Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[walter]

What's in your wallet? Indeed... But, once lawful demand is made, the FRNs become USNs.... dual purpose Notes as the Treasury FAQ says...

BTW: Notice that the FRS Seal on the left side of top $5 is missing...

[ATTACH]1843[/ATTACH]

Whats in your wallet? Your richer then you think.
I always chuckle when I hear that line.

Whats the letter "B" for on the Fed note? (center left)
Bonded? Bankrupt? Borrowed? Bullshit? etc.

[doug555]

could you provide a link to the page that says that FRNs are dual purpose and serve as USN's? I can only find that FRN's serve the same function as USN's but not that they are dual purpose or that they may act as USN's. On there website. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

What are United States Notes and how are they different from Federal Reserve notes?
United States Notes (characterized by a red seal and serial number) were the first national currency, authorized by the Legal Tender Act of 1862 and began circulating during the Civil War. The Treasury Department issued these notes directly into circulation, and they are obligations of the United States Government. The issuance of United States Notes is subject to limitations established by Congress. It established a statutory limitation of $300 million on the amount of United States Notes authorized to be outstanding and in circulation. While this was a significant figure in Civil War days, it is now a very small fraction of the total currency in circulation in the United States.

Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of our national currency and both are legal tender. They circulate as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them comes from different statutes. United States Notes were redeemable in gold until 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard. Since then, both currencies have served essentially the same purpose, and have had the same value. Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued, and none have been placed in to circulation since January 21, 1971.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the production and circulation of Federal Reserve notes. Although the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) prints these notes, they move into circulation through the Federal Reserve System. They are obligations of both the Federal Reserve System and the United States Government. On Federal Reserve notes, the seals and serial numbers appear in green.

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.

I am basing my comment on above highlighted statement on the FAQ...

[Brian]

could you provide a link to the page that says that FRNs are dual purpose and serve as USN's? I can only find that FRN's serve the same function as USN's but not that they are dual purpose or that they may act as USN's. On there website. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

Froze...I don't think there is a statute or reg or decision that specifically call this out. I think this is where metaphysics comes into play. If the FRN's are discharged by notice & demand then they would essentially be treated as USN's.

The questions I would ask then is: can my demand be considered inherent and my notice is this conversation.

[froze25]

What's in your wallet? Indeed... But, once lawful demand is made, the FRNs become USNs.... dual purpose Notes as the Treasury FAQ says...

[ATTACH]1843[/ATTACH]

could you provide a link to the page that says that FRNs are dual purpose and serve as USN's? I can only find that FRN's serve the same function as USN's but not that they are dual purpose or that they may act as USN's. On there website. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

[David Merrill]

If you have a zero filing....the computer is most likely kicking it out based on BEARD v COMMISSIONER and U.S. v RIFEN. Beard argues an EXCHANGE THEORY labor for notes = no gain. Beard does not see the Trust.

In Rifen FRN's are Taxable. Huge Presumption. Question: What's in your wallet?

Shalom,
MJ

It might be better then to file in a more direct manner. The total FICA and SS "tax" treated as insurance premiums go on line 21. The W-2 total goes on the Schedule.

[doug555]

If you have a zero filing....the computer is most likely kicking it out based on BEARD v COMMISSIONER and U.S. v RIFEN. Beard argues an EXCHANGE THEORY labor for notes = no gain. Beard does not see the Trust.

In Rifen FRN's are Taxable. Huge Presumption. Question: What's in your wallet?

Shalom,
MJ

What's in your wallet? Indeed... But, once lawful demand is made, the FRNs become USNs.... dual purpose Notes as the Treasury FAQ says...

BTW: Notice that the FRS Seal on the left side of top $5 is missing...

[Michael Joseph]

The file was created on 11-Apr-2014 08:45 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf the "wayback machine" shows the last file was created on 07-Mar-2013 10:09 https://web.archive.org/web/20130726...v/pub/irs-utl/ The one before that was on 31-Jul-2012 So to answer the question of was it recent, yes its new as of this year. Unfortunately you can not get the previous files off the archived pages to compare them to see what changes were made.

If you have a zero filing....the computer is most likely kicking it out based on BEARD v COMMISSIONER and U.S. v RIFEN. Beard argues an EXCHANGE THEORY labor for notes = no gain. Beard does not see the Trust.

In Rifen FRN's are Taxable. Huge Presumption. Question: What's in your wallet?

Shalom,
MJ

[froze25]

The file was created on 11-Apr-2014 08:45 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf the "wayback machine" shows the last file was created on 07-Mar-2013 10:09 https://web.archive.org/web/20130726...v/pub/irs-utl/ The one before that was on 31-Jul-2012 So to answer the question of was it recent, yes its new as of this year. Unfortunately you can not get the previous files off the archived pages to compare them to see what changes were made.

[doug555]

Here is a more recent Memorandum. Check out the top of Page 15 and remember that Demanding Redeemed Lawful Money means you hold US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.

This document, including the relevant legal authorities cited, is not
intended to provide an exhaustive list of frivolous tax arguments. Merely
because a frivolous argument is not included in this document does not
mean that it is not frivolous. Taxpayers may not rely on frivolous
arguments to avoid or evade federal taxes. The government and courts are
not precluded from penalizing taxpayers who raise a frivolous argument
not addressed in this document.

P.S. This was brought to my attention by a suitor who has just received his full state and federal refunds for the third year straight.

P.P.S. I am a bit concerned about this disclaimer -

When dealing with property rights does not the mere weight require specificity?

If 12 USC 411 "Demanding Lawful Money" is effectively-connected to the "good faith" clause in 12 USC 95a(2) [excerpted below] and the "liability" clause in 50 USC App 7(e) [excerpted below] granting IMMUNITY from liability in any court, then what is there to worry about?





And isn't said 12 USC 411 LAWFUL MONEY truly effectively-connected to 50 USC App 7(e), the Trading with the Enemy Act, and to its corresponding statute 12 USC 95a(2), BECAUSE ONLY LAWFUL MONEY (not an IOU FRN) can effect the true asset-based PAYMENT that is needed for a "full acquittance and discharge"?

See Lawful Money Demands - IMMUNITY & DUTY (copied from http://iuvdeposit.blogspot.com)

[samgans]

Here is a more recent Memorandum. Check out the top of Page 15 and remember that Demanding Redeemed Lawful Money means you hold US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.



P.S. This was brought to my attention by a suitor who has just received his full state and federal refunds for the third year straight.

P.P.S. I am a bit concerned about this disclaimer -



When dealing with property rights does not the mere weight require specificity?

agreed, although the remedy of redeeming lawful money is what's in the law, they cannot call it frivilous it just wouldn't make any sense

[David Merrill]

Here is a more recent Memorandum. Check out the top of Page 15 and remember that Demanding Redeemed Lawful Money means you hold US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.



P.S. This was brought to my attention by a suitor who has just received his full state and federal refunds for the third year straight.

P.P.S. I am a bit concerned about this disclaimer -

This document, including the relevant legal authorities cited, is not
intended to provide an exhaustive list of frivolous tax arguments. Merely
because a frivolous argument is not included in this document does not
mean that it is not frivolous. Taxpayers may not rely on frivolous
arguments to avoid or evade federal taxes. The government and courts are
not precluded from penalizing taxpayers who raise a frivolous argument
not addressed in this document.

When dealing with property rights does not the mere weight require specificity?

[David Merrill]

This suitor intuitively neglected to make a Claim for a Refund by leaving Item 74(a) blank. Therefore the IRS Agent who sent the Letter is doubly in error to threaten a $5K FrivPen.

[As I develop "flutter" from dither and toggle applied to the Five Cube Sum Number Locks I gain some useful insight into Artificial Intuition.]

I developed the Title 12 Citations a little so to complete a more-rounded and better developed Claim in Yehoshuah H'Natzrith H'Massiach - natzar being BRANCH, David's coronation name. This assembles a great mental model around Archelaus being KING while Antipas and Philip were only TETRARCHs in Israel.

So this Counterclaim (attached) is designed to be heard, meaning that it will be served on the Attorney General as well according to the FRCP whereas the typical Libel of Review is dismissed and designed to set up an evidence repository for future Refusals for Cause. This new Counterclaim does both.


Enjoy,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

A suitor on the brain trust brought these up - I believe you can find these a few pages back...

http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-17_IRB/ar13.html

This one looks new!

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction

[David Merrill]

Here is a Letter (3176 attached) that is quite recent as of this Post. By the number though it is likely the same rendition as of 2007.

This suitor has had no problems with the IRS in the past so it might have been better to file a Libel of Review and set up an evidence repository preemptively.


Here are the two citations on the Letter. Click Here and Here.


I assume by the filename that the 2007 Memorandum about Frivolous Positions is not revised but I would like the Reader here to refresh themselves and see if you can find a Position that is applicable to redeeming lawful money as found on our application of the law?


Thanks for examining this objectively,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Welcome Sam!!

It is always a delight when my career contributes to someone's prosperity and happiness!!