Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 240

Thread: Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

  1. #31
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by stoneFree View Post
    Thanks stone! Your other thread clued me to that bill. I actually drafted a letter to RP the other night. Curious to see if i'll get a response. Need to mail it today.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian View Post
    Thanks stone! Your other thread clued me to that bill. I actually drafted a letter to RP the other night. Curious to see if i'll get a response. Need to mail it today.

    Give us some SAS! (Sanitize and Share).




    Note I founded this bond on one of Ronald Earnest PAUL's many failed attempts to move without constitutency:

    http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...Statement1.gif http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...Statement2.gif
    http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...Statement3.gif http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...Statement4.gif
    http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...Statement5.gif
    http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...tofservice.gif
    http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant1.gif
    http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant2.gif
    http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/1-HR3812.jpg
    http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/2-HR3812.jpg
    http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/3-HR3812.jpg
    http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/4-HR3812.jpg



    BTW:

    Instead of paying the bond, or having the US arrested they gave Ronald Dean back his money.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-14-11 at 05:30 PM.

  3. #33
    About a week after filing the Certificate Ron was at the bank's drivethru and got the message he had to come inside. He thought that the little funds he had were again, swept on the same seizure. He got inside to hear the wonderful news that his entire life's savings had been fully restored!

    He called me up to celebrate and share that they only had one hitch - they wanted him to sign a Waiver of Indemnity that meant he could not sue US Bank for the damages they had caused him. We got a laugh out of that and US Bank instead wrote letters of apology to any and all people who had received rubber checks because of the seizure.

  4. #34
    Doing some research for a suitor, I found this citation.

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf

  5. #35
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Doing some research for a suitor, I found this citation.

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf
    David, So what part of that is of interest to you? Is there a specific line in there?

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian View Post
    David, So what part of that is of interest to you? Is there a specific line in there?

    Not in particular. I concentrate on redemption of lawful money and the subtle read-in of silver and gold (coin). That is where it encroaches on remedy by misleading IRS agents into thinking that the taxpayer person is saying that FRNs are not lawful money because they are not silver or gold-backed currency.



    I found that publication on page one of that very recently styled Frivolous Filing notice. Presuming rhyme and reason, that the Return was examined carefully, the suitor included my citations:

    Quote Originally Posted by US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

    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.
    As planned by the drafters of the January 1, 2011 Notice, found on the opening post of this thread - an IRS agent spotted the citation of Rickman and hoisted that advisement out of context. See that Notice cited in the same paragraph above?

    They are hoisting it to see how it flies - as expected. The wise suitor is adept with his evidence repository in the federal courthouse so the response as you see in the attachment is to R4C timely attaching the same Return but with a Memorandum of Law as Notice to any IRS attorney to examine. There is evidence by the changes in the notes found on the Internet Notification site that the IRS bounced the Return around campuses until a low level IRS agent spotted Rickman. Get my drift?



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  7. #37
    To help make this plain for all readers:

    Notice - Memorandum of Law
    [Supplemental to Page 1 of Doc XX Demand for Lawful Money]
    Please bring this notice to the attention of an IRS attorney;

    This presentment is Refused for Cause timely and a copy is filed in my evidence repository in the USDC State Case Number 10-XXXX. It has come to my attention that the Rickman case has been mentioned in the Notice about frivolous guidelines of 1/1/11 cited in your letter - http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf.

    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 that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”
    I am in agreement with the court – which is to say that because Gary RICKMAN endorsed private credit from the Federal Reserve he bonded the notes and they were therefore bonded lawful money. If the money is not fully bonded it is not lawful money.

    The title sentence of the Federal Reserve Act states …to furnish an elastic currency. The additional notes created by fractional lending are what require endorsement as bond. I have not been endorsing private credit from the Federal Reserve since mid-2009 like stated in my original notice. It is optional and my bank agrees. They have been accepting my non-endorsement (restricted endorsement) of the Fed’s private credit and as far as I am aware, have been avoiding the fractional lending upon any funds of mine in repository with them. It is not up to me to police my bank - that is up to the attorney general. My lack of endorsement has produced no benefit of private credit from the Fed, and therefore I owe no return on my income.

    The Rickman case and the Ware case I cited on my initial notice suggest nothing about silver or gold and imply nothing against the Congress being able to define money in America. Both cases do describe however this subtle difference between Federal Reserve Notes and currency that is not elastic – US notes according to Title 31 U.S.C. §5115. I have not been involved with the Fed’s elastic currency system since mid-2009.

    To avoid any friction with my employer, I have been allowing withholdings to be sent regularly to the IRS on the presumption that you will understand my filing of return according to the law and refund my withholdings fully. Please review my Return again and promptly send me back my Withholdings.

    Sincerely,

    ____________________________________
    True Name of the SURNAME family.
    This is the quote from the 1/1/11 Notice mentioning Rickman.

    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 that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was
    paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United
    States Constitution.”
    This post, that post and that one too should all be read together for a glimpse of current events as they both unfold and enfold with regulations decompressing the highly compressed information infrastructure generally known as "money".
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-16-11 at 02:08 PM.

  8. #38
    Here is an update about this particular suitor's IRS Refund. The more local campus is offering to pay him about half of his Refund. But they did not just deposit it so it is an offer. The attorneys at the IRS are probably hoping he will acquiesce and accept it, admitting that he owes them something from all that Withholding sum amount. He does not.

    Being an offer, he is R4C timely. He will keep the IRS attorney honest.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  9. #39
    Another update - silence. The IRS offered half a refund - which can only be interpreted as hoping he is hard up enough to be quiet and let them transfer the funds into his bank account. He refused for cause the offer, meaning he did not want them to keep half of the Withholdings they owe him by law...

    Silence.

  10. #40
    To avoid any friction with my employer, I have been allowing withholdings to be sent regularly to the IRS on the presumption that you will understand my filing of return according to the law and refund my withholdings fully. Please review my Return again and promptly send me back my Withholdings.

    Should a new form be sent in with the stamp on it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •