Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[David Merrill]

I have been updating this opening post so all the major memorandums, notices and updates might be here.Required 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.

https://books.google.com/books?id=AM...otices&f=false - CFR Frivolous notices

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/ir-05-064.pdf

Notice 2007-61

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2007-30

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2008-14

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf

Notice 2010-33 is inside this pdf:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf

Notice 2011-004


To save time I suggest keywords to search:


lawful
redeem
redemption
Title 12
411

[Hbert997]

Hi David,

Okay, I'm a 'noob' here and maybe this topic has been vetted and fully researched...however, I've searched the above documents in your post and found a reference in the last one to a US v. Rickman case where it states:

"United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) - The court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer's argument "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, Sub Section 8, United States Constitution."..."

Please comment and help me to understand the context. Thnx.

Hbert

[motla68]

Required 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

http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-33.pdf

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2010-33

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=168637,00.html

Notice 2007-61

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2007-30

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3498/frivolouspositionsmemor.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-ccdm/cc-2011-004.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

To save time I suggest keywords to search:

lawful
redeem
redemption
Title 12
411

David, there is a lot of links here to different resources, can you please put a side note to these links to point out the specific areas that are related to your post?
Not that I am a statutory employee required to file for the name though.

Thank you.

[David Merrill]

Hi David,

Okay, I'm a 'noob' here and maybe this topic has been vetted and fully researched...however, I've searched the above documents in your post and found a reference in the last one to a US v. Rickman case where it states:

"United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) - The court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer's argument "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, Sub Section 8, United States Constitution."..."

Please comment and help me to understand the context. Thnx.

Hbert

Gary RICKMAN was obviously not demanding redemption of lawful money. Two case decisions should be considered when understanding the demand.

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Good Catch!!

I appreciate that. The first thing to know is that Congress has the power to define money. They define it for the States to be metal coin too. Ergo - In the exercise of that power... The Court has the authority to interpret and quite clearly, federal reserve notes are redeemable in lawful money, but are not necessarily lawful money.

There is a lot to be said on that but it is off topic here. What we are looking at is the instructions that an IRS agent gets and I had not noticed the January 1, rendition until yesterday while searching around. So thanks for looking for me - saved me a little reading.

You can get a look for yourselves though. I have attached Rickman in full.

Putting that into the recent rendition of Frivolous Notices tells me that the IRS has been watching SJC and minding Shoonra and my debates over the interpretation of Rickman and Ware. Primarily though Gary RICKMAN did not make demands with his paychecks so he was not applying remedy as prescribed in the Fed Act.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Motla68;

The common thread is that the IRS agents get training through notices. Those are the Notices about the Frivolous Filing Penalty - guidelines on when the IRS agent is to attach the fine. I will arrange them chronologically and note some details.

[Treefarmer]

Thank you for attaching US vs Rickman David.
That was an interesting read.

I think you are right about the IRS notices.
The notices seem to be the policy which the IRS agents follow.
The IRS gives public notice of its policies in those documents, and then its agents enforce those policies.
No tax payer can reasonably say that he didn't know what the rules were, since the policy rules are spelled out in the notices.

Bright blessings

[Michael Joseph]

within the United States being the key Phrase.....

[David Merrill]

Thank you for attaching US vs Rickman David.
That was an interesting read.

I think you are right about the IRS notices.

The notices seem to be the policy which the IRS agents follow.

The IRS gives public notice of its policies in those documents, and then its agents enforce those policies.

No tax payer can reasonably say that he didn't know what the rules were, since the policy rules are spelled out in the notices.

Bright blessings

You are quite welcome. If I may say so myself; this thread and that opening post is quite the Find!

within the United States being the key Phrase.....

Your keenness about boundaries, abutment, easement and diversity is greatly appreciated around here MJ!


Succinctly put though Gary RICKMAN did nothing by way of making his demand for lawful money at the proper juncture, by non-or-restricting his endorsement of private credit on the backside of his paychecks.

[David Merrill]

This is where I want to mention a fellow (before he became a suitor) in NY was at a friend's party where his friend's sister is an IRS attorney. He overheard her say, There is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay income tax, they are doing it correctly. He immediately thought about me, having read about me on the Internet.

He tried to keep her divulging information but she clammed up. He tells me that the next time he saw her he was hoping she would open up about it again, but no sugar.

[Hbert997]

I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy?

Hbert

[David Merrill]

I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy?

Hbert

The accusation would be a general fraud by omission. But then, the remedy was written in 1913.

Suitors are a brain trust. This fellow got both years Refunded.

What has happened here today - that has come to light though - is that the IRS has brought up Rickman in the light to misdirect IRS agents to attach the $5K penalty for filing for a Refund by remedy.

[David Merrill]

In mid-2009 a banker read about me on SJC. Part of his job is to keep a current Tax Preparation License. He was at a party and his friend's sister, an IRS attorney was there. He overheard her tell her friends in conversation, There is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay Income Tax; they are doing it right. He moved closer and wanted more but she clammed up. He was convinced at that point though...

In 2010 he was happy to get a full Refund and two State refunds too. (He works in two different states.) Today, he informed me that another full Refund is on the way. I asked him if this is the exact same amount on his Return?

Yes. Thank you David.


I was pushing my friend to discuss our redemption of lawful money with his sister that works in a legal department at IRS. She was very resistant and she would not discuss it even privately. I think they have a policy there at IRS.

It has been 4 weeks since IRS has received my 1040 and my continuous insistence and questioning whether there are any new developments at the IRS regarding demanding lawful money per Title 12 USC 411; this Monday she finally said that typically IRS has 6 weeks to respond (sort of legal zone) and when someone is demanding lawful money he is considered out of the FR System. The IRS is creating a special file and that person's activities are being scrutinized by them.

I thought maybe this would go better in Success Stories but believe it reflects better, How an IRS agent thinks.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Images of Lawful Money Redemption

These images if you think about it, are more convincing than the actual Refund Check! This one is special because it shows contemplation by the NY State DoR:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

That demonstrates that the State revenue agent considered the Return carefully enough to realize our suitor failed to put his $125 school tax credit on there.

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

Lines 18 and 33 make a very important statement, especially in light of the first image. Contemplation. After contemplation, the State agents have deduced that because there is no federal tax liability, there is no State liability. Line 46 in light of lines 72,73 and especially 78 reveal the rest of this redemption of lawful money story. There it shows that this fellow has for whatever reason been sending thousands of $$$$ to the State in Withholdings, yet he does not owe any taxes; so he gets it all back, and even an additional Credit of $125.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Brian]

David, These are some very significant pieces of evidence you have provided here and elsewhere! I am curious however. Does this friend of yours receive a W-2 or other info return purporting that monies he receives are income? If so does he just ignore them and not even mention them. Does he file a zero or near zero return with an explanation of the amounts and then a lawful money clarification affidavit? I ask only to clarify what should be done, as one misstep will more then likely be met with the full force of our favorite alphabet agency. I ask for no legal advice only an honest lawful opinion. Can this friend provide any other documents to show his path? Thank you so much for exposing this remedy it fills in many gaps left by others!

[David Merrill]

David, These are some very significant pieces of evidence you have provided here and elsewhere! I am curious however. Does this friend of yours receive a W-2 or other info return purporting that monies he receives are income? If so does he just ignore them and not even mention them. Does he file a zero or near zero return with an explanation of the amounts and then a lawful money clarification affidavit? I ask only to clarify what should be done, as one misstep will more then likely be met with the full force of our favorite alphabet agency. I ask for no legal advice only an honest lawful opinion. Can this friend provide any other documents to show his path? Thank you so much for exposing this remedy it fills in many gaps left by others!

Get a look around for the videos. This suitor signs his W-2 Exemptions form, and you see where I sanitized his exemptions amount because that disclosed too much information for privacy. I could show you a 1040 Form but it would be so sanitized that I might as well just show you a blank one. My point is that he simply fills out his 1040 Form truthfully and includes a smattering sample of his paycheck demands.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

So, Yes. It is a Zero Income Return in the same flavor as Cracking the Code - HENDRICKSON. However it utilizes the law rather than various logical interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code. [Pete is in prison because his interpretations differed from the judge and prosecutor's.]


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Thank you! I was hoping somebody would comment on the significance of the images.

[Brian]

Thanks for that David!, I can understand the need for privacy in these matters. Pete while doing great work to explain a system that is nearly incomprehensible failed to realize he was going to get railroaded. After that fiasco it seemed all was lost. Your revealing the lawful money remedy filled in what CtC missed. I am surprised it took me as long as it did to come across your early videos. It really does help to fall back on the basics of money, its origins, progressions and mutations. The Proverbs 11:1 quote says it all.