Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[David Merrill]

over 22 posts on this thread but the brilliance rests within

Agreed.

Few are conscious of the true value of physical gold - the server farms and data silos that make this communication possible. Sometimes it seems I am the only one in the world who believes the Internet is a widely used interactive computer program.

[xparte]

over 22 posts on this thread but the brilliance rests within

[xparte]

Conviction has one Authority unfortunate for the mi trow nerals or finite the metals pronounced mental All the alchemy in this world is a stone's throw from what certainly not the truth rocks say what? nothing till a price is put on it then its what exactly a commodity nobody forgives a commodity just the promised part call it notes land or title blood from a stone is something u cant earn

[David Merrill]

Another common citation for the 3176 styled Letter is 2105. I do not see any new details that might cover redemption.

Prepping Crown indictment I discovered an interesting IRS publication:

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-025-010r

Search for "chargeback" -

Exhibit 25.25.10-1

Frivolous Arguments

Frivolous arguments are currently described in Notice 2010-33, available at http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-17_IRB/ar13.html (or its successor notice), the Truth About Frivolous Arguments, and a number of revenue rulings. Please refer to these publications for the most current listing of frivolous arguments. Recognized frivolous arguments include but are not limited to:


Non-negotiable Chargeback (NNCB) - The filer attempts to sell his/her birthright back to the government for a large dollar amount and requests that a "Treasury Direct Account" be set up to hold the money.

Interestingly this is a distorted description of redemption - redeemed from a world where debt is valued for substance, along with an absurdity that debt can be sustainable. Even clearly in the Bible the Law is Jubilee every 50 years.

In a phone call to the IRS recently a suitor was told that "Non-Negotiable Chargeback" was the FribPen category that Redeemed Lawful Money Returns fell under for charging FrivPen.

[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:

[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]

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 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.

[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]

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

[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]

[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.

[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]

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

[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