Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[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:

[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]

SUBCHAPTER G - Regulations Under Tax Conventions

Part

500 [Reserved]
501 Australia ..........................
502 Greece ............................x
503 Germany .........................x
504 Belgium ...........................
505 Netherlands ....................
506 Japan ...............................
507 United Kingdom .............
509 Switzerland .....................x
510 Norway ............................
511 Finland ...........................
512 Italy .................................
513 Ireland............................x
514 France ...........................x
515 Honduras .....................
516 Austria ...........................x
517 Pakistan ........................x
518 New Zealand ..................
519 Canada ........................
520 Sweden .........................x
521 Denmark.........................x

My oh my has times changed http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/...I/subchapter-G

[David Merrill]

Here is a glimpse of the new "Libel of Review" - in the rough.

Gdude was asking about help setting up an evidence repository. Find the example clerk instruction in the LoR and that should offer some explanation. Furthermore though there is a brain trust of suitors operating to critique the new form and template. Now with this post though, that editing process has opened up to you too Gdude. I call this an echo chamber and it is among several echo chambers. The brain trust is an echo chamber too.

Awesome job DM!


My only suggestion is to add the word "contract" into the civil action, since a Claim rests on violation of a contract which then caused an injury by the violator.

Steel sharpens steel.


I feel the use of the word trust in the opening paragraph as a synonym to contract is adaquate but discussion may change that word.


P.S. A new suitor contributed just this morning:

IRS FORM 843 - Redeeming Lawful Money

Although IRS Form 843 cannot be used for claiming back income tax, it can be used for an abatement of the fee paid for the presumed use of private credit in the form of Federal Reserve Notes that is based on the amount of income denominated thereby, when said presumed use has been consistently rebutted by lawful money being demanded for all transactions per 12 USC 411, with a substantive record of same created as admissible evidence by all related financial institutions in their normal course of business documentation. This IRS Form 843 is a good tool to further expose the unspoken legal foundation of the “income tax” – that it is a legitimate usage fee for the use of the private credit and script of the Federal Reserve System.

That looks like the Informer to me and I hope my inquiring where it came from works a worthwhile lesson about rules of evidence.

[David Merrill]

I find it worth bumping that the brain trust of suitors having these two recent letters to share with each other may be an unprecedented weapon of intelligence in the arsenal. - That we share IRS responses with one another!

With the IMF Head blaming burgeoning national debt for loss of interest in China buying up more American debt, can we frame a valid accusation against GEITHNER for being irresponsible as fiduciary if he continues to interfere with the redemption of lawful money?

[David Merrill]

In the above posts I have cited the recent memorandums and manual that the IRS agent is to utilize in judging any Return as frivolous. One suitor filed for 2010 and had no evidence repository - too much confidence in the law - and received a $5K penalty notice. He published his Libel of Review and things let up on that billing. When he filed for 2011 though, he got a new styled Letter.

The only thing I can think why the $10K is because $5K is for the actual "filing" while the other $5K was from my stupidity of calling in to follow up on the refund due and to talk to those people you have to give your social and name. Stupid me. But again, remember that I am the suitor who has the Notice CP 12 where their own form for calendar year 2010 says they owe the account $10,680.

This has been R4C'd properly using his Libel of Review for evidence repository but I had to pay attention to detail and found the citation is slightly altered. You have to pay attention carefully too, to get this affirmation.

On top is a photo of a Letter from May (2012) with a citation of the friv_tax.pdf file found above and which has no reference to redeeming lawful money as frivolous. But the recent Letter cites a Memo from 2010 in which the letters "redeem" occur three times.

Here is 2010-33 (Page 9).

(6) A taxpayer has been untaxed, detaxed,

or removed or redeemed from the

Federal tax system though the taxpayer remains

a United States citizen or resident, or

similar arguments described as frivolous in

Rev. Rul. 2004?31, 2004?1 C.B. 617.


(12) Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable

income when paid to a taxpayer because

they are not gold or silver and may

not be redeemed for gold or silver.



(21) A taxpayer may use a Form 1099-

OID, Original Issue Discount, (or another

Form 1099 Series information return) as a

financial or other instrument to obtain or

redeem (under a theory of ?redemption?

or ?commercial redemption?) a monetary

payment out of the United States Treasury

or for a refund of tax?

In the recent Letter the agent has resorted to a 2010 citation that seems similar (to the layman/agent anyway) to what we are doing here.

By studying the citations provided in any rendition of the Letter, a suitor can surmise:

Said quote hereinbefore looks to time when I reached the age of majority; and, I have carefully read your Notice and I cannot find that demanding Lawful Money is a Frivolous Argument; and, it comes down to this simple principle, what is my intent; and, It is my express intent to operate [the] FIRST M. SURNAME in honor...

Resulting in:

They garnished my wifes wages. I wrote a one page letter to the agent. In twenty seven days they zeroed out the balance. This year we received one hundred percent of our increase from state and feds.



I don't buy any of this [IMF Decode conversation context] rhetoric. But then again I am not in the market [to buy into fear].

[David Merrill]

Here is another interesting memorandum to IRS Agents!


Click Here.

[David Merrill]

Required Reading. His boss tells him what he has to read, to train him about the guidelines about when to issue a warning or $5K penalty for a frivolous filing.

I invite even the most skeptical readers to find a directive about redeeming lawful money as framed in the Fed Act and Title 12.

http://www.irs.gov/taxexemptbond/20k...134362,00.html - notices

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=168637,00.html

Notice 2007-61

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2007-30

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2008-14

http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-33.pdf

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2010-33

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-ccdm/cc-2011-004.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

Notice 2011-004


To save time I suggest keywords to search:


lawful
redeem
redemption
Title 12
411

Here is an update to the Notices.

Click Here.


With a little looking I found the manual that was updated February 23, 2012:

Click Here.


It has 50 points and I noticed there is no reference to "lawful", "redeem" or "Rickman". I find that interesting indeed.

[David Merrill]

To avoid any friction with my employer, I have been allowing withholdings to be sent regularly to the IRS on the presumption that you will understand my filing of return according to the law and refund my withholdings fully. Please review my Return again and promptly send me back my Withholdings.

Should a new form be sent in with the stamp on it?

That might be a good idea. It depends though; did the IRS respond or have you just gotten silence? Did you file your return by April 15?

[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-the-age-of-the-earth/

[David Merrill]

Here is an update about this particular suitor's IRS Refund. The more local campus is offering to pay him about half of his Refund. But they did not just deposit it so it is an offer. The attorneys at the IRS are probably hoping he will acquiesce and accept it, admitting that he owes them something from all that Withholding sum amount. He does not.

Being an offer, he is R4C timely. He will keep the IRS attorney honest.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Updating you all.


This fellow got a latter about 45 days ago saying the IRS would be considering his Return for another 45 days. He sounded optimistic that the IRS will be sending his full Refund, however late.

I noticed how long the IRS contemplated sending him his Refund for the latter half of 2009:

[David Merrill]

Post August 2nd, I feel this thread deserves a bump.

Potential Candidate informally accuses the Fed of Treason.

[David Merrill]

sorry, hard to understand....whose 'fraud by omission'? No, not April 15, I mean demand lawful money to the beginning of IRS filings. These are obligations of the United States...for taxes, customs and....dues. As I read it, nothing about OUR obligations. Why can't a demand for lawful money be made back to the beginning of one's earnings and IRS filings?

Because they (international bankers/central bankers/fellow Americans endorsing) have been banking on your signature bond - fractional lending. The currency on your bond has already been created. It is all created off loans - all currency in circulation was created by lending. Look at the first sentence:

You as a typical borrower/debtor have been operating as a Fed bank. Right up until the moment you started non-endorsing by demanding lawful money.

It is defensive at best - suppose the IRS is after you for $5K for saying you filed frivolous with Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code plan. Now you are demanding lawful money and you will get your Refund of Withholdings but the best you might hope for by exposing the fraud by omission is for them to back off about before with Pete.

The fraud by omission is that you cannot be expected to sue everybody who led you to believe endorsement was the only option.

If I had known in good faith that I could have redeemed lawful money I would have been doing so since my first paycheck ever!

[hvncb]

sorry, hard to understand....whose 'fraud by omission'? No, not April 15, I mean demand lawful money to the beginning of IRS filings. These are obligations of the United States...for taxes, customs and....dues. As I read it, nothing about OUR obligations. Why can't a demand for lawful money be made back to the beginning of one's earnings and IRS filings?

[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.

[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!