Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[Brian]

I already did here:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...cy-Act-of-2011

Thanks stone! Your other thread clued me to that bill. I actually drafted a letter to RP the other night. Curious to see if i'll get a response. Need to mail it today.

[David Merrill]

Thanks stone! Your other thread clued me to that bill. I actually drafted a letter to RP the other night. Curious to see if i'll get a response. Need to mail it today.

Give us some SAS! (Sanitize and Share).

Note I founded this bond on one of Ronald Earnest PAUL's many failed attempts to move without constitutency:

https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/image...Statement1.gif https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/image...Statement2.gif
https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/image...Statement3.gif https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/image...Statement4.gif

https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif

https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavitofservice.gif

https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant1.gif

https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant2.gif

https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/1-HR3812.jpg

https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/2-HR3812.jpg

https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/3-HR3812.jpg

https://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/4-HR3812.jpg

BTW:

Instead of paying the bond, or having the US arrested they gave Ronald Dean back his money.

[David Merrill]

About a week after filing the Certificate Ron was at the bank's drivethru and got the message he had to come inside. He thought that the little funds he had were again, swept on the same seizure. He got inside to hear the wonderful news that his entire life's savings had been fully restored!

He called me up to celebrate and share that they only had one hitch - they wanted him to sign a Waiver of Indemnity that meant he could not sue US Bank for the damages they had caused him. We got a laugh out of that and US Bank instead wrote letters of apology to any and all people who had received rubber checks because of the seizure.

[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.

[David Merrill]

To help make this plain for all readers:

Notice - Memorandum of Law
[Supplemental to Page 1 of Doc XX Demand for Lawful Money]

Please bring this notice to the attention of an IRS attorney;

This presentment is Refused for Cause timely and a copy is filed in my evidence repository in the USDC State Case Number 10-XXXX. It has come to my attention that the Rickman case has been mentioned in the Notice about frivolous guidelines of 1/1/11 cited in your letter - http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf.

This is the quote from the 1/1/11 Notice mentioning Rickman.

This post, that post and that one too should all be read together for a glimpse of current events as they both unfold and enfold with regulations decompressing the highly compressed information infrastructure generally known as "money".

[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.

[David Merrill]

Another update - silence. The IRS offered half a refund - which can only be interpreted as hoping he is hard up enough to be quiet and let them transfer the funds into his bank account. He refused for cause the offer, meaning he did not want them to keep half of the Withholdings they owe him by law...

Silence.

[Chex]

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?

[David Merrill]

You shift tense and person. I do not know how to answer - or if you are directing your question at me.

[Chex]

against the person" similar to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure- Rule Bthis I wanted to know if exigent circumstance corporate person.

[David Merrill]

shift tense and person, learn something new everyday, thank you

I put that question out there because some person authorized deductions from a friend’s paycheck without this personam signing a w4 form.

Therefore if you non-endorse the paycheck why not the w4 form as confirmation?

I’m taking a shot at this, so is this "against the person" similar to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure- Rule B(1)(a)? This might have no relationship at all it’s just the way I associated it.

I don’t understand what the meaning of “contain a prayer for process” suggests.

After I read Rule C(3)(a)(ii) from this I wanted to know if exigent circumstance exists and again if its related.

I’ve also noticed that the paycheck is always addressed to the true name of the recipient not to the corporate person.

Buy a stamp - put it on your signature as part of your signature. W-4 included.

That last sentence does not jibe for me. The paycheck is almost always written to the legal or full name.

"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."


If you want to integrate that into the Admiralty Rules go ahead. That sounds like a fun academic experience but you may create some complicated mental models that are more a headache than practicable. If you execute simply you probably will need not explore into such sophisticated elaboration.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[allodial]

Perhaps he is mistaking John Henry Doe as "true name" vs JOHN HENRY DOE or JOHN H DOE.

[earthshake]

More like; Thank You Brian!

That is very enlightening.

The warning I always give with Pete's CtC though is that without remedy written in the law, he leaves people hoping to argue certain interpretations of the IR Code. Fatal!


P.S. Please link us to PAUL's new bill.

Hi David,

I'm new to the forum as of today, directed here from the CtC forum - not by anyone in particular, just found a thread that linked to this forum.

I am in the situation you mention above, with our state DOR (MA). We are to the point of having filed a petition after they rejected or ctc filing for 2006. In response (though months late) they have submitted a motion for summary judgment. We have about 30 days to respond to it (unusual to have so much time, but we asked for an extension).

I have sent for our transcripts from auntie, which should arrive in about 10 days. We have a doc from auntie showing $0 taxable income for 06. I'll stop there in for now. Thanks in advance for any insight and hope you all have a great "Independence" Day:-)

earthshake