Substance of the R4C

[David Merrill]

David, what was the outcome of the petition filed at the end of "Are you Lost at C"?

It appears it was filed under admiralty jurisdiction...... I am very curious as to the outcome.

Anyone here have any experience with admiralty jurisdiction as related to the IRS?

The pilot case was filed by James Harlan in mid-to-late 1995. Jim awaited the "judge" Wiley Young DANIEL to dawn an Article III cap and send the matter to State Court for trial. That of course never happened. However Jim did note that his Notice of Federal Tax Lien was not released, it just disappeared!

[Christopher Theodore]

Wait a minute; is it an interest-bearing account? They might have to change that to non-interest-bearing. You are not granting the benefit of fractional lending so they should not be compelled to give you the benefit of interest. That might be what they are standing on for a cause to reject the non-endorsement.

They may not be able to utilize fractional lending practices, but they will certianly be able to utilize traditional lending practices.

That said, I don't think a bank has an obligation to offer anyone a cut of the interest they make from lending your money out (be it lawful money or private credit). The banks do this because they want you to bank with them and not another bank.. and you always have the option of going to another bank if you don't want to do business with them.

As more people start redeeming lawful money, there will eventualy be more competition between banks to have any money to lend, and you will see that the banks will be less willing to lose your business to another bank due to the fact they won't provide you a cut of the traditional lending interest.

Right now tho, they have plenty of uninformed people they can rely upon enabling their fractional lending practices and are trying to make the redemption of lawful money less attarctive because they can generate more interest dealing with private credit.

But consider this: If a banker can make $300,000 per year in interest loaning out someones private credit, are they really gonna wanna give up making $100,000 because people are redeeming lawful money? (thats the ratio right David? with fractional lending, they can loan out 3x what they have on hand? And with traditional lending, they can only loan out what is avaliable?)

Give it time... and don't give into the idea that you have an obligation to forfit your share of the interest banks make from loaning out your lawful money (it is actually more valuable then the private credit all things considered).


And hold fast to reality: It's not the banks doing you a favor by holding your money, its you doing them one by allowing them to make an income via loaning it out.


Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore of the family of RHODES


P.S.

David, Nice to see you and the site are alive and well. Kindly forgive my lack of participation over the last few years, Life has kept me quite busy, and as I am sure you know, being active on these forum is quite time consuming. :-)

P.P.S. It just dawned on me this post is way off the topic of the substance of the refusal for cause. Kindly forgive that...

[Christopher Theodore]

Has anyone successfully rescinded their SSN? I know SEDM has a lengthy ( AND I MEAN LENGTHY) article and Docs on it, but I do not know of anyone claiming success.

Disengaging from your SSN, IMHO, would be a great start to combat the FED WEB. It is sticky, and when you think you have it cleaned off , you find more of it.

gdude;

David had pointed out earlier in the thread (and other threads and forums) the importance of identity. Allow me to elaborate his point a bit by using my self as an example, and then ask you a few questions.

My name is Christopher Theodore. It's what my parents called me when I was born. You will find alot of the members here refering to this as the True Name, or given name. The Family name is RHODES. RHODES existed before i was born. In law, RHODES is a type of resulting or implied trust. RHODES is properly an artificial person.

Now, when I was born, like most people, a CITIZENSHIP was created for my use, and the name of the CITIZENSHIP is CHRISTOPHER THEODORE RHODES. It is also an artificial person (some will say its a corporation, a strwaman, a trust, etc... from my research, i am quite certian that Citizen, as used in the Constitution for the United States, is technically a PUBLIC OFFICE seeing as the Constitution is the articles of incorporation for the political corporation UNITED STATES OF AMERICA). Anyways, the debate about what the CITIZENSHIP is aside, there is no debate about the fact that it is an artificial person.

In addition to the creation of the CITIZENSHIP, a social security number was aquired for it.


Now to my questions for you.

In light of the above, what purpose would rescending the ssn serve?
Why would you want to disengage it from the CITIZENSHIP?
Would it not be much simpler to ceace acting in the role of the CITIZEN (unless your are performing specific public function that require acting in this OFFICIAL capacity, like voting, or some form of public employeement, etc..), then trying to dismantel or destroy it?

I have found it is much clearer and simpler to explain that, while I have a CITIZENSHIP and it has a ssn, that I only make use of it for very specific public functions, like voting. The rest of the time, I am simply me, and my name is Christopher Theodore...and I don't have a ssn.

Granted, this may be difficult if someone has been working, doing business and signing stuff as FIRST MIDDLE LAST/LAST, FIRST MIDDLE all their lives, but once you grasp your identity, and the simplicity of the 3 seperate names and what each are, it will open up a lot of options for you in the future. It is also much easier to explain then trying to tell a Judge that "I am not the ALL CAPS NAME..." or "Saying thingks like, " I am not a strawman..." etc..

Besides, you may find there are actually times where you really want to use the CITIZENSHIP for something. It is not a bad thing, it has just been seriously misused and misunderstood over the last 100 years or so.

From my research, as best as I can tell, the office of Citizen was originally, in addition to common short term public functions like voting, it was a role intended to be a type of apprenticeship for people interested in public employeement or who wanted to hold higher offices. Apprinticeship was a very common practice when the States and the United States were founded. Also note, that many of the time stipulations found in the Constitution for holding higher offices were common lengeths of apprenticeship for most of the more advanded types of trades at that time.

Granted, being forced into an apprenticeship is a form of slavery... but, none the less, the CITIZENSHIPS remains a useful tool to the people they are created for... so long as they comprehend it (and aren't press ganged into it).

I hope this helps you get a grasp of what David Merrill (of the family of VAN PELT) was saying about identity. You seemed to not be grasping this key concept by some of the questions you were asking.Kindly forgive me if This presumption is in error.


Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore of the family of RHODES


P.S.

One of the worst uses of the CITIZENSHIP I see people commonly use, is holding their propery in it. Better, in mho, is to hold it in the FAMILY name, or ones True Name, or a private trust.


P.P.S.

I think if you, acting in the role of CITIZEN, try to r4c anything, you will get into trouble. Again, from my research, i honestly find it is a role akin to an apprentice, and the way the citizenry is treated is consistent with this paradigm. Why else would a public servant dare to treat you as a subordinate?

[Chex]

Clueless Tax Agent? No, There Just Isn't Any Evidence Laws Apply - MarcStevens.net

What is a U.S. person? From http://www.cba.ca/en/consumer-inform...n-for-clients-

According to U.S. tax law, you may be considered a U.S. person if you are:
• A citizen of the U.S. (including an individual born in the U.S. but resident in Canada or another country, who has not renounced U.S. citizenship);
• A lawful resident of the U.S. (including a U.S. green card holder)
• A person residing in the U.S.

You may also be considered a U.S. person if you spend a considerable amount of time in the U.S. on a yearly basis. If you are unsure if this affects you, contact your tax advisor.

U.S. corporations, estates and trusts may also be considered U.S. persons.

U.S. persons generally have an obligation to file annual tax returns and other information with the U.S. government.

For more information about these U.S. tax obligations, visit the IRS website at the following link or speak to your tax advisor.

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Inter...-Aliens-Abroad

[itsmymoney]

Going out on a limb here with some Crosstalk:

Dear Suitors;

I have been considering the report of being vexed by suitors being charged frivolous penalties after redeeming lawful money. I have a fairly clear memory and also filter even suitor testimony through loose rules of evidence.

It seems to me that there are to date no instances of a suitor filing a redeemed lawful money Income Tax Return and actually being fined a frivolous filing penalty. We have one suitor who a couple years ago received inappropriate threats about frivolous correspondence and interpreted that to mean there would be a $5K bill coming if the R4C’s continued. In another case a suitor resorted to a tax attorney who reported the IRS agent was threatening the $5K FrivPen by phone. The most credible evidence that somebody has been charged a frivpen on a fully executed Lawful Money Return (2011) has only received the Notice that there will be a $5K FrivPen coming some time – not an actual bill for the $5K.

The two suitors who have been dealing with FrivPens from HENDRICKSON’s Cracking the Code Zero-Returns do not come into the same category as Redeemed Lawful Money tax returns. I believe those suitors have inadvertently attracted a slur on our process because the IRS agents are looking for ways to boil HENDRICKSON’s conviction and prison stay onto redeeming lawful money process.

I would like to be kept up on any of these developments so that I may respond to such skepticism on the brain trust broadcasts with accurate information for everyone. I do not like to have one “researcher” (suitors technically have default judgments published) among us with the impression that many suitors are being charged FrivPens and casting aspersions on process, when I am under the impression that there has been no such billing infractions against Title 12 USC §411 by any IRS agents to date. Remember an actual bill is a bill of indictment against the IRS/Treasury and we can use that if it exists.

Please email to me, or us, if you have an actual bill for a FrivPen resulting from a tax return based entirely on redeeming lawful money accounting. Please consider and be willing to discuss prosecuting the IRS agent if you have an actual $5K bill of indictment.

Regards,

David Merrill.

David,

Not sure if my current situation fits your criteria in your above post, but in a nutshell here are the bullets...
1) Filed normal return (no LM deduction at all) due to other circumstances where I had to file this return post haste; I was duly paid the refund.
2) Then I filed an Amended 1040x with a LM deduction.
3) Received 3176C letter saying that I have filed a 'frivolous return'. No specifics (never are) on 'what' is 'frivolous'.
4) Back in May due to a sudden illness in family I had to fly out of state and hastily drafted my response that morning before I left, accepting an option in their letter to rescind the 'frivolous return' to abate the penalty, and send a 'corrected return'. The 'corrected return' was the original already filed so I stated that I denied any frivolous return or position but will rescind the return to avoid the penalty, and that the original return is the standing return. Messy yes, but there was much stress on me that morning and I thought I might default if I could not send 'something', so that was the hasty choice. Very bad timing though, given my ill father.
5) Two days ago I got a CP15 'Notice of 5k Penalty Due' for that presumed (they didn't specified which) Amended 1040x LM return.

So here we are. I have about 8 days to respond or default. I am considering R4C but I need to learn more about how to employ that. They lied on the terms of the 3176C, and regardless I don't believe the 1040x LM return is frivolous. I have the proof of the novated checks and deposit slips via publishing the cloud storage link on the 1040x so they could view the evidence. If they even looked at the evidence; in which case they not only ignored it but are trying to extort me AGAIN.

I have also spelled out this situation starting at post #6 in this topic...
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...s-IRS-Proposal

Thank you, and I'd like to hear your thoughts here.
imm

[David Merrill]

David,

Not sure if my current situation fits your criteria in your above post, but in a nutshell here are the bullets...
1) Filed normal return (no LM deduction at all) due to other circumstances where I had to file this return post haste; I was duly paid the refund.
2) Then I filed an Amended 1040x with a LM deduction.
3) Received 3176C letter saying that I have filed a 'frivolous return'. No specifics (never are) on 'what' is 'frivolous'.
4) Back in May due to a sudden illness in family I had to fly out of state and hastily drafted my response that morning before I left, accepting an option in their letter to rescind the 'frivolous return' to abate the penalty, and send a 'corrected return'. The 'corrected return' was the original already filed so I stated that I denied any frivolous return or position but will rescind the return to avoid the penalty, and that the original return is the standing return. Messy yes, but there was much stress on me that morning and I thought I might default if I could not send 'something', so that was the hasty choice. Very bad timing though, given my ill father.
5) Two days ago I got a CP15 'Notice of 5k Penalty Due' for that presumed (they didn't specified which) Amended 1040x LM return.

So here we are. I have about 8 days to respond or default. I am considering R4C but I need to learn more about how to employ that. They lied on the terms of the 3176C, and regardless I don't believe the 1040x LM return is frivolous. I have the proof of the novated checks and deposit slips via publishing the cloud storage link on the 1040x so they could view the evidence. If they even looked at the evidence; in which case they not only ignored it but are trying to extort me AGAIN.

I have also spelled out this situation starting at post #6 in this topic...
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...s-IRS-Proposal

Thank you, and I'd like to hear your thoughts here.
imm

Greetings;


Please forgive me if I am mistaken but I believe you are an intrepid member here who redeems lawful money upon perceptions gained here on the forums. Some members have been through the Lesson Plan.

The Lesson Plan involves:

1) True Identity
2) (administrative) Record Forming
3) Redeeming Lawful Money

While I enjoy that people apply and often have great success learning from the website, it looks like you may have benefited from a more well-rounded approach. That is to say Steps 1) and 2) of the Lesson Plan may be missing from your conversation with the IRS attorneys. These attorneys may be looking for somebody like you who has made an appearance and it would seem, that you have appeared in the subjective (subjugation) form offered by the projectors of the illusion.

Fear is always illusion. The IRS agents are misled by fraudulent omissions by the IRS attorneys to prod you into reacting fearfully with $5K and $10K frivolous penalty letters and from there the paper system is designed to keep you reacting. Sometimes this system is exacerbated by the State taxation and especially with California's State Franchise Board, the state system of policies seems independent of the US' Federal Reserve's IRS Code.

Mainly it would seem that you lack in an evidence repository. The evidence repository is a Libel of Review or even a Miscellaneous Case file in the federal courthouse so that your Refusals for Cause are published on PACER. I do not direct anybody to any particular suitor but your thought processes might guide you... Trained attorneys will usually pick up on how you are now a court of record and there is authority there; you are already publishing a Finding of Fact and the IRS testimony is going on the record.

As indicated that you are feeling bound to their forms and deadlines it would seem at first blush that you have fallen into the routine of being frightened into reacting to their presentments, rather than non-responsive Refusals for Cause timely on presentments. Sadly, the reaction process not only turns out badly for you but it also looks to others as though the non-endorsement redemption of lawful money is ineffective against IRS persecution.

I recall when we were children we played with a lawnmower. Stupid as it sounds we were daring each other to kill the running lawnmower by grabbing and shorting the spark plug. Dangerous as it was one quickly learned that you had to commit to fully becoming an electrical conduit, preferred to just pussyfooting around, or of course just watching and risk the peer pressure of being chicken. Becoming a court of record is kind of like that. You have to publish it for all to see. You might, however redact any SSN and even the home mailing address and phone number too.

At this point, and at a glance from a couple posts, that is what I would suggest. You should open up an evidence repository showing how long you have been redeeming lawful money and publish simple Refusals for Cause in it. No need to explain any more than the facts. The evidence repository is more for the IRS testimony than your testimony. Picture some day you will explain your claim to a jury. You were redeeming lawful money and holding the IRS to behave honorably. When the IRS agents began issuing papers anyway, then you opened an evidence repository to establish that you redeem lawful money and began R4C process.

Finding of fact. Make it easy on this hypothetical jury. All you will need to do is open your evidence repository for them to read.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[allodial]

Fear is always illusion. The IRS agents are misled by fraudulent omissions by the IRS attorneys to prod you into reacting fearfully with $5K and $10K frivolous penalty letters and from there the paper system is designed to keep you reacting. Sometimes this system is exacerbated by the State taxation and especially with California's State Franchise Board, the state system of policies seems independent of the US' Federal Reserve's IRS Code.

The State revenue agencies at times have seemed more like willing captives to the FRB Franchise eager to get their share of crumbs from the Fed table. Similarly in there is the arrangement in Canada, except the sales and use tax are reserved to the States. Even the State of California FTB probably has an EIN.

[itsmymoney]

Greetings;


Please forgive me if I am mistaken but I believe you are an intrepid member here who redeems lawful money upon perceptions gained here on the forums. Some members have been through the Lesson Plan.

The Lesson Plan involves:

1) True Identity
2) (administrative) Record Forming
3) Redeeming Lawful Money

While I enjoy that people apply and often have great success learning from the website, it looks like you may have benefited from a more well-rounded approach. That is to say Steps 1) and 2) of the Lesson Plan may be missing from your conversation with the IRS attorneys. These attorneys may be looking for somebody like you who has made an appearance and it would seem, that you have appeared in the subjective (subjugation) form offered by the projectors of the illusion.

Fear is always illusion. The IRS agents are misled by fraudulent omissions by the IRS attorneys to prod you into reacting fearfully with $5K and $10K frivolous penalty letters and from there the paper system is designed to keep you reacting. Sometimes this system is exacerbated by the State taxation and especially with California's State Franchise Board, the state system of policies seems independent of the US' Federal Reserve's IRS Code.

Mainly it would seem that you lack in an evidence repository. The evidence repository is a Libel of Review or even a Miscellaneous Case file in the federal courthouse so that your Refusals for Cause are published on PACER. I do not direct anybody to any particular suitor but your thought processes might guide you... Trained attorneys will usually pick up on how you are now a court of record and there is authority there; you are already publishing a Finding of Fact and the IRS testimony is going on the record.

As indicated that you are feeling bound to their forms and deadlines it would seem at first blush that you have fallen into the routine of being frightened into reacting to their presentments, rather than non-responsive Refusals for Cause timely on presentments. Sadly, the reaction process not only turns out badly for you but it also looks to others as though the non-endorsement redemption of lawful money is ineffective against IRS persecution.

I recall when we were children we played with a lawnmower. Stupid as it sounds we were daring each other to kill the running lawnmower by grabbing and shorting the spark plug. Dangerous as it was one quickly learned that you had to commit to fully becoming an electrical conduit, preferred to just pussyfooting around, or of course just watching and risk the peer pressure of being chicken. Becoming a court of record is kind of like that. You have to publish it for all to see. You might, however redact any SSN and even the home mailing address and phone number too.

At this point, and at a glance from a couple posts, that is what I would suggest. You should open up an evidence repository showing how long you have been redeeming lawful money and publish simple Refusals for Cause in it. No need to explain any more than the facts. The evidence repository is more for the IRS testimony than your testimony. Picture some day you will explain your claim to a jury. You were redeeming lawful money and holding the IRS to behave honorably. When the IRS agents began issuing papers anyway, then you opened an evidence repository to establish that you redeem lawful money and began R4C process.

Finding of fact. Make it easy on this hypothetical jury. All you will need to do is open your evidence repository for them to read.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David,

Thanks for the detail and for responding so quickly.

Some clarification about the Lesson Plan: " Step 1 (yes, I have not been signing True Name but will now); Steps 2 and 3 are established. I do have an evidence repository with the County Recorder that is a Miscellaneous Case file of my affidavit for redeeming lawful money. It was created and recorded before I started demanding lawful money, which has been for 2.5 years. I do not have a LOR or R4C at the moment. I have the checks/deposit slips of all LM transactions maintained at home, but not in the evidence repository. I presume I need to file these copies at the County in the repository?

DM said...
"As indicated that you are feeling bound to their forms and deadlines it would seem at first blush that you have fallen into the routine of being frightened into reacting to their presentments, rather than non-responsive Refusals for Cause timely on presentments. Sadly, the reaction process not only turns out badly for you but it also looks to others as though the non-endorsement redemption of lawful money is ineffective against IRS persecution."

Is it proper to send the R4C in response to the CP15 'Pay up' letter (their 'presentment')? I'm presuming I need to first record the R4C as an addendum to my already-established Misc Case File at the County. I'll search for a template of an R4C.

Would appreciate if possible, a follow up on the questions posed above. Thank you.

Regards,
imm

[Chex]

David, Sadly, the reaction process not only turns out badly for you but it also looks to others as though the non-endorsement redemption of lawful money is ineffective against IRS persecution."

IMM it not David's law he only showed what other people have been missing; as far as the IRS goes their in no position to make a judicial decision, it might been a different story if you have to go to court; is the judge and the prosecutor going to go against the law? There are forms for that too.

[David Merrill]

The State revenue agencies at times have seemed more like willing captives to the FRB Franchise eager to get their share of crumbs from the Fed table. Similarly in there is the arrangement in Canada, except the sales and use tax are reserved to the States. Even the State of California FTB probably has an EIN.

Sometimes even to the point that when states are not getting enough federal crumbs, the threat of revolt brings in returns again.

David,

Thanks for the detail and for responding so quickly.

Some clarification about the Lesson Plan: " Step 1 (yes, I have not been signing True Name but will now); Steps 2 and 3 are established. I do have an evidence repository with the County Recorder that is a Miscellaneous Case file of my affidavit for redeeming lawful money. It was created and recorded before I started demanding lawful money, which has been for 2.5 years. I do not have a LOR or R4C at the moment. I have the checks/deposit slips of all LM transactions maintained at home, but not in the evidence repository. I presume I need to file these copies at the County in the repository?

DM said...
"As indicated that you are feeling bound to their forms and deadlines it would seem at first blush that you have fallen into the routine of being frightened into reacting to their presentments, rather than non-responsive Refusals for Cause timely on presentments. Sadly, the reaction process not only turns out badly for you but it also looks to others as though the non-endorsement redemption of lawful money is ineffective against IRS persecution."

Is it proper to send the R4C in response to the CP15 'Pay up' letter (their 'presentment')? I'm presuming I need to first record the R4C as an addendum to my already-established Misc Case File at the County. I'll search for a template of an R4C.

Would appreciate if possible, a follow up on the questions posed above. Thank you.

Regards,
imm

The county clerk and recorder sounds inadequate alone. You might open a Miscellaneous Case in the federal courthouse and file all your county publications there. Then R4C this latest presentment as you do so.