Tweet
Originally posted by earthshake
View Post
-
You seem to have almost given me enough to start getting a picture. Are you in civil, administrative or criminal trouble? -
Feeling dense at this moment, lol! Not criminal. Our petition was filed with the Appellate Tax Board, so I am thinking that is administrative?Originally posted by David Merrill View PostComment
-
Funny thing.
Every TAXPAYER volunteers to hold the status of TAXPAYER.
The rules of administrative law govern - if you keep the paper you own the liability...Comment
-
The suitor strategy is to become judicial. Since all the "judges" are taxpayers, they cannot be judicial (unless you stamp them so).
These are true judgments.Comment
-
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!Originally posted by Hbert997 View PostLast edited by hvncb; 07-10-11, 11:30 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by hvncb View Post
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.Comment
-
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?Last edited by hvncb; 07-11-11, 03:51 AM.Comment
-
Originally posted by hvncb View Post
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!Last edited by David Merrill; 07-11-11, 04:09 AM.Comment
-
Post August 2nd, I feel this thread deserves a bump.
Potential Candidate informally accuses the Fed of Treason.Comment
-
Originally posted by David Merrill View Post
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:
Comment
-
Check out the handbook link on this page. (scroll down a little) Very interesting.
Here are a couple other interesting things...
--------------
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.
Faithless Public Officials
While I am at it..might as well post this one too...for those of you seeking the truth.
Comment
-
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?Originally posted by Chex View PostComment
-
Originally posted by David Merrill View PostRequired 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
Notice 2007-61
Notice 2007-30
Notice 2008-14
Notice 2010-33
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.Last edited by David Merrill; 05-28-12, 11:10 PM.Comment
-
Comment
-
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:
Resulting in: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...
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].Attached FilesLast edited by David Merrill; 07-23-12, 02:37 PM.Comment
-
Comment