Response from the Secretary

[ManOntheLand]

Thank you. I apologize. If you were to study my posts closely you might find me subject to imagination attacks. The manner in which you kept skirting the border between being in contract with the Fed or not led me to be quite suspicious.

That paperwork is quite revealing. One of the suitors was battling on the premise that no such Assessments ever exist - like the one you show in your link. Interesting that you have shown us that. All else, the garbage my suspicions generated - THANK YOU! That is some great fuel for edifying conversation right there.


Regards,

David Merrill.

No worries David! I took my post down though once I realized there are unique certified mail numbers and document locator codes still on there. If you think it is important for people to see, I will sanitize it some more and re-post.

Assessments for frivolous penalties do exist, but the IRS does not seem to follow their own assessment rules in the Code--a supervisor is required by the Code to give written authorization to make the frivolous penalty assessment (or it "shall not be assessed") and according to IRM they are required to keep that written authorization in the exam file. My Privacy Act requests turned up no such documents in the file.
Also note that the only narrative information in the 8728 assessment document is "no response to 3176". This is false, because I indeed responded to the 3176 letter. They just ignored my response so they could go ahead and assess the penalty anyway.

Further, the assessments do not typically appear in the Individual Master File transcript. Believe it or not, my IMF for all these years indicate that I owe nothing (with the exception of the 2009, for which they did a summary audit and re-assessed $2477 tax, rather than imposing a frivolous penalty.) They have to create a whole separate transcript from the master file in order to get their computer to accept these frivolous penalty assessments.

[ManOntheLand]

There you have it. System parameters - system definition. From inside the system you cannot detect anything without it.



P.S. Rick STRASSMAN is giving a shot at describing something of the sort in DMT-The Spirit Molecule:

Just noticed that the DMT book excerpt quotes David Deutsch, who has authored two very mind-blowing books I have read in the last year--The Beginning of Infinity and The Fabric of Reality. In Fabric--he offers actual proof of infinite parallel universes, citing the abilities of quantum computers to solve factorization problems that should require more calculations than are physically possible in our universe.

In Infinity, as I recall he argues in one chapter that it is mathematically impossible to have equal representation in Congress, as the apportionment clause requires. He goes on to far far more interesting points though, explaining that a culture of self-correction is the key to survival of a civilization. Without that, a culture destroys itself by suppressing innovation and thus hindering its ability to solve problems that arise to threaten its survival. Great read for those who enjoy their paradigm shifts!

[David Merrill]

Yes please. - Do sanitize the Doc and link it. I was about to broadcast it to the brain trust (suitors) and prefer you be comfortable with the Information shared on it.

That is very exciting about the DMT and quantum physics. The point I was bringing forth is about how from our frame of reference we cannot see outside our own story/filter. I have often used being in a bowl. If the bowl is big enough one might think the horizon he sees is the true horizon... I am pleased how you found so much more in the quote.

Synchronicity is the conscious memory that everything is happening at once, time being an illusion.

In my opinion, Pete could again move to vacate his conviction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, supporting the motion with a factual statement under penalty of perjury that he was not knowingly under any obligation to the United States through which he waived his rights as a knowing, voluntary act, per Brady v United States.

I have been pondering this lately. There is an operation of arraignment by attorney. If you reject the attorney, you reject arraignment and that leads the court to question traditionally if you are from another jurisdiction and incapable of understanding what is going on - touched by God ex visitation Dei. This of course evolved into psychological evaluation to determine whether or not you are fit for trial.

[ManOntheLand]

[QUOTE=David Merrill;10977]Yes please. - Do sanitize the Doc and link it. I was about to broadcast it to the brain trust (suitors) and prefer you be comfortable with the Information shared on it. [QUOTE]

[ATTACH]1233[/ATTACH] Here they are again, extra sanitized.

Something I forgot to point out about the 4340 Assessment Record--on the final page, it is very clearly signed by someone other than the officer named on the signature line. The accompanying certificate of official record (not included in this file) bears the same signature and the same obviously different name for the certifying officer.

I have been pondering this lately. There is an operation of arraignment by attorney. If you reject the attorney, you reject arraignment and that leads the court to question traditionally if you are from another jurisdiction and incapable of understanding what is going on - touched by God ex visitation Dei. This of course evolved into psychological evaluation to determine whether or not you are fit for trial.

That reminds me of the Gail Sinocki tax evasion case in California in 1981, which Otto Skinner talks about in his books. Sinocki had representation forced on her by the Court. Sinocki challenged the indictment against her as lacking any factual allegations and consisting of mere legal conclusions. Soon after, Sinocki's forced representation moved the Court to send Sinocki for a psychological evaluation. Sinocki moved the court herself to provide other counsel. Sincoki's case was apparently dismissed. Skinner has in the appendix of his books Sinocki's Motion to be assigned alternate counsel, which tells the whole story. She seemed frightened by the psych evaluation tactic--claiming persecution for her unconventional views on income tax and comparing the whole scenario to a "star chamber".

My understanding is that appearance by the attorney representing the defendant perfects the in personam jurisdiction of the court. A challenge to jurisdiction must be made by the defendant himself in special appearance. The Federal Court very strongly encourages representation. Otto Skinner gets into this in his book "If You Are the Defendant"--the 6th amendment guarantees the right to assistance of counsel (which does not require defendant to have the attorney actually represent him). The Court strongly discourages defendants in criminal cases from self-representation because of lack of competency in general of pro se litigants--but a defendant who wants to control his own case may (in theory) have the best of both worlds by employing counsel to assist with procedure in dealing with the Court.

Subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time--even years after the trial. I am not sure about this, but the tax prosecution is really all about the charges in the indictment against the res (thing) is it not? This would seem to make it appropriate to challenge subject matter jurisdiction if, like Hendrickson, a defendant had been unaware at the time of the nature and cause of the charges, and had unknowingly waived his common law right to work for a living in the private sector by failing to make his demand for lawful money. Realizing that later, it seems to me one could challenge the presumed waiver of rights that gives the Court jurisdiction over the res for purposes of the indictment for violation of IRC. No valid contract, no subject matter jurisdiction.

[David Lyn]

Or maybe they push a lawyer on you because:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argersinger_v._Hamlin

[LearnTheLaw]

You have NO STANDING before the court, not being a member of the BAR, and thus cannot speak for the legal fiction (ACTOR) whose name sounds exactly like yours (idem sonans). For you to attempt a court appearance perpetrates fraud upon the court and NOTHING you say or file with the court may be recognized or heard, in spite of your best intentions and most diligent efforts.

The judge will take silent notice immediately.

Hiring an attorney only complicates issues because it makes you a ward of the court (incompetent-to-handle your own affairs) AND it compromises your interests (attorneys are officers of the court whose first allegiance is to the court and not to their clients). Representing yourself pro se is no solution, either, unless you conveniently happen to be a member of the BAR (perish the thought!).

[David Lyn]

So what do you suggest one does when they are dragged into court?

You have NO STANDING before the court, not being a member of the BAR, and thus cannot speak for the legal fiction (ACTOR) whose name sounds exactly like yours (idem sonans). For you to attempt a court appearance perpetrates fraud upon the court and NOTHING you say or file with the court may be recognized or heard, in spite of your best intentions and most diligent efforts.

The judge will take silent notice immediately.

Hiring an attorney only complicates issues because it makes you a ward of the court (incompetent-to-handle your own affairs) AND it compromises your interests (attorneys are officers of the court whose first allegiance is to the court and not to their clients). Representing yourself pro se is no solution, either, unless you conveniently happen to be a member of the BAR (perish the thought!).

[LearnTheLaw]

So what do you suggest one does when they are dragged into court?

When you enter THEIR court, you submit yourself to THEIR jurisdiction

14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside..."


RULE: Never accept a presentment without contesting it, but remember that the ONLY thing you want to contest is the "style of the case," i.e. the corruption of your Christian appellation into a corporate fiction form. To argue anything else in the pleading (even a contention that you are an ax murderer) instantly causes you to traverse into the opposition's jurisdiction-and you're dead!


The burden is upon them to prove that they have jurisdiction over you.

Did you 'knowingly and willingly' volunteer to become a US citizen?

Did you fully comprehend the fact that you were 'voluntarily' waving your constitutional rights to become a 14th amendment debt slave?



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


================================================== ================================================== ============

17. Under the Federal and State Constitutions, "... We the People" did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers "delegated" do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority simply because some "law" is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do, so long as it does not damage, injure or impair the same Right of another individual. The concept of a corpus delicti is relevant here, in order to prove some "crime" or civil damage.

18. The case law surrounding the 13th and 14th Amendments all rings with the same message: "These amendments did not change the status of Common Law Citizenship of the white Citizens of one of the several States of the Union" (now 50 in number).

19. This goes to the crux of the controversy because, under the so-called 14th Amendment, citizenship is a privilege and not a "Right". (See American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 (1828); Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).)

20. It was never the intent of the so-called 14th Amendment to change the status of the Common Law Citizens of the several States. (See People v. Washington, 36 C. 658, 661 (1869); French v. Barber, 181 U.S. 324 (1900); MacKenzie v. Hare, 60 L.Ed. 297). Intent is always decisive and conclusive on the courts.

21. However, over the years, the so-called 14th Amendment has been used to create a fiction and to destroy American freedom through administrative regulation. How is this possible? The answer is self-evident to anyone who understands the law, namely, a "privilege" can be regulated to any degree, including the alteration and even the revocation of that privilege.

22. Since the statutory status of "citizen of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (1866 Civil Rights Act) is one of privilege and not of Right, and since the so called 14th Amendment mandates that both Congress and the several States take measures to protect these new "subjects", then both the Federal and State governments are mandated to protect the privileges and immunities of ONLY these "citizens of the United States".
(See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).)

23. Of course, the amount of protection afforded has a price to pay, but the important fact is that the "privilege" of citizenship under the so-called 14th Amendment can be regulated or revoked because it is a "privilege" and not a RIGHT. It is here that the basic, fundamental concept of "self-government" turns into a King "governing his subjects".

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter9.htm

[Anthony Joseph]

Since most of us here know, I hope, that the NAME called upon and charged against in court is not we the living, why not just ask the simple question...

Who has best evidence of title to that NAME?

Hint: The answer is signed and sealed on the trust receipt/indemnity certificate created shortly after we were born into this world.

Whoever claims title (the NAME) bears the burden.

[David Merrill]

Good point AJ!

[doug555]

Since most of us here know, I hope, that the NAME called upon and charged against in court is not we the living, why not just ask the simple question...

Who has best evidence of title to that NAME?

Hint: The answer is signed and sealed on the trust receipt/indemnity certificate created shortly after we were born into this world.

Whoever claims title (the NAME) bears the burden.

I believe it would better, and more accurate, to say:

Who has best evidence of LEGAL title to that NAME?

The LEGAL title holder is liable, NOT the EQUITABLE title holder.

IMHO,
Douglas Raymond

[Anthony Joseph]

I believe it would better, and more accurate, to say:

Who has best evidence of LEGAL title to that NAME?

The LEGAL title holder is liable, NOT the EQUITABLE title holder.

IMHO,
Douglas Raymond

Do you have EQUITABLE title to [the] Douglas Raymond SURNAME?

If not, who does?

If so, where's the evidence?

I ask these questions not as an antagonist but merely to see the answers in order to study and learn.

[Michael Joseph]

Do you have EQUITABLE title to [the] Douglas Raymond SURNAME?

If not, who does?

If so, where's the evidence?

I ask these questions not as an antagonist but merely to see the answers in order to study and learn.

Everyone wants to sit at the right hand of the Father. Yehovah Sabbaoth is the King of Glory and the government of the Kingdom of Heaven is structured.

quote" for Ourselves and our Posterity" - Beneficiaries

Trustees are unnamed but the Offices are settled.

Settlor = We the People

I cannot trace my ancestry to the 55 - so I am not a PRIMARY beneficiary. However, I can benefit - in third party.

Equitable Title you say? I am not with Equitable or Legal title. I did not settle or grant the trust and I am not an heir. Notice the trustees are unnamed and so are the heirs - why is this the case - because if you name a party, then the trust is for Life - unnamed parties but named offices continue even after those who created the Will are long dead.

shalom,
mj

[Chex]

A police officer on the beat finds your automobile parked in front of a fire hydrant.

The police officer immediately tickets and tows and your automobile is now impounded. http://www.cityofboston.gov/transportation/abandoned/http://www.cityofboston.gov/towing/http://www.cityofboston.gov/Parking/payment.asphttp://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...n_parking.html .

[Anthony Joseph]

I also would say that I am not with equitable title to the Anthony Joseph SURNAME. ALL titles have been seized since 1933 and individual "ownership", according to Senate Document No.43 of the 73rd Congress 1st Session, is "by virtue of Government" and "amounting to mere user" (see attached page 13).

If that doesn't spell it out...

I believe there is a choice for "mere user" as well; we either use in trustee de son tort (adverse claims) or in naked use (render unto Caesar) with an acknowledged assignment of all reversionary interest in the NAME to and for the account of the United States - 12USC95a(2).