Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[David Merrill]

Excellent find! Thank you.

[allodial]

Why must the form be made under penalties of perjury? Why cant it just be a declaration. If the information matches the record what is the need to 'ceremonialize' it to such an extent? Is it because you have to 'risk' something to make the return 'valid'?

[David Merrill]

My theory of the week is that swearing subjegates one to government - which government can take on many different forms in life. It is the means to become a government servant. Jesus was awarded upon birth (gold) funds for the family tomb, starting with his generation and also a scholarship, giving him access to all the mystery schools in Egypt, Israel and Babylon. Jesus never, in other words swore in to the government of any Lodge.

There is more to this though. There was a mountain man living in leathers (in exile). The King of Israel had been in exile for over twenty years - his name was Archelaus HEROD. The HEROD who took John's head (after John spoke out against him as ruler) was Antipater HEROD and was never King - but remained Tetrarch. There was another brother Philip HEROD but that was in another province so he never really got into the Bible Story. Archelaus was exiled in about 6 AD or when Jesus was about ten.

Upon Archelaus dying the title had a Vacancy and finally Jesus took an oath of office. The dunking in the Jordan really has very little explanation so please accept that Planet Merrill abhors a void. This fits so nicely.

However the Gospels carry two firm admonishions against swearing at all. - Not by heaven or earth.

When you are sworn in even to testify are you not giving that Lodge permission to punish you for perjury? Does this bring you into position as a party in interest to the court? How about the 1040 Form? What about anything you swear to?

[David Merrill]

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

Chex;

Thank you again - the brain trust offers insight too about how the IRS agent/attorneys think!

Crosstalk: Did anyone else besides me notice the glaring typo in the closing sentence of this document?

We now agree with the court that adding the words "under protest" without modifying the words of the jurat does not cast doubt on the validity of the jurat and, accordingly, does invalidate the document as a return.

The last sentence says the opposite of the court opinion being talked about in the IRS memorandum - instructing the IRS agents to consider the Return invalid. This might be sleezy attorney artistry. But writing about it here brings some insight for the brain trust! (Echo chamber return.)

The IRS attorneys may be instructing the IRS agents that while they cannot charge a frivolous fine - when the taxpayer declares the signature under protest, the Return is indeed invalid because it is "unvoluntary".

Furthermore notice how the IRS attorneys filed an immediate Notice of Appeal into the Second Circuit. The USCA was notified - meaning the United States Code Annotated and quickly the IRS decided they did not want the justices opining about this at all so it was withdrawn.

Chex;

Please show us your search engine path leading you to this memorandum. Are there other memos that I am missing for this thread?

[David Merrill]

P.S. Some more Crosstalk:

We now agree with the court that adding the words "under protest" without modifying the words of the jurat does not cast doubt on the validity of the jurat and, accordingly, does invalidate the document as a return.

to put the Non-Endorsement stamp on our Jurat, or Signature Line. The USDC NY is saying that any alterations do not affect the validity of the document so long as the taxpayer does not affect the validity of swearing and the IRS attorneys say that for the internal purposes of the Form, they do indeed have to listen to the additions/stipulations to the Signature itself, on the Signature Line.

Meaning that a tax return for a full refund of withholdings should also include the Redeeming Lawful Money stamp on the signature line and that the IRS has to recognize that stipulation added to the signature itself.

[Chex]

'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own."


This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law.


The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return.


If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

[LearnTheLaw]

'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own."


This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law.


The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return.


If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

Did you know you had a constitutional right to "Lawful Money"??

Did anyone ever disclose the fact that FRN's were "Private Credit"??

Did you "Voluntarily" waive your rights?

Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.

[Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)]

[David Merrill]

I just want to share something I learned from the echo chamber about common law. The IRS lost the case and immediately gave Notice of Appeal and the clerk immediately mandated that the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) be notified too. Then the IRS got scared that this case revealed way too much about the voluntary nature of the 1040 Form.

If you take that last sentence not to contain a typo then that means when you alter the jurat you might get into trouble for a frivolous filing - even criminal Failure to File. However you can put your demand for lawful money right there on your Signature Line and you swear to your demand under the penalty of perjury!

[martin earl]

I just want to share something I learned from the echo chamber about common law. The IRS lost the case and immediately gave Notice of Appeal and the clerk immediately mandated that the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) be notified too. Then the IRS got scared that this case revealed way too much about the voluntary nature of the 1040 Form.

If you take that last sentence not to contain a typo then that means when you alter the jurat you might get into trouble for a frivolous filing - even criminal Failure to File. However you can put your demand for lawful money right there on your Signature Line and you swear to your demand under the penalty of perjury!

I agree David, the 1040 filed after a year of recorded Demands per 12 USC 411 becomes your official notice of demand issued directly to the IRS itself, all nice and neat "under penalty of perjury". What better way to "witness" my demand and use of lawful money but by JURY??

Let their own law be the sword they fall on.

[David Merrill]

I just want to share something I learned from the echo chamber about common law. The IRS lost the case and immediately gave Notice of Appeal and the clerk immediately mandated that the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) be notified too. Then the IRS got scared that this case revealed way too much about the voluntary nature of the 1040 Form.

If you take that last sentence not to contain a typo then that means when you alter the jurat you might get into trouble for a frivolous filing - even criminal Failure to File. However you can put your demand for lawful money right there on your Signature Line and you swear to your demand under the penalty of perjury!

Some more Crosstalk:

-----Original Message-----
From: True Name [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 10:39 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Excellent find about Signature Line on 1040 Form

Dear Brain Trust,

Bear with me if you will as this has spawned an idea that I think is one to look at closer. Under Protest is the theme here. I am sure most of us here have come across this one many times in the past. I find it has many meanings but centers around rights and demands. I found "under protest" back in the UCC days and never fully grasped its real ability, well lets see what the UCC has to say,

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "underprotest," or the like are sufficient.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

So it looks like "under protest" from the Merchant Law view is explicitly reserving a parties rights while still performing in a manner to a demand or offer. I feel that the 1040 is a demand to be filed on a trust that is using Fed credit or credit money opposed to redemptive money. Simply putting under protest after your name is a demand for reservation of rights, one of those being lawful money. Now, I did not forget about subsection (b) does not apply to accord and satisfaction. Hmm...is that a 1040 form? Lets see:

ACCORD, in contracts. A satisfaction agreed upon between the party injuring and the party injured, which when performed is a bar to all actions upon this account. 3 Bl. Com. 15; Bac. Abr, Accord.

SATISFACTION, construction by courts of equity. Satisfaction is defined to be the donation of a thing, with the intention, express or implied, that such donation is to be an extinguishment of some existing right or claim in the donee.

This is a tough one, as donee it looks like this is a catch 22. If the 1040 form is an accord (it is a contract, a unilateral contract but still a contract) satisfaction can be restricteed by use of the term under protest thus keeping 1-308 valid. If you allow satisfaction without "under protest" goodbye rights or claim.

Now lets look at the only other mention of protest in the UCC:

(a) The following are admissible as evidence and create a presumption of dishonor and of any notice of dishonor stated:
(1) a document regular in form as provided in subsection (b) which purports to be a protest;
(2) a purported stamp or writing of the drawee, payor bank, or presenting bank on or accompanying the instrument stating that acceptance or payment has been refused unless reasons for the refusal are stated and the reasons are not consistent with dishonor;
(3) a book or record of the drawee, payor bank, or collecting bank, kept in the usual course of business which shows dishonor, even if there is no evidence of who made the entry.
(b) A protest is a certificate of dishonor made by a United States consul or vice consul, or a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths by the law of the place where dishonor occurs. It may be made upon information satisfactory to that person. The protest must identify the instrument and certify either that presentment has been made or, if not made, the reason why it was not made, and that the instrument has been dishonored by nonacceptance or nonpayment. The protest may also certify that notice of dishonor has been given to some or all parties.

SUITOR comments: I find (b) to be rather interesting. A certificate of DISHONOR made by a United States consul...whoa a what??

David Merrill comments: This is found in the footnotes of the 'saving to suitors' clause, in the Statutes at Large!

Continued...

[David Merrill]

Continued from above...

CONSUETUDINES FEUDORUM. The name of an institute of the feudal system and usages, compiled about the year 1170, by authority of the emperor Frederic, surnamed Barbarossa. Ersk. Inst. B. 2, t. 3, n. 5. CONSUL, government, commerce. Consuls are commercial agent's appointed by a government to reside in the seaports of a foreign country, and commissioned to watch over the commercial rights and privileges of the nation deputing them. A vice-consul is one acting in the place of a consul.

2. Consuls have been greatly multiplied. Their duties and privileges are now generally limited, defined and secured by commercial treaties, or by the laws of the countries they represent. As a general rule, it may be laid down that they represent the subjects or citizens of their own nation, not otherwise represented. Bee, R. 209 3 Wheat. R. 435; 6. Wheat. R., 152; 10 Wheat. 66; 1 Mason's R. 14.

3. This subject will be considered by a view, first, of the appointment, duties, powers, rights, and liabilities of American consuls; and secondly, of the recognition, duties, rights, and liabilities of foreign consuls.

4. - 1. Of American consuls. First. The president authorized by the Constitution of the United States, art. 2, s. 2, el. 3, to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, appoint consuls.

5. - Secondly. Each consul and vice-consul is required, before he enters on the execution of his office, to give bond, with such sureties as shall be approved by the secretary of state, in a sum not less than two thousand nor more than ten thousand dollars, conditioned for the true and faithful discharge of the duties of his office, and also for truly accounting for all moneys, goods and effects which may come into his possession by virtue of the act of 14th April, 1792, which bond is to be lodged in the office of the secretary of State. Act of April 14, 1792, sect. 6.

6. - Thirdly. They have the power and are required to perform many duties in relation to the commerce of the United States and towards masters of ships, mariners, and other citizens of the United States; among these are the authority to receive protests or declarations which captains, masters, crews, passengers, merchants, and others make relating to American commerce; they are required to administer on the estate of American citizens, dying within their consulate, and leaving no legal representatives, when the laws of the country permit it; [see 2 Curt. Ecc. R. 241] to take charge and secure the effects of stranded American vessels in the absence of the master, owner or consignee; to settle disputes between masters of vessels and the mariners; to provide for destitute seamen within their consulate, and send them to the United States, at the public expense. See Act of 14th April, 1792; Act of 28th February, 1803, ch. 62; Act of 20th July, 1840, Ch. 23. The consuls are also authorized to make certificates of certain facts in certain cases, which receive faith and credit in the courts of the United States. But those consular certificates are not to be received in evidence, unless they are given in the performance of a consular function; 2 Cranch, R. 187; Paine, R. 594; 2 Wash. C. C. R. 478; 1 Litt. R. 71; nor are they evidence, between persons not parties or privies to the transaction, of any fact, unless, either expressly or impliedly, made so by statute. 2 Sumn. R. 355.

7. - Fourthly. Their rights are to be protected agreeably to the laws of nations, and of the treaties made between the nation to which they are sent, and the United States. They are entitled, by the act of 14th April, 1792, s. 4, to receive certain fees, which are there enumerated. And the consuls in certain places, as London, Paris, and the Barbary states, receive, besides, a salary.

8. - Fifthly. A consul is liable for negligence or omission to perform, seasonably, the duties imposed upon him, or for any malversation or abuse of power, to any injured person, for all damages occasioned thereby; and for all malversation and corrupt conduct in office, a consul is liable to indictment, and, on conviction by any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be fined not less than one, nor more than ten thousand dollars; and be imprisoned not less than one nor more than five years. Act of July 20, 1840, ch. 23, cl. 18. The act of February 28, 1803, ss. 7 and 8, imposes heavy penalties for falsely and knowingly certifying that property belonging to foreigners is the property of citizens of the United States; or for granting a passport, or other paper, certifying that any alien, knowing him or her to be such, is a citizen of the United States.

SUITOR comments: Is it possible our persons are US consuls? If you read into it a little it looks like they may be and if that is the case they certainly use a protest or "under protest". I follow this logic to this conclusion also as a dishonor (protest) would invalidate a return but the jurat would still be good.


Here is the last tid bit I could find on "under protest" in the IRS codes. It is the only cite found. It looks like you can still take civil action for a refund if you use "under protest" they can't bar you for it.

26 USC Sec. 7422 01/03/2012 (112-90)
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 76 - JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Subchapter B - Proceedings by Taxpayers and Third Parties
-HEAD-
Sec. 7422. Civil actions for refund
-STATUTE-
(a) No suit prior to filing claim for refund
No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the
recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been
erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty
claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum
alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully
collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed
with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that
regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in
pursuance thereof.
(b) Protest or duress
Such suit or proceeding may be maintained whether or not such
tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress.

So I hope this was helpful, weird though only 3 cites of this phrase between the UCC and title 26. Powerful words often do not need much explaination. the utterance of Yehoshuah can drive out the wickedest of beast, if you TRUST in Him. Just a thought and an alternative.


Be well and blessings

Nickname

This issue and interpretation is so complicated that it would seem the initial attorney on the case was perplexed when he Notified the USDC of appeal, which in keeping the Annotations sacrosanct caused the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) to be Notified by Mandate of the clerk. Then the IRS attorneys began to study more carefully and discovered this was best left as an internal quasi-public memorandum as linked by Chex here.

Notice at the bottom:

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON OR
OTHERWISE CITED AS PRECEDENT BY TAXPAYERS

How about that comment!

I agree David, the 1040 filed after a year of recorded Demands per 12 USC 411 becomes your official notice of demand issued directly to the IRS itself, all nice and neat "under penalty of perjury". What better way to "witness" my demand and use of lawful money but by JURY??

Let their own law be the sword they fall on.

Poetic irony in motion!


P.S. The PACER images and docket report are available HERE. Unfortunately one needs to request 1993 documents be digitized and the clerk can charge for the time.

[shikamaru]

Did you know you had a constitutional right to "Lawful Money"??

Did anyone ever disclose the fact that FRN's were "Private Credit"??

Did you "Voluntarily" waive your rights?

Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.

[Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)]

Claiming rights under the Constitution is a loser, IMHO.
All the research I'm coming across is strongly indicating that that treaty was never intended for the common man.

One does better to claim right under their Creator rather than a private agreement between the States, King of England, Bank of England, and the Pope ......

[David Merrill]

Claiming rights under the Constitution is a loser, IMHO.
All the research I'm coming across is strongly indicating that that treaty was never intended for the common man.

One does better to claim right under their Creator rather than a private agreement between the States, King of England, Bank of England, and the Pope ......

https://www.savingtosuitorsclub.net

The Judiciary Act of 1789 guarantees that the common law remedy is available wherever the common law is competentent. A suitor with good trust law research and practice adheres to declaring the original printed Bible. He calls it by the Library of Congress # Gutenberg Bible incun.1454.b5.

[David Merrill]

P.S. It gets better:

Appeal decisions reflect an equitable flavour. Equity moderates the harshenss of the Common Law.

What law is common to the citizens of today? Statutes and Codes.

Statutes and Codes are for the great unwashed - General Public

Annotated are "unwritten law" that guides the guides based on former guides experiences.

Unwritten and private to the inner sanctum, as David put it, sacrosant.

Appeals are paper-based, no hearing of spoken word.

Equity is not heard, but seen. The scales of justice lady out in the general public's view - blind eh?

[Chex]

I agree David, the 1040 filed after a year of recorded Demands per 12 USC 411 becomes your official notice of demand issued directly to the IRS itself, all nice and neat "under penalty of perjury". What better way to "witness" my demand and use of lawful money but by JURY?? Let their own law be the sword they fall on.

of the rules of law as I explain them to you.

You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you.

You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be.

It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences.

However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be.

That is entirely up to you.

It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy.

That was the promise you made and the oath you took.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath

Has anyone ever read a jury handbook?

The voir dire process.