Basis in Law

[John Howard]

More proof of the type that Mr NYG is seeking.

[John Howard]

Judges in tax cases frequently say " the constitution does not apply here". What a shame the defendant did not ask "Why not?" Its an equity case, that's why.

[John Howard]

In context again your point is that the US notes at that time no longer promise to PAY anybody at all?

That was the position expressed by Mr Condo. I know, it is an easily destroyed position in court. Don't try this at home, boys and girls.

[David Merrill]

Here is some crosstalk. The researcher has made comment about his perspective that I cannot leave out:

26 USC ? 2002 - Liability for payment

The tax imposed by this chapter shall be paid by the executor.



All of this presumes that you are receiving a 1099 or a W-2 which is classified as a Gift Tax under IRS 6209 Manual.
--------------------------------


Subject: Re: transfer of the taxable estate of every decedent



Understand I am just exploring here - Let it be known I have found that Redemption per 12USC411 is recognized by the IRS, the banks, etc. Think of this as an exercise in turning over rocks.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1040

(a) General rule

If the executor of the estate of any decedent transfers to a qualified heir (within the meaning of section 2032A (e)(1)) any property with respect to which an election was made under section 2032A, then gain on such transfer shall be recognized to the estate only to the extent that, on the date of such transfer, the fair market value of such property exceeds the value of such property for purposes of chapter 11 (determined without regard to section 2032A).

(b) Similar rule for certain trusts

To the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a rule similar to the rule provided in subsection (a) shall apply where the trustee of a trust (any portion of which is included in the gross estate of the decedent) transfers property with respect to which an election was made under section 2032A.

(c) Basis of property acquired in transfer described in subsection (a) or (b)

The basis of property acquired in a transfer with respect to which gain realized is not recognized by reason of subsection (a) or (b) shall be the basis of such property immediately before the transfer increased by the amount of the gain recognized to the estate or trust on the transfer.

(e) Definitions; special rules - For purposes of this section?

(1) Qualified heir

The term ?qualified heir? means, with respect to any property, a member of the decedent?s family who acquired such property (or to whom such property passed) from the decedent. If a qualified heir disposes of any interest in qualified real property to any member of his family, such member shall thereafter be treated as the qualified heir with respect to such interest.

[David Merrill]

I am guessing that we have seen the last of NYGman.

The big NY tort attorney slurring remedy on 'that other place' has been enlisting collegues to search out Libels of Review using PACER and has been discovering a few. This example caught his eye and they must have run searches on the deputy clerk initials or whatever and found the case. It being dismissed SERRA jumped on it for ridicule in that infantile way of theirs.

But what he did was only to show the side of it for his own purposes. He did not show the Default Judgment properly published at the Register of Deeds and also marked FILED (as a foreign judgment) in the USDC. Of course not.

As I explained above to NYGman the purpose of the case is not to win it in the USDC. The federal judge is a taxpayer and is recused by the simple fact and conflict of interest. That is difficult for many conditioned into politically correct sociopathy (understanding only what is necessary of the law to function and stay out of jail) to comprehend. The judge is a taxpayer therefore he is recused. He cannot judge matters of tax liability. Period. If you can accept that then you might have a chance of comprehending this post.

The suitor utilizes the dismissed case for an evidence repository. So I took a look at the docket report and even with people using my intellectual property that I have not met I will not post links that breach a certain trust, more a hope that home addresses and other billing information will not be splashed about the Internet. So you are free to surf and probe for yourself I suppose. I prefer you consider accepting my word true because any of you who want to verify I am speaking the truth will find out that I am.

Since I have been heavily moderated on that ugly website to avoid the frustration of having my posts deleted I have opened another thread on a website where many of them read. So I will just copy the post from there:

Hilarious!

You should ask about Doc 23 showing that the husband is being assessed for about $1K in back taxes while the joint filing is being fined the frivpens for $10K. Both bills were Refused for Cause around 2/27/12. Then Doc 25 shows that the same jointly-named account to have dropped the frivpen and be billing the both of them for the $1K in back taxes only around 8/7/12. The bill was of course Refused for Cause and apparently forgiven completely, so far.

Like I said above, when the R4C's stop, that means there are no more bills coming. Think about it! Why would the couple stop Refusing for Cause when the IRS dropped $10K in frivolous filing penalties? No more R4C's means that the IRS quit pestering them. If the IRS does anything more it will show up on the docket as a R4C!

The hilarious part is that it is indeed Wserra being dishonest. No wonder he is threatening to banish me for defending against his accusations - LOL! This is fraud by omission and parataxic distortion too.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Not only was that post rejected on SERRA's thread, he has permanently banished me from the Website. I really detest him ridiculing honest and intelligent people even more than misusing PACER to splash private information around the web. So please respect I have a sore spot about direct links and quoting names etc. here. I am enjoying that his antics feel so crappy except to a certain very small crowd that since he started this breach of anonymity that site is enjoying an average of less than 5 guests. My presumption is that it feels bad and most people just jockey their little mouses to more pleasant and interesting reading - like here. So this is about as ugly as I want it to be around here.

The Libel of Review is fluff around an initial Refusal for Cause. It opens up a process of record forming because the 'saving to suitors' clause guarantees us the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government. Therefore about any docket of a LoR reveals that the suitor uses it for R4C's for a while, and then stops when the IRS attorneys find they cannot proceed, even with laibilities from before the suitor began redeeming lawful money - fraud by omission vitiates all contracts. Especially naked contracts where the consideration is not plainly understood and utilized (fractional lending and FDIC rescue as a "state bank").

I find it amusing that SERRA posted this knowing he was distorting the truth for the readers there - but more that he stipulated that if I defended against his accusations he would be banishing me. Amazing!

[shikamaru]

Let me see if I have this ...

a) The district courts' subject matter of taxation is an admiralty/maritime issue. You take advantage of saving to suitors to ask for a remedy in accordance with common law where the common law is competent to give it.

b) You create your own evidence repository of this request.

Do I have this correct?

[Seosaidh]

Let me see if I have this ...

a) The district courts' subject matter of taxation is an admiralty/maritime issue. You take advantage of saving to suitors to ask for a remedy in accordance with common law where the common law is competent to give it.

b) You create your own evidence repository of this request.

Do I have this correct?

That's how it appears to me. My next question is how does one begin a suit in District Court? Can it be done by mail? What about fees, if they're exhorbitant?

[Treefarmer]

That's how it appears to me. My next question is how does one begin a suit in District Court? Can it be done by mail? What about fees, if they're exhorbitant?

$350.00 for a civil suit.

[Seosaidh]

$350.00 for a civil suit.

Okay, not too awful bad. Thanks.

[David Merrill]

Let me see if I have this ...

a) The district courts' subject matter of taxation is an admiralty/maritime issue. You take advantage of saving to suitors to ask for a remedy in accordance with common law where the common law is competent to give it.

b) You create your own evidence repository of this request.

Do I have this correct?

That evidence repository is by and large the common law remedy, in light of the fact the "judge" is a taxpayer. You become the court of record.

Be forewarned that the case gets dismissed and often the taxpayer writes a few nasty jabs.

I recall the first blatant demonstration. A suitor told me the federal judge had ordered his default judgment removed from the county clerk and recorder's office. Of course he wrote a R4C for that promptly. Then he went to the C&R and bought a certified copy. It did not take long to convince him that the filing had not been removed as ordered.

There were apparently phone calls and other inconsequential squabbles but nothing in writing. After about three weeks of not removing the default judgment from the C&R publication the DoJ did all they could do. They filed the order to remove it with the C&R!!

Something really tickles me about that.

[JohnnyCash]

I can't bear to look ...

[David Merrill]

Yet I just cannot avert my gaze.