Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[Hbert997]

I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy?

Hbert

[David Merrill]

I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy?

Hbert

The accusation would be a general fraud by omission. But then, the remedy was written in 1913.

Suitors are a brain trust. This fellow got both years Refunded.

What has happened here today - that has come to light though - is that the IRS has brought up Rickman in the light to misdirect IRS agents to attach the $5K penalty for filing for a Refund by remedy.

[David Merrill]

Doing some research for a suitor, I found this citation.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf

[Brian]

Doing some research for a suitor, I found this citation.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf

David, So what part of that is of interest to you? Is there a specific line in there?

[David Merrill]

David, So what part of that is of interest to you? Is there a specific line in there?

Not in particular. I concentrate on redemption of lawful money and the subtle read-in of silver and gold (coin). That is where it encroaches on remedy by misleading IRS agents into thinking that the taxpayer person is saying that FRNs are not lawful money because they are not silver or gold-backed currency.

I found that publication on page one of that very recently styled Frivolous Filing notice. Presuming rhyme and reason, that the Return was examined carefully, the suitor included my citations:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

As planned by the drafters of the January 1, 2011 Notice, found on the opening post of this thread - an IRS agent spotted the citation of Rickman and hoisted that advisement out of context. See that Notice cited in the same paragraph above?

They are hoisting it to see how it flies - as expected. The wise suitor is adept with his evidence repository in the federal courthouse so the response as you see in the attachment is to R4C timely attaching the same Return but with a Memorandum of Law as Notice to any IRS attorney to examine. There is evidence by the changes in the notes found on the Internet Notification site that the IRS bounced the Return around campuses until a low level IRS agent spotted Rickman. Get my drift?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[LostPosterity]

Check out the handbook link on this page. (scroll down a little) Very interesting.

http://rayservers.com/blog

Here are a couple other interesting things...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmwQTAA8H7Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QKD1ivLJfo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYviBBV3Qj8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcQElYhRvpY

--------------

On February 15, 1791 Jefferson wrote Washington to tell him his
objections of the establishment of a National Bank.

The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:
1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants
of land; and so far is against the laws of mortmain.
3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far
is against the laws of alienage.
4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a
certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of
descents.
5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat;
and so far is against the laws of forfeiture and escheat.
6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line;
and so far is against the laws of distribution.
7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the
national authority; and so far is against the laws of monopoly.
8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the
laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the
institutions from the control of the State legislatures; and so,
probably, they will be construed.


-----

Isn't it great how they prey upon peoples desire to do the right thing? Look at the big print on top of the return that Donald is filling out. Too Funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrB2kz7SIIw

Faithless Public Officials

While I am at it..might as well post this one too...for those of you seeking the truth.

http://www.drdino.com/seminar-part-1...-of-the-earth/

[David Merrill]

I am bumping this thread with the intention to update the links to the latest memorandums. I do not have any dealings at all with the IRS and so have been neglecting to stay abreast of the memorandums.


This page is no longer helpful.

As with this link.


I am working from this post on Page 6. It is starting to look as though we, the commoners, no longer get to read the IRS agent's memorandums. - At least that we no longer get to read the directories that include the recent Memos, if there are any?


The reason I am looking around for the new memorandums is that there is a report:

David – IRS called my 2011 LM money filing frivolous (most likely as it was based on the LOR and the Notice and Demand.

In any event I have come to see that there may be an EXACT method of filing a LM return BUT simply making demand for LM is not sufficient.

In addition redeeming LM does not protect your accounts, the LOR does not stop them and R4C while effective in some ways ultimately just infuriates them and makes them more determined to find “ways to encourage voluntary compliance” as one revenue office said to me a couple of years ago before he retired.

[I propose by the timing that he did not file before the April 15, 2012 deadline and therefore opened a door for quibbling about penalties.]

So it makes sense that they are keeping the new memorandum about Redeeming Lawful Money from my view so I cannnot link it here. If anybody knows how to find any newer memorandums to update I hope you will update this thread.

On the other hand we have plenty of good testimony but as indicated people do not want to agitate the attorneys and when they have the good fortune of full refunds they hope not to be made an example of:

I wanted to pass along the information that I received refunds in full from the US Treasury and the Treasurer of the State of XXXXXX.

A few points to note:

Each form was novated by striking "Under penalties of perjury" and "under penalty of perjury" within the Federal and State signature block, respectively

Occupation listed on the Federal form was "DEMANDER OF LAWFUL MONEY"
I truthfully provided 'Your Signature' with the one I use, or, True Name, not First M SURNAME

I have attached a copy of the refund and signature sections of each Form, along with the Federal Statement I used to provide an explanation in regard to the corresponding reductions throughout the Federal Forms. Also included is a copy of the checks I received. Several interesting details with the checks are how the US Treasury check is written "Pay to the order of" while the check from the Treasurer of the State of XXXXX is written "Pay," and the endorsement instructions/notices on the backside of each check.

With the prior experience I had, through the person I use in capacity of CPA, working with the IRS and other State tax authorities, I understand that these refunds were most likely sent without a review of the actual tax return. The Tax Agencies operate behind, to say the least, and it could be several years before any type of review is completed, if ever. And if either agency decides, or automatically sends out any kind of notice related to these filings, I know that my faith and trust in God will show me the way to testify to them so they can see and understand what has taken place.

Finally, this information and attachment can be shared with the Brain Trust, if you wish, but I do not want any part of the attachment to be posted, in any form, on the greater internet.

Thanks,

True Name

Another suitor, experienced in such capacity like CPA wrote that any review would come within six months - which may be the case. So mark this on your calendars. Keep in mind please that there are many good reports and success stories that you will never see. The IRS might feel compelled to change their mind about refunds and I will not supply the IRS agent specific targets here.

Here is the complete redacted Complaint and the Response from the FDIC.

I am contemplating writing a response to the bank I use which would in as many words state:

"I appreciate your testimony to the FDIC that I have used 'Demand for lawful money in accord with 12 U.S.C. 411' on checks I have tried to deposit. You have helped me form a more complete record that I have made a Demand for lawful money all while showing you, the bank, is cognizant of that fact."

This approach, Notice and Demand to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank was found independently in 1999 by a couple who had never heard of me until recently. They show the cards at every transaction and the tellers and other bank employees enjoy the running joke - Get out the Good Stuff! or Open up the Lawful Money safe! So this joviality keeps the couple loaded with witnesses to their demand.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Chex]

It coincidental that you mentioned the FDIC in this post. I was looking to see what the real differences were in Public and private sectors.

I found this one from Canada. If personal information is collected and an organization finds a new purpose for it, unless the new purpose is required by law, an organization cannot use that personal information for another purpose without consent. http://www.privacysense.net/10-priva...ying-purposes/

The 10 Privacy Principles of PIPEDA, also known as the 10 Fair Information Principles, come from a national standard called the CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. http://www.privacysense.net/10-priva...les-of-pipeda/

So did the United States have to say?

This is the GAO opinion: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-674

Personal Information required by law. IBM said In addition, we reserve the right to disclose your personal information as required by law and when we believe that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, ...where then are my rights?

Link

It started from here right of privacy: access to personal information Personal Information required by law

United States. 5 USC § 552a - Records maintained on individuals | LII / Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a

Of course it would be better posted under the identity portion of the forum although some significance of the post is relevant to this post such as this legal term:

(1 ) the term “agency” means agency as defined in section 552(e) [1] of this title;

(1) “agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include—http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552#e

(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a#FN-1REF

But you have this term person again and I have read all over the internet that I am not a person.
So what exactly who is this person they say without respect to persons?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oa...ffice2009.aspx and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453 except for here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii for this
http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/swearing-in/bibles

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

So is this vice president going to back (me) the “individual” or “person” up when the law says redeem?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/53375.html

Note that there is no such prohibition against Congress, or any delegated power to make anything legal tender. Congress was originally understood to have no power to make anything legal tender outside of federal territories, under Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17and Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2, but in 1868 a Supreme Court packed by Pres. Ulysses S. Grant, in the Legal Tender Cases, allowed Congress to make paper currency issued by the U.S. Treasury, backed by gold, legal tender on state territory, a precedent that remains controversial to this day, when courts allow paper currency not backed by anything to be considered "legal tender".

John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html

So why is it that commerce is unfair to this "PERSON"?
(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
(2)The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
(11)The term “commerce” means commerce between any State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, and any place outside thereof; or between points within the same State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, but through any place outside thereof; or within any Territory or possession, or the District of Columbia. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/182

Vieira Delivers

And why is it then so difficult to redeem:

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes—

(1) are payable to bearer; and

(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.

(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—

(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and

(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

Dept of Commerce, Independent agency, Internal Revenue Service http://www.fedstats.gov/agencies/

Use this page to find bills and resolutions in the U.S. Congress going back to 1973. You Searched for “USC Title 12 411 ”, but you have a choice... http://www.govtrack.us/start

So now that I am off topic again because I was looking to be in the private and go into the courts as private looks like I have to find the protocol to do it.

Not only that but this is what I am talking about: http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0157.pdf

[hvncb]

I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy? Hbert

I am new as well. I have already endorsed two checks via 12.411 and have the same questions to 'correct' previous redemptions to lawful money. Having read Mr. Merrill's comment that 'bank relied on our signature, etc' and part of me agrees it may be "water over the bridge" Nonetheless, question remains in my mind how UCS 12.411 applies ONLY at time of endorsement: "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..." this is open ended; ie, it does not state a specific time, event (endorsement) or has expiration period. Why not deposit a check w/ naked endorsement, take Fed Res notes and then demand 'lawful money'...who will say "oops, sorry, too late!".......also saw part of another post "By the time you are holding cash, you have already made your demand.." again...why is it too late?...not clear. regards!

[David Merrill]

I am new as well. I have already endorsed two checks via 12.411 and have the same questions to 'correct' previous redemptions to lawful money. Having read Mr. Merrill's comment that 'bank relied on our signature, etc' and part of me agrees it may be "water over the bridge" Nonetheless, question remains in my mind how UCS 12.411 applies ONLY at time of endorsement: "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..." this is open ended; ie, it does not state a specific time, event (endorsement) or has expiration period. Why not deposit a check w/ naked endorsement, take Fed Res notes and then demand 'lawful money'...who will say "oops, sorry, too late!".......also saw part of another post "By the time you are holding cash, you have already made your demand.." again...why is it too late?...not clear. regards!

There are a couple suitors who have no choice but to try it. They just cannot submit to a payment plan for the remainder of their days. So I am helping give them a shot at it. The sad part about it is that if you have been endorsing private credit from the Fed, that is your signature bond. All you have is ignorance of the law to plead in order to get your money back. If they are penalizing you though; the new $5K frivolous penalty fines, I feel that there is some good chance you can shut that up. You really don't owe them a penalty when you are the victim of fraud by omission!

So get straight about making your demand for lawful money first. There is no harm whatsoever and you do not need to be very brave to start writing a non-endorsement on your paychecks and Signature Card. It is not until April 15th that you have to decide if you are going to be brave.


Regards,

David Merrill.