Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[samgans]

Hi Johnny;


Welcome to StSC!

I was just looking at a FrivPen warning and got an updated Link to the same old Memorandum as recently cited. So I really don't spend much time on this thread.

I get a lot of successful reports though. Just the other day...



He sanitized them for use but I refrain from putting them on the forums because of a NY Tort Attorney who likes to publish the PACER docs on a skeptical website thinking he is affecting process. Since the purpose is to publish process there is no real problem but I don't like to see suitors' home addresses displayed to that mentality for ridicule.

The good news however is that your metaphysics is what is really at work. There is a new example here, with documentation. This suitor never filed a Libel of Review to establish an evidence repository and may have encouraged the IRS agent to start FrivPen process. So he will likely re-file a more standard 1040 Form, set up an evidence repository and file the Redeemed Lawful Money Return next year instead. Once they get that ball rolling they would rather get the suitor into an administrative argument, just creating a sad FrivPen, ignoring the law.

Lots of folks are getting full refunds on the evidence alone, the demands on the backsides of paychecks etc. but I am skeptical about going forward without a proper evidence repository (record).


Regards,

David Merrill.

Hello, I wanted to thank you for explaining the concept of lawful money and how to redeem for L. money, it's amazing how a bit of knowledge can go such a long way, thank you very much david!! (I just received the refund for state and local tax, federal refund I received over month ago, full refund of course direct deposited)

samuel gansburg

[David Merrill]

Welcome Sam!!

It is always a delight when my career contributes to someone's prosperity and happiness!!

[David Merrill]

Here is a Letter (3176 attached) that is quite recent as of this Post. By the number though it is likely the same rendition as of 2007.

This suitor has had no problems with the IRS in the past so it might have been better to file a Libel of Review and set up an evidence repository preemptively.


Here are the two citations on the Letter. Click Here and Here.


I assume by the filename that the 2007 Memorandum about Frivolous Positions is not revised but I would like the Reader here to refresh themselves and see if you can find a Position that is applicable to redeeming lawful money as found on our application of the law?


Thanks for examining this objectively,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

A suitor on the brain trust brought these up - I believe you can find these a few pages back...


http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-17_IRB/ar13.html

This one looks new!


http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals...s-Introduction

[David Merrill]

This suitor intuitively neglected to make a Claim for a Refund by leaving Item 74(a) blank. Therefore the IRS Agent who sent the Letter is doubly in error to threaten a $5K FrivPen.

[As I develop "flutter" from dither and toggle applied to the Five Cube Sum Number Locks I gain some useful insight into Artificial Intuition.]

I developed the Title 12 Citations a little so to complete a more-rounded and better developed Claim in Yehoshuah H'Natzrith H'Massiach - natzar being BRANCH, David's coronation name. This assembles a great mental model around Archelaus being KING while Antipas and Philip were only TETRARCHs in Israel.

So this Counterclaim (attached) is designed to be heard, meaning that it will be served on the Attorney General as well according to the FRCP whereas the typical Libel of Review is dismissed and designed to set up an evidence repository for future Refusals for Cause. This new Counterclaim does both.


Enjoy,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Here is a more recent Memorandum. Check out the top of Page 15 and remember that Demanding Redeemed Lawful Money means you hold US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.



P.S. This was brought to my attention by a suitor who has just received his full state and federal refunds for the third year straight.

P.P.S. I am a bit concerned about this disclaimer -

This document, including the relevant legal authorities cited, is not
intended to provide an exhaustive list of frivolous tax arguments. Merely
because a frivolous argument is not included in this document does not
mean that it is not frivolous. Taxpayers may not rely on frivolous
arguments to avoid or evade federal taxes. The government and courts are
not precluded from penalizing taxpayers who raise a frivolous argument
not addressed in this document.

When dealing with property rights does not the mere weight require specificity?

[samgans]

Here is a more recent Memorandum. Check out the top of Page 15 and remember that Demanding Redeemed Lawful Money means you hold US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.



P.S. This was brought to my attention by a suitor who has just received his full state and federal refunds for the third year straight.

P.P.S. I am a bit concerned about this disclaimer -



When dealing with property rights does not the mere weight require specificity?

agreed, although the remedy of redeeming lawful money is what's in the law, they cannot call it frivilous it just wouldn't make any sense

[doug555]

Here is a more recent Memorandum. Check out the top of Page 15 and remember that Demanding Redeemed Lawful Money means you hold US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.

This document, including the relevant legal authorities cited, is not
intended to provide an exhaustive list of frivolous tax arguments. Merely
because a frivolous argument is not included in this document does not
mean that it is not frivolous. Taxpayers may not rely on frivolous
arguments to avoid or evade federal taxes. The government and courts are
not precluded from penalizing taxpayers who raise a frivolous argument
not addressed in this document.

P.S. This was brought to my attention by a suitor who has just received his full state and federal refunds for the third year straight.

P.P.S. I am a bit concerned about this disclaimer -

When dealing with property rights does not the mere weight require specificity?

If 12 USC 411 "Demanding Lawful Money" is effectively-connected to the "good faith" clause in 12 USC 95a(2) [excerpted below] and the "liability" clause in 50 USC App 7(e) [excerpted below] granting IMMUNITY from liability in any court, then what is there to worry about?





And isn't said 12 USC 411 LAWFUL MONEY truly effectively-connected to 50 USC App 7(e), the Trading with the Enemy Act, and to its corresponding statute 12 USC 95a(2), BECAUSE ONLY LAWFUL MONEY (not an IOU FRN) can effect the true asset-based PAYMENT that is needed for a "full acquittance and discharge"?

See Lawful Money Demands - IMMUNITY & DUTY (copied from http://iuvdeposit.blogspot.com)

[froze25]

The file was created on 11-Apr-2014 08:45 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf the "wayback machine" shows the last file was created on 07-Mar-2013 10:09 https://web.archive.org/web/20130726...v/pub/irs-utl/ The one before that was on 31-Jul-2012 So to answer the question of was it recent, yes its new as of this year. Unfortunately you can not get the previous files off the archived pages to compare them to see what changes were made.

[Michael Joseph]

The file was created on 11-Apr-2014 08:45 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf the "wayback machine" shows the last file was created on 07-Mar-2013 10:09 https://web.archive.org/web/20130726...v/pub/irs-utl/ The one before that was on 31-Jul-2012 So to answer the question of was it recent, yes its new as of this year. Unfortunately you can not get the previous files off the archived pages to compare them to see what changes were made.

If you have a zero filing....the computer is most likely kicking it out based on BEARD v COMMISSIONER and U.S. v RIFEN. Beard argues an EXCHANGE THEORY labor for notes = no gain. Beard does not see the Trust.

In Rifen FRN's are Taxable. Huge Presumption. Question: What's in your wallet?

Shalom,
MJ