Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[David Merrill]

Something settled into my mind while having a delightful phone conversation with Francon.

With five garnishments in admiralty underway in the USDC DC, wherein the Garnishees (TRUMP and MNUCHIN) reside, that admiralty rules might not apply to the redeemed. Admiralty as a jurisdiction in America must arise from below the high tide mark, or be related to an insurance contract. The insurance contract can be drawn up at sea or anywhere inland.

The fractional lending requires insurance (FDIC or a Credit Union assurance). Suppose after all these years we have been pressuring the system into actual special deposit? I recall how a chain of credit unions closed down but years back is when some intrepid redeemed trustees began opening many trust accounts and moving large amounts of money through the credit union chain.

Out of the blue, trustees began hearing that they must quit all non-endorsing of checks. When the trustees claimed that they would sign as they pleased, the chain shut down.

I have always advocated that we do not bother patrolling or even monitoring the lawfulness of the activity happening behind the teller window. So my presumption has always been that nobody gives a flip and all the money is processed the same, in the vault. That it is all insured and fractionalized upon. The branch managers do nothing to make sure that those bills deposited or set aside upon a check deposit were set aside "special deposit" in the vault for when that particular redeemed customer came back for "his or her money". And for amounts less that (let me guess) $1000 that is still true.

My imagination has that the board of trustees for this credit union chain serving at the pleasure of the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) realized they had been breaking the law, by treating these deposits as though they are insured for fractional lending/reserve banking. Or maybe the OCC looked over the books and noticed a discrepancy worth mentioning?

The closure was silent correction. No discussion. Like pulling a weed and burning it.

[doug555]

Can anyone help me find evidence of Coast Guard Geodetic Survey Marks/Monuments being placed on mountain tops to justify bringing Admiralty/Maritime Law onto the Land?

http://www.peakbagging.com/Benchmark.htm

Benchmark Placement on Mountain Tops

Most of you reading this have probably been to a lot of summits which have had a benchmark in a prominent location that was easy to see. There may be a large rock at the summit and the benchmark will be cemented in place at the very highest point. Surveyors are concerned with visibility to other survey monuments and thus may place the benchmark near, but not actually on the highest point. The elevation of the benchmark will in these cases be lower than that of the true summit and the position as measured in latitude and longitude will not be that of the highest point.

........................................
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_marker
Survey markers, also called survey marks, survey monuments, or geodetic marks, are objects placed to mark key survey points on the Earth's surface. They are used in geodetic and land surveying. Informally, such marks are referred to as benchmarks,[1] although strictly speaking the term "benchmark" is reserved for marks that indicate elevation.
........................................

See: http://freedom-school.com/admiralty-...me-exposed.pdf
Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction Exposed.pdf (excerpt from page 7 below):

"As long ago as 1851 the Supreme Court recognized that the Congress has the power to extend the
jurisdictions of admiralty and maritime causes to the land under the commerce clause and deprive the
people of the right of a trial by jury. The following holding by the high court pretty much says it all.

"This power [of admiralty jurisdiction] is as extensive upon land as upon water. The
Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in
matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise
on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it
can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and
torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also
the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on. It would be in the power of
Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in
transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the
persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now
the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been
supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the
power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its
courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known
and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason
would justify the same exercise of power on land." Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v.
Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

.....................................


The below links are offline during the government shutdown:

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datasheets/

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datums/vertical/

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/Tidal_Elevation/

[David Merrill]

I based an indictment upon a monument on Mt Herman, Colorado.



There were three permanently mounted on the summit. Two of them pointed to the main one at ninety degrees. I knew there was something special about it from Mount Hermon of the Bible and how it overlooks Megachurch, USA from The North.



My intention was to utilize the monument as an escape from admiralty. - To prove that we are air-breathing high above the high-tide mark.





While camping a couple months later, I heard some strange pounding from my camp across the way. I did not think much of it but a few hours later went over to the summit and found that a group of men had carried a sledgehammer up and destroyed the metal cap. The two pointer caps remain there.

You may be on to something but I focus on DeLOVIO:



Here is my thinking - Fractional lending and reserve banking depend entirely on insurance. FDIC is the primary insurance but all endorsed bills are insured against the national debt for security. Therefore redemption restores one to that Mandatory Exception from the false balances of elastic currency.

But there is more. A FrivPen is Waiver of Tort... continued.

[David Merrill]

This is the municipal CODE of the Five Boroughs. My "new technology" is to apply Admiralty Rules for garnishments against TRUMP and MNUCHIN. For example:





Secretary Robert RUBIN resigned suddenly, in time for the Five O'Clock News. Look at the date above.

But if I am redeemed, MELCHIZEDEK then I have no business with LEVI. Sure enough. There is nothing going on because I am not separate. This is how difficult it is to climb over your egoistic mind and pull your head out of debt long enough to reconquer your idea set - brain trust. I am not alone. I am ONE with many. Unity.

It goes way back - Jim's NOFTL (Notice of Federal Tax Lien) was not released. It disappeared.



I thought it strange that Jim could never get Wiley Young DANIEL to pull off his administrative cap and put on original jurisdiction - his Article III cap. But then that is the point. For a party in interest to come up out of the sea, and state claim on land, they must first file a petition in the USDC.

Unless of course that party endorses private credit.

[doug555]

In response to the 'Waiver of Tort' mentioned above...

Here is an "Official Claim through a International Alien Tort Claim published by the Government of The United States of America!" for proceeding in an INTERNATIONAL VENUE for the "Trafficking of Persons" committed by the United States and the United States of America against Americans via COLB & SSN instruments.

https://reignoftheheavens.com/?p=3388


Since both the United States and the United States of America are private corporations, who "own" all USDC Courts, it appears that only an INTERNATIONAL VENUE is suitable for recourse.

See also: The Government of The United States of America and the American National Union of The United States of America declares independence from the British Empire!

https://reignoftheheavens.com/?p=3458

Notice item #7:

7: The British Empire created private international agreements under its private international law
that included but not limited to the Atlantic Charter of nineteen hundred and forty one, and
trafficked persons into the use of private Trusts (Internal Revenue) to facilitate human trafficking
under the guise of Social Security, forced payment of taxes to allegedly fund the 'government' when
those funds are really a 'tribute' payment to the Crown and the Vatican, and

Notice page 4, 2nd last paragraph:

The British Empire British Agents shall never be allowed to file one more charge against anyone
outside of their borders, nor trafficked in persons within its borders

Our "persons" have been trafficked under the guise of Social Security into offshore (Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands) internal revenue trusts... so would signing onto these 2 documents help those who are now dealing with the recent IRS Frivolous Filing charges and installment payment plans forced thereunder?

P.S. This may also help...
See: THE NEW INCOME TAX LAW (HR 1) DESTROYS the IRS, the DOJ, and ALL the JUDGES!
http://www.tax-freedom.com/BrokenSystem.pdf

[David Merrill]

I can see how "commercial war of genocide and temple desecration" would bring that to mind.

[lorne]

Fractional lending and reserve banking depend entirely on insurance. FDIC is the primary insurance but all endorsed bills are insured against the national debt for security. Therefore redemption restores one to that Mandatory Exception from the false balances of elastic currency.

But there is more. A FrivPen is Waiver of Tort...

I get it. The IRS presumes everyone is endorsing private credit (of the Federal Reserve). This is their default position ... assuming your income is federal income; you are contracting. Therefore when their computer database shows you with unreported income (ie. W2, 1099) or unpaid tax as an unjust benefit, instead of suing in court (tort) they elect to treat the facts as establishing an implied contract - all the rules & regs of Title 26. Therefore their system issues the Frivolous Penalty, per contract.

But, I am redeemed. Non-contracting. So in my case the IRS is in error.

It occurs to me that your five suitors could also go after the Garnishees bank accounts by Trustee Process. But that would require judgement by judge in favor of the suitor. And that seems unlikely given the invalid oaths and that judges almost always favor the banks. I suppose the odds are slightly better with the clerks - if you can get them to do their job.

[David Merrill]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5044[/ATTACH]

I get it. The IRS presumes everyone is endorsing private credit (of the Federal Reserve). This is their default position ... assuming your income is federal income; you are contracting. Therefore when their computer database shows you with unreported income (ie. W2, 1099) or unpaid tax as an unjust benefit, instead of suing in court (tort) they elect to treat the facts as establishing an implied contract - all the rules & regs of Title 26. Therefore their system issues the Frivolous Penalty, per contract.

But, I am redeemed. Non-contracting. So in my case the IRS is in error.

It occurs to me that your five suitors could also go after the Garnishees bank accounts by Trustee Process. But that would require judgement by judge in favor of the suitor. And that seems unlikely given the invalid oaths and that judges almost always favor the banks. I suppose the odds are slightly better with the clerks - if you can get them to do their job.

Thank you for paying attention and being so smart. That makes it worthwhile for me. Much better than finding out I imagine these things because of a tumor putting pressure on my pituitary gland or something like that.

About the clerks; Angela CAESAR took two months but finally published a Notice of Clerk's Bad Behaviors on PACER. I imagine that was pretty difficult for her.

About Waiver of Tort action. I am having trouble finding any difference in a CP-15 FrivPen billing and Waiver of Tort. I do not think that I have ever seen a frivolous filing penalty ever turn into a prosecution for tax evasion. So maybe that is waiver of tort; when the IRS decides to bill a taxpayer that is the decision to waive a criminal prosecution?

So what is good for the gander is good for the goose?

This is why it helps to hit the clerk with malfeasance accusations. The Rules of Court are published and that is the authority, combined with bonding for the "judges". So this has all paid off.

[David Merrill]

Greetings;

This is one of the more useful threads around here. I am crosstalking from another thread...

Automated Under Reporter (AUR) is the IRS codename for their system that detects & responds to reported income mismatches: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleae...cp-2000-notice

[David Merrill]

Hi Everybody!

A new suitor sent me this link. I think this is the same memorandum as before though, already posted here. If you see anything that might relate to redemption please comment.

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c

[lorne]

Ah, new edition of the Frivolous List, March 2018, but still the GLARING OMISSION - no mention of redemption of lawful money.

CONTENTION: U.S. notes are not income.
Taxpayer claims his U.S. note income can be non-taxable. Taxpayer claims to have learned the secret of the federal income tax: that it's an excise on receipt of Federal Reserve currency. While it is true one can avoid taxation on income by redeeming one's income in lawful money (U.S notes in the form of FRN's), we (the owners of the central bank and all who profit from it) would prefer you don't tell anyone. Thanks.

[David Merrill]

This is what you're looking for...

Contention: U.S. notes are not income.

Some assert that U.S. notes are not taxable income under the Revenue Acts of Congress; that a worker who redeems a paycheck in U.S. notes (lawful money) owes no federal tax on that income.

The LawRelevant Case Law:

United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10 th Cir. 1980) - Court affirms "that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money."

Milam v. United States, Appellees, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974) - Holder of $50 Federal Reserve Note sought to require Federal Reserve board to redeem the note in gold or silver. Court affirms that "Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal."
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...24/629/430631/

United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9 th Cir. 1984) - Taxpayer argued that receipt of Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute "income", the bass ackwards argument of Contention above. Of course FRNs are taxable. George Mercer wrote a letter to taxpayer Armen Condo who was highly unreceptive, continued using FRNs, and the court upheld his criminal conviction.

https://famguardian.org/Publications/InvisibleContracts/ArmenCondoLetter.htm

Conclusion: True

I have copied this from another thread.

Also, this MENDOZA Order might be being misused already, I don't know.

[David Merrill]

My suspicion lately is that the DoJ is keeping tabs here and the Albany Remand, seeing that we have no judicial oversight to run to - except maybe the Dragon Court (NEPHALIM) and then maybe above that, the Truth. So they are experimenting.



I am copying this post over to What does the IRS agent think?

[David Merrill]

This is still one of the more informative threads on the entire Internet, in my opinion. This image indicates we are making progress as it is the second report in one day that instead of slapping on the $5K FrivPens the IRS is simply losing returns!

With this particular new suitor, it is a godsend considering he mistakenly added the FICA SSI stuff to his claim. Now he gets a chance to correct it. I think it should be difficult for the IRS to admit that they lost two Returns in a row!

[David Merrill]

Also; The MENDOZA Order

Hello everybody;

I am posting my suspicion that John SCHLABACH is an agent provocateur. This is to say he is getting a break on past liabilities for generating case law against remedy, for the purpose of discouraging people searching the Internet about Redeeming Lawful Money.

I came across his case in Eastern Washington on PACER by accident. I do not believe that the IRS agents' strategy had anticipated my finding it in progress. So I told John early about MENDOZA being a bogus judge and encouraged him to enlist me to disqualify him on having a vacant office. At that time I recall finding his history with the IRS and realizing, "This guy is in big trouble already." So I had a sinking feeling that he would be available for exactly what is going on.

One suitor tells me,

It looks to me like that is exactly what it was about redeem in lawful money, they ruled aginst him last year 2018 but this year it was dropped i guess because of his appeals he filed.
I did find it on a google search of frivolous filing. Not sure what the besmirch remedy is.

The remedy is not to believe what you read on the Internet. MENDOZA is not a federal judge. He can judge in equity by consent of the parties and that is where John took it. I told him to be genuine in his efforts and principles he would need to disqualify MENDOZA before he lost in trial court. But now in hindsight I am convinced my suspicions have been truthful. John is hurting a lot less from the "loss" in (vacant) court because he played his role in generating rumors that besmirch a perfect absolute right to be redeemed from central banking dishonors.

Please let us know if SCHLABACH's case is cited in any 3176-sytled Letters from Christine DAVIS. I doubt the IRS attorneys will do more than take advantage of people's Internet gullibility. Meanwhile: