Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[Christopher Thomas]

Absolutely.Thank you. it's funny that after this was posted and I was re-searching for the blank replica (without suitors recording info) and it came right up...

This link....https://youtu.be/5SkTT8rNx_I has been in the process of being passed around...unsure of reliability...interested in some factual proof of reliability if someone may know themselves.

I find it interesting...it speaks of redemption and SDR's however the denial of redemption...apparently recently being set in place...maybe a connection with above situation...

I will print the above and record in accordance with my indenture...as for her (who is experiencing this absurdity) if she wishes and once again properly assertively establish her Demand...when an action against a trustee's rights in the duties of administration occurs..a art.iii 3rd party claim should be administered for such deprivation...or am I still confusing theory and fact?

[David Merrill]

I listened to a few seconds.

[Christopher Thomas]

Not fully understanding... Respected though. I didn't intend to offend anyone. Much appreciated.

[EZrhythm]

Interesting report from the IRS-

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

Actions Are Needed to Better Identify
and Address Individuals Who File
Tax Returns Using Frivolous Arguments

August 31, 2016

https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2016reports/201640069fr.pdf

Of course "redeeming lawful money" is not included as there is no "frivolidity" in the position or method but it may be interesting to some anyway.

[David Merrill]

Interesting report from the IRS-

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

Actions Are Needed to Better Identify
and Address Individuals Who File
Tax Returns Using Frivolous Arguments

August 31, 2016

https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2016reports/201640069fr.pdf

Of course "redeeming lawful money" is not included as there is no "frivolidity" in the position or method but it may be interesting to some anyway.

Thank you for that. The IRS attorneys are pretty slick about casting illusions. Some feel the Trading with the Enemy Act has been "Omitted" from the Bankers' Code because it was redundant (Title 50 - Military Code) while not even realizing the implications of it being omitted from the Bankers' Code.

I gather we have these cited docs herein...




P.S. FrivPen Notice 2010-33 - Click Here.
The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments.

[Michael Joseph]

Thank you for that. The IRS attorneys are pretty slick about casting illusions. Some feel the Trading with the Enemy Act has been "Omitted" from the Bankers' Code because it was redundant (Title 50 - Military Code) while not even realizing the implications of it being omitted from the Bankers' Code.

I gather we have these cited docs herein...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4777[/ATTACH]


P.S. FrivPen Notice 2010-33 - Click Here.
The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments.

Just yesterday a student at www.lawfulmoneytrust.com called me elated that his letter regarding frivolous penalty was stopped due to one letter that he wrote based on what he learned on the site. Not only did the IRS stop their action, it was clear that there was some communication also with the State Revenue Department as he received his State withholdings which were on hold until determination could be made by the IRS if the taxpayer owed any tax.

In 2014 I read "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments" and looked up the court cases so that I might comprehend the arguments made. It is easy to see after some study how words can be twisted and how those who would issue a charge need only sit back and listen to the words which issue from the defendant. Most times the defendant hangs self with his own mouth.

As a matter of Law I would like to show that if one has issued a claim upon which relief may be granted, then it is the responsibility of the claimant to show the remedy in the Law so that one may be justified.

Isaiah 43:26* Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.*

A king may not sit in a throne under Providence unless said king has written his Torah. Now you may ask, what does this have to do with anything? It has EVERYTHING to do with your current situation. King James wrote his Torah for the Realm and copyrighted his Torah to be the governing Law for the Realm. It was out of his Throne that the Trees were planted in America [colonies or plantations or Farms]. Thusly were these Estates held mediately in the Throne.

Thusly do we keep it simple. Those who have grown to understand Trust Law and how it works, will appreciate the following. It is NOT enough to know how you can do a deed, it is also needed to know why you can do said deed. My Will and my Intellect must be in accord - else I find self ripped in two.

Title 12 United States Code Section 411 (12 U.S.C. 411) is very clear that Federal Reserve Notes are not Lawful Money of the United States. While they are lawful to use as a legal tender they cannot ever pay a debt but merely discharge said debt to a future Day of Judgment. [paid in blood on battlefield] And relying on Scripture, I find this model made clear in the great book of Hebrews as follows:

Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Therefore, these have no power to pay for sin and only push the sin [debt] forward to a future day of reckoning. Thus is the nature of the Federal Reserve System and its notes. However, clearly, 12 U.S.C. 411 allows that these Federal Reserve Notes and their associated credit system may be redeemed as there must always be choice. Noticing an alter atop George Washington's head and noticing that he is the Alpha flanked by an Omega, only he who is blind cannot see the symbolism. I comprehend that you need my consent to understand the Federal Reserve System and I have expressly withheld my consent by way of restrictive endorsement expressing my trust in United States Lawful Money. I am with my free will to choose and I choose to undertake on behalf of the United States in Lawful Money. I stand upon the Law (12 U.S.C. 411) hereinbefore quoted and maintain that I have no obligations or liability to even file a return as the Account is absent liability of the burden of taxation. Finding no transfer of Rights of Use, there can be no Fee! There only remains a presumption of which is timely rebutted herein! It is now time for Eve to be true to Adam. For once she had many lovers but now is she submitting to her Husbandman in Love.

If you don't have the "blood of the Lamb" upon the lintels and door posts [which is Truth], then you will pay with your own blood. And we know it is the blood of the victim which seals the covenant. Further, we know that "the life is in the blood" which relates that blood is synonymous with energy and labor which is related to truth vs. error. For in error we labor in vain. And this relates directly to a mark in the hand [labor] and in the forehead [thoughts]. For our thoughts allow us to express and imply our trust thru written/spoken deeds and action. And now we see it is not good enough to have knowledge but that the benefit and relief is in the Hand of the one that does. See now the Altar atop George Washington's head?

Many read and only see the outer garments which cloak the knowledge hidden in symbolic language [His Voice] - but some will change their clothes.

Rev 19:8* And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.*

Caught between Free Will and Destiny are these not two pillars - Hegelian in nature? I wonder can anyone escape the Matrix using the thoughts which "built this place"?



The World's most famous Weatherman


Because in the end, the Love you make is equal to the Love you take....Consider a life of faith absent love. Is this not akin to the Sun's rays without warmth? Is this not as Winter [pray your flight not be in Winter]? But what of Faith married to Love - is this not as Springtime of New Growth?

Love is what turns us on. For its wavelength is much shorter than fear and thusly hits upon more DNA. Can we think about serving our brethren in Unity? Or shall we continue to serve self? If in the latter - welcome to Groundhog Day - get comfortable. If the former, welcome to abundant Life.

Expressed Faith in the seedbed of Love is like having two great wings. Fly to your bliss!

Deu 32:29* O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!*

For there is but One Power - and those who sit in power today in Ministerial Trust, are only allowed. Herein is a great key.


============

A presumption exists. Why is a 1040 being issued if the one who issued said 1040 is not a trustee with obligations? For from the perspective of the IRS agent all who issue such are bound to obligation and subject to the form of which is established per code binding the trustee to give account of the management of the FRS property. In other words, who is this "farmhand" who declares he is not subject to the rent? The key is that there are TWO distinct districts. FRD [left] and USD [right]. Which side of the boat do you fish? For the Kingdom is built in trust and This State is legal to the Image. Thusly is Trust the Foundation.

Is it trust built on Faith [as in no Love] or trust built on Love whereof Faith is contemplated only in the Light of Love - Unity. In the latter we see there is only one life and that is God. And therefore, there is but One Love that comes from God. And the Light is Love and the Good is Truth and thusly can we come to be One? Or shall we remain two in intercourse with a foreign lover? Is that not adultery?

Of course Johnny B Agent, is just as ignorant as the rest of the mass and if something does not conform to the standard way of "doing business" it merely seems frivolous. And now with understanding we can see it is the duty of a trustee to prove his/her innocence and thusly we can see the appeals process - which in the Federal Reserve districts is understood by insurance policies - and NOT oaths of office to the people.

It is just good business Jack.

[David Merrill]

While traveling I stayed over with a suitor. Refusal for Cause on the 3175C FrivPen letter worked years ago to stop any billing - $30K in fines. Since then the wife has just gone Exempt with the W-4 and so they have no reason to file.

[David Merrill]

I keep thinking this is one of the more productive threads on StSC. Does anybody know of any new Memorandums?

[lorne]

I've seen nothing new. The IRS has failed to address redeeming lawful moneyJesse James never completed the catch

[David Merrill]

I've seen nothing new. The IRS has failed to address redeeming lawful moneyJesse James never completed the catch

I like the football "close enough" allegory. Lately I encountered searching my disk, an old American's News Bulletin article.

It is the oldest defense to the Libel of Review I have been utilizing since the late-1995 Are You Lost at C? - days. Rule 12 FRCP; Failure to State a Claim.

What I feel, being the geopolitical social engineer at the intelligence nexus of the brain trust, is that the Response to this correct interpretation was when Congress bolstered the FrivPen from $500 to $5000. And in all this time the only real damage on the FrivPen/NOFTL front has been with a new suitor who is being attacked by a rogue agent and Director. The IRS reports truthfully to the SSA:

More expressly here, I enjoy the MAGI acronym and may play with it in my imagination:



There it is!! The attorneys are allowing, if not leading the Director and Agent to go ahead with the "emergency" collections activity, even though they will not falsely report to a fellow government agency.

Sometimes I feel this thread is the very most productive thread on the entire website. God I miss Allodial though. Does anybody have a clue what happened to Allodial?

[doug555]

I keep thinking this is one of the more productive threads on StSC. Does anybody know of any new Memorandums?

It appears that the Treasury's position on redeeming FRNs has changed. See its link below, and notice its excerpt below, especially the first sentence of the last paragraph:

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.

Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity


Now, if one cannot redeem FRNs anymore for anything per above stated policy, is that not in violation of 12 USC 411 and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act?

Is that not also in violation of Public Policy (Public Res. 73-10, 48 Stat 112) by demanding a particular KIND of currency for payment of obligations?

If now one can only "promise to pay" all obligations with only one KIND of currency (FRNs), then why not use this same KIND of currency (a promise to pay) to "pay" all obligations, following this same stated Treasury policy on non-redemption?

When the Messiah paid the tax in Mt 17:27, did He tender a coin with Caesar's image on it, in accord with His decision in Mt 22:21?

Likewise, should we simply tender currency that bears a "promise to pay" image, in accord with this system's monetary policy and instruments?

[lorne]

Sometimes I feel this thread is the very most productive thread on the entire website. God I miss Allodial though. Does anybody have a clue what happened to Allodial?

Yes, very productive thread. No info on what happened to Allodial but my guess is ... his/her objective was reached here; mission accomplished. And then told to stand down or, left on their own.

We are consistently winning versus the IRS with lawful money remedy. I have seen them occasionally threaten a lawful money tax return with a frivolous penalty. Probably these letters have worked so well for the IRS in the past they continue to send them. Here is a recent example:



Here the IRS tries to create an illusion, saying the tax return claims a frivolous position when in fact it does not. Bit of a psychological operation at play. Gamesmanship. Responding with the law will cause the IRS to back down, eventually. And the threats melt away like January snow.

[David Merrill]

Now, if one cannot redeem FRNs anymore for anything per above stated policy, is that not in violation of 12 USC 411 and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act?

I don't read the webpage that way. The law reads: They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

FRN shall be redeemed in lawful money, on demand.

Yes, very productive thread. No info on what happened to Allodial but my guess is ... his/her objective was reached here; mission accomplished. And then told to stand down or, left on their own.

We are consistently winning versus the IRS with lawful money remedy. I have seen them occasionally threaten a lawful money tax return with a frivolous penalty. Probably these letters have worked so well for the IRS in the past they continue to send them. Here is a recent example:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5014[/ATTACH]

Here the IRS tries to create an illusion, saying the tax return claims a frivolous position when in fact it does not. Bit of a psychological operation at play. Gamesmanship. Responding with the law will cause the IRS to back down, eventually. And the threats melt away like January snow.

Thank you Lorne. This is pleasing to the ear. If you authorize the redemption it "goes through".

[Francon]

Hello, I have redeemed lawful money for over 3 years and did the deduction on 2014, 2015, and 2016 returns which I filed a bit late. Just this week I received a CP15 notice of penalty charge for my 2014 return. The notice says due by Feb 5, 2018. How are people successfully refuting the frivolous filing penalty? Some have mentioned phone calls to the IRS. What information is being conveyed in the phone conversation? Are suitors just writing back to the IRS and explaining that the redemption of lawful money is not mentioned in any of the frivolous filing categories that are listed in the IRS documentation? Advice or links are greatly appreciated.

Regards, kevin in Phoenix

[doug555]

Did Congress & Trump Provide the Ultimate TAX Remedy? Hidden In the Rules?

https://www.youarelaw.org/did-congress-trump-provide-the-ultimate-tax-remedy-hidden-in-the-new-bill/

I am researching this...

This may also be the "exigent circumstances" justifying a Garnishment action in Admiralty by a Clerk in USDC to bypass the seditious Judges!

And use those funds to offset damages from current IRS collections.

See Rule B (1)(c) below:

https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-xiii/rule-b-in-personam-actions-attachment-and-garnishment/