Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

It coincidental that you mentioned the FDIC in this post. I was looking to see what the real differences were in Public and private sectors.

I found this one from Canada. If personal information is collected and an organization finds a new purpose for it, unless the new purpose is required by law, an organization cannot use that personal information for another purpose without consent. http://www.privacysense.net/10-priva...ying-purposes/

The 10 Privacy Principles of PIPEDA, also known as the 10 Fair Information Principles, come from a national standard called the CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. http://www.privacysense.net/10-priva...les-of-pipeda/

So did the United States have to say?

This is the GAO opinion: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-674

Personal Information required by law. IBM said In addition, we reserve the right to disclose your personal information as required by law and when we believe that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, ...where then are my rights?

Linkhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552ahttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552#ehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a#FN-1REF

But you have this term person again and I have read all over the internet that I am not a person.
So what exactly who is this person they say without respect to persons?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oa...ffice2009.aspx and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453 except for here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii for this

http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/swearing-in/bibles

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/53375.html

Note that there is no such prohibition against Congress, or any delegated power to make anything legal tender. Congress was originally understood to have no power to make anything legal tender outside of federal territories, under Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17and Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2, but in 1868 a Supreme Court packed by Pres. Ulysses S. Grant, in the Legal Tender Cases, allowed Congress to make paper currency issued by the U.S. Treasury, backed by gold, legal tender on state territory, a precedent that remains controversial to this day, when courts allow paper currency not backed by anything to be considered "legal tender".

John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html

So why is it that commerce is unfair to this "PERSON"?
(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
(2)The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/182

Vieira Delivershttp://www.fedstats.gov/agencies/http://www.govtrack.us/start

So now that I am off topic again because I was looking to be in the private and go into the courts as private looks like I have to find the protocol to do it.

Not only that but this is what I am talking about: http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0157.pdf

[David Merrill]

The insideous part of all that is the US Supreme Court has ruled there to be three viable definitions for the United States.

Importing RIVERA's work here might be best with this warning, for what it is worth. I have not seen any results or delivery - but then because he is an attorney (or was before he was disbarred?) and three definitions for the US, I have not spent any time looking at his school and lesson plan.

When he started telling people that Hawaii had Article III courts I inquired by email if they had ever terminated the Article I employees. He went silent and never answered, except that he did seem to quit preaching it...

If he had been courteous enough to email me back with some kind of acknowledgement I might be more inclined to follow his work.

[Chex]

Do your own due diligence.



Q: Who appoints federal judges?
Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential nominees are often recommended by senators or sometimes by members of the House who are of the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary Committee typically conducts confirmation hearings for each nominee. Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term. The federal Judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts play no role in the nomination and confirmation process. http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx

Our Founding Fathers understood the need for an independent Judiciary, which was created under Article III of the United States Constitution. The Judicial Branch is one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. The other two are the legislative and executive branches. http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts.aspx

The Constitution describes what cases may be decided in the federal courts. Congress may and has determined that some of these cases also may be tried in state courts, giving federal and state courts concurrent jurisdiction.

Congress has provided that suits between citizens of different states may be heard in the federal courts or the state courts, but they may be heard in the federal courts only if the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.

Congress also has provided that maritime cases and suits against consuls may be tried only in the federal courts. When a state court decides a case involving federal law, it in a sense acts as a federal court, and its decisions on federal law may be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a149.htm

Before a federal court can hear a case, or "exercise its jurisdiction," certain conditions must be met. First, under the Constitution, federal courts exercise only "judicial" powers. This means that federal judges may interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes, referred to in Article III of the Constitution as "Cases or Controversies." A court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative, or to answer a hypothetical legal question.

Second, assuming there is an actual case or controversy, the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit also must have legal "standing" to ask the court for a decision. That means the plaintiff must have been aggrieved, or legally harmed in some way, by the defendant. http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourt...isdiction.aspxrule of expediency is applicable?

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest.

I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.

To speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

You can find a whole slew of Article III federal judges

http://judgepedia.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Article+III+federal+judges+&go=Go

[David Merrill]

That is preaching to the choir. Every suitor who has filed a Libel of Review inquires upon judge appointment, Is this an Article III Judge? The clerk's affirmation to a falsity is where the new suitor is understanding his or her authority to sign and seal the resulting judgment.

I think that you understood my point about acknowledging my question about Hawaii.

[stoneFree]

Hmm, I don't see any Ed RIVERA work here. I do see Chex has linked to Edwin VIEIRA, a different attorney altogether.

[David Merrill]

Hmm, I don't see any Ed RIVERA work here. I do see Chex has linked to Edwin VIEIRA, a different attorney altogether.

Ooops! My bad!

I wonder how many times I have done that?

[LearnTheLaw]

The insideous part of all that is the US Supreme Court has ruled there to be three viable definitions for the United States.

Importing RIVERA's work here might be best with this warning, for what it is worth. I have not seen any results or delivery - but then because he is an attorney (or was before he was disbarred?) and three definitions for the US, I have not spent any time looking at his school and lesson plan.

When he started telling people that Hawaii had Article III courts I inquired by email if they had ever terminated the Article I employees. He went silent and never answered, except that he did seem to quit preaching it...

If he had been courteous enough to email me back with some kind of acknowledgement I might be more inclined to follow his work.

Chapter 4:*
The Three United States


By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall's singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:




The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.

[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]


This same Court authority is cited by Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of "United States":

United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.

[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]

In the first sense, the term "United States*" can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The "United States*" is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where "U.S.*" refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this "United States*" as follows:

1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a "Citizen of the United States*." This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital "C" in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]


Secondly, the term "United States**" can also refer to "the federal zone", which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term "United States**" is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, "The United States** is ..." or "Its jurisdiction is ..." and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:



2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the "United States**" the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]


Thirdly, the term "United States***" can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term "United States***" does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term "United States***" is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, "These United States***" or "The United States*** are ..." and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these "United States***" as follows:

3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.
[Which One Are You?, pages 11-12]
[emphasis added]


Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:

It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and sovereign states of the United States*** of America are NOT joined under the title of "United States." The president represents the sovereign United States* in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States** in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States*** united by and under the Constitution .... After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term "United States**" is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends.

[A Ticket to Liberty, Nov. 1990, pages 22-23]
[emphasis added, italics in original]

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/chapter4.pdf

You should explore this site at some point:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

[BAMAJiPS]

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.

Am I reading this right?? Do my eyes deceive me??? UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a foreign entity that operates in admiralty court under the guise of the legitimate government of these united states of America? Do I have that right?

[David Merrill]

What fails to be typical about me (apparently) is that my perceptions and conclusions change in time by allowing my understanding of Rules of Evidence to process new information (once verified) into new perceptions. In other words please take note of the date I wrote that paper. It got Ron's money and recently I learned that the entire action seizing all those accounts was completely reversed, I think with Ron being about the only one who got any money back. That does not mean that everything I wrote in the paper is factual.

Many of the assertions might just be my perceptions at the time. Ron being restored of his life savings does not prove that all my perceptions were factual.

[shikamaru]

Am I reading this right?? Do my eyes deceive me??? UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a foreign entity that operates in admiralty court under the guise of the legitimate government of these united states of America? Do I have that right?

The United States of America is an association composed of States only.
The government of the United States is a public corporation.
The government of the United States is private international law.

Government of the United States is foreign to the several (individual States).

Government of the United States operates on Roman Civil Law.
The law of the District of Columbia is Lex Fori.

[Chex]

Recommendation: Acquiescence.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-aod/mccorm.pdf