Lawful Money Stops IRS Proposal

[doug555]

Michael,

I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.

I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.

My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...

At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.

So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.

Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
imm

"Refusal for Cause"
"Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
"Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
"Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"

Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!

[itsmymoney]

Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!

Doug555,

Coincidentally and perhaps divinely I have been listening to Marc Stevens videos for an hour before seeing your post! Yes, jurisdiction is apparently huge! Not to mention, I accepted conditional terms in their 'offer' in the 3176C so they have violated the terms, as far as I can see. The 'send the corrected return' they state in the 3176C letter is not specific to whether it must be a new or previously non-filed return, or one that was already filed as in my circumstances. Regardless, an attempt to correct my first return WITH EVIDENCE would not seem to be frivolous. Plus, where is it published in the code or manuals that my deduction demand is 'frivolous'? Nowhere, is the answer.

I will research the Marc Stevens links. Thank you so much!

Regards,
imm