "declaration and consent".

You are declaring that you are not exempt from the liability of paying tax's and grant consent to them to access your information so they can use it against you.

[JohnnyCash]

Walter, that doesn't jibe with my experience. See here I filled up the 1040 form (page 2) that resulted in a full refund. Subsequently the IRS never came back with penalties or anything.

[ManOntheLand]

Exactly what contract and what does it say?

In Doreen's case, she is presumed to be a "taxpayer" due to information returns issued by third parties. She is presumed subject to Internal Revenue Code, under which she has some statutory rights as a taxpayer. These are far inferior to common law rights of course.

Pete and Doreen argue that they have rebutted the information returns issued against them, but unwittingly contradict themselves by admitting that the amounts reported on the info returns are correct. They do not recognize the nexus conferred from the transfer of Federal Reserve Notes. Therefore the presumptions of taxpayer status stand unrebutted.

[ManOntheLand]

Walter, that doesn't jibe with my experience. See here I filled up the 1040 form (page 2) that resulted in a full refund. Subsequently the IRS never came back with penalties or anything.

An information return creates a presumption of "taxpayer" status and tax liability (at least potentially). Redeeming lawful money of all such amounts mathematically eliminates the tax liability. I think you are still presumed to be a "taxpayer" i.e. "subject to internal revenue tax" if you did receive a transfer of Fed Reserve credit because you would have had a liability if it were not for redeeming lawful money. They could conduct an audit if they require substantiation of your claims. (Probably unlikely that any IRS agent would bother with this.) This is why it is a good idea to have your evidence repository and save copies of your checks where you made your demand for lawful money etc.

Arguably the information return may not create obligation on you in the first place, due to no voluntary knowing waiver of rights on your part, economic duress (you have to work for a living and are in no position to reject payment in the form of Fed Reserve credit) and unconscionable contract (why would any one willingly exchange their right to work for a living for a taxable privilege, absent consideration?).

But it seems far simpler to just make the demand for lawful money and eliminate your tax liability that way than to argue with IRS about information returns. Pete and Doreen's method revolves around arguing about the information returns.

[John Howard]

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. The only relevant "rights" to the court are "contractual" rights per the terms of the contract.

We are still waiting to see said contract. Please link us to it.

I believe Doreen submitted tax returns per the court order, with the notation to the effect "here is the perjury you ordered."

[ManOntheLand]

It seems the point I was trying to make about Doreen's cases has eluded you. If you read my posts again on this thread, you will see that I contend that no contract was actually formed, but Doreen's conduct implies that one was formed, and the Court presumes that one was formed.

In any case, a written contract is not necessary, as you seem to presume. Contracts may be formed by conduct, as when you sit down in a restaurant and order from the menu, forming a contract to pay the prices on the menu for the items you have ordered.

Contracts may also be formed by course of dealing over time. A person who has filed tax returns every year for several years has established a course of dealing, by which a contract may be inferred.

A contract may be silently presumed by a court, and in fact this is exactly what happens in the admiralty jurisdiction of a federal court in a revenue related matter.

Until Doreen recognizes the presumed contractual nature of her obligation to file the way the court ordered her to, she will misunderstand what is going on. Arguments about common law rights in her case are futile, irrelevant, even frivolous. She is presumed to have waived her rights, and presumed to know that she has done so.

I will be the first to agree this is deceptive, but it is how it works. We would all be better served to understand this and inform others than to just complain that the system is not how we think it should be.

I don't know whether Doreen complied with the court orders or not. I know the IRS frowns upon any additions or modifications to the perjury statement that constitute a negation. Referring to her own testimony as perjury is very likely to result in the return being considered a nullity, as though no return was filed. This is how Wesley Snipes ended up being convicted for willful failure to file, by negating the perjury statement.