Stumpo PRA Appeal to the S.Ct.

[freeindeed]

Yesterday morning Stumpo filed an appeal with the S.Ct. regarding the PRA. It will be up on Lindsey Springer's website next week. Lindsey talked about this on his conference call today and for those that are interested you will be able to read the entire brief next week. Hopefully Lindsey will have todays conference call up on his site soon as well. He has been very busy and is behind on getting things posted.

For all of you naysayers just keep watching. It will be over soon.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Yesterday morning Stumpo filed an appeal with the S.Ct. regarding the PRA. It will be up on Lindsey Springer's website next week. Lindsey talked about this on his conference call today and for those that are interested you will be able to read the entire brief next week. Hopefully Lindsey will have todays conference call up on his site soon as well. He has been very busy and is behind on getting things posted.

For all of you naysayers just keep watching. It will be over soon.

It is win-win because the PRA has been in place for at least a decade either way. However, within the scope of contract law, and since there is only enforcement behind tax collection related to BATF or territorial US claim without the scope of private credit (endorsement of FRNs when you cash your paycheck), the only proceedings will be civil in the future if people wise up to the real reasoning behind the Lawrence Dismissal. That is to say there will be no more criminal prosecutions if people correct the erroneous codifications on their IMFs (Individual Master Files tell of this Title 27 U.S.C. link). My point is that if Springer is correct, great - just that he is not correct.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...-cash-cow.html

These dozens of cases in the pipeline right now will be telling you that very soon. Keep an eye on Demosthenes there at Quatloos for the announcements. She is eager to broadcast these PRA flops.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[freeindeed]

This is not about David Merrill or Demosthenes. It is about the PRA and whether it is or it isn't the protection Congress enacted it to be. I will continue to post udates as I get them. I do not care whether David agrees or not. Just keep watching and either the PRA is protection or it is not. It's that simple.

[dawgwise]

David, do you even know who Stumpo is and the exact nature that lead up to and the basis of his filing? If so will you give your synopsis as quickly as your previous response?

While we wait I would like to comment-

For many people the fighting and arguing to obtain public money (as opposed to private) or to get past the bank regarding the endorsement and/or to continue to deal with the IMF and fight the civil is overwhelming, over burdensome and beyond many peoples time availability. Most people have responsibilities outside the needed continuous study to apply properly those stated and other issues. Fact is, I personally know of only one man who does not have a license or STATE license plate etc… however I personally know a number of bright and honest men in prison because they missed some major or minor aspect of the whole enchilada. That does not fare well for mankind in geographic America.

Mr. Springer is pressing an issue that, when reaching it’s conclusion(s) will have accomplished something more than any individual blogger. He will have illuminated the problem so all can know, so all can see and so all can believe. Either way it falls that will be at least one result.

SO

Either the PRA is law and applies to all agencies or bureaus within the government as it plainly states
OR
The PRA does not apply to the IRS, even though the IRS is not exempt, because it is not an agency or bureau within the government, corporate or otherwise.

I have not read one post upon the Sui PRA threads that cites in absolute and positive proof the actual and factual answer to aforementioned issue. I have read conjecture backed with certain evidence but is not good enough for all men.

NOW

The federal tax form always suggested for use for extortion of funds from individuals is the 1040 form, OMB No. 1545-0074, even though upon examination of the OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB), congressionally mandated listings of what this form is to be used for show absolutely no applicability to the subject of Individual Income Tax.

Therefore what David posts is valid and I have always maintained his posts, regarding the IMF/BATF, validity and have also questioned his motives for bringing up personalities and conjecture. The problem surrounding the IMF/BATF is SO WHAT? Most people cannot use it to do anything and thus most people continue to be harmed because of trickery, disguise and words of art…and to power and control.

It is my belief and opinion, based upon the facts and what I have witnessed, that Mr. Springer’s and Mr. Stumpo’s intent are far beyond what the few that may read and understand the other messages and data upon this blog. For that I credit and thank them and all others that perform with hearts wide open and without trying to demean others in order to place themselves upon higher ground.


edited for p.s.
Congress wrote the PRA as law. It is plain as the ink on the paper. Why all the circular talk here and the arguments everywhere?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by dawgwise

David, do you even know who Stumpo is and the exact nature that lead up to and the basis of his filing? If so will you give your synopsis as quickly as your previous response?

While we wait I would like to comment-

For many people the fighting and arguing to obtain public money (as opposed to private) or to get past the bank regarding the endorsement and/or to continue to deal with the IMF and fight the civil is overwhelming, over burdensome and beyond many peoples time availability. Most people have responsibilities outside the needed continuous study to apply properly those stated and other issues. Fact is, I personally know of only one man who does not have a license or STATE license plate etc… however I personally know a number of bright and honest men in prison because they missed some major or minor aspect of the whole enchilada. That does not fare well for mankind in geographic America.

Mr. Springer is pressing an issue that, when reaching it’s conclusion(s) will have accomplished something more than any individual blogger. He will have illuminated the problem so all can know, so all can see and so all can believe. Either way it falls that will be at least one result.

SO

Either the PRA is law and applies to all agencies or bureaus within the government as it plainly states
OR
The PRA does not apply to the IRS, even though the IRS is not exempt, because it is not an agency or bureau within the government, corporate or otherwise.

I have not read one post upon the Sui PRA threads that cites in absolute and positive proof the actual and factual answer to aforementioned issue. I have read conjecture backed with certain evidence but is not good enough for all men.

NOW

The federal tax form always suggested for use for extortion of funds from individuals is the 1040 form, OMB No. 1545-0074, even though upon examination of the OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB), congressionally mandated listings of what this form is to be used for show absolutely no applicability to the subject of Individual Income Tax.

Therefore what David posts is valid and I have always maintained his posts, regarding the IMF/BATF, validity and have also questioned his motives for bringing up personalities and conjecture. The problem surrounding the IMF/BATF is SO WHAT? Most people cannot use it to do anything and thus most people continue to be harmed because of trickery, disguise and words of art…and to power and control.

It is my belief and opinion, based upon the facts and what I have witnessed, that Mr. Springer’s and Mr. Stumpo’s intent are far beyond what the few that may read and understand the other messages and data upon this blog. For that I credit and thank them and all others that perform with hearts wide open and without trying to demean others in order to place themselves upon higher ground.

You seem to take these posts as personal attacks. In as much as these people spending time outside the scope of the contract in common law are involuntarily distracting from the real issue, fine. I think it is a tactic of the DOJ so they can start prosecuting without risk agian.

In other words, Long Live the Lawrence Dismissal. There is a good reason the DOJ would insist to dismiss that cause with prejudice and then force an injunction on Robert Lawrence not to lecture. Soon people will understand it is not the PRA issue so much as that the OMB# on the Record will cause a magistrate upon conviction and appeal to opine about the source of criminal enforcement authority being limited to BATF or territorial US activity, usually found on the IMF (Individual Master File).

For many people the fighting and arguing to obtain public money (as opposed to private) or to get past the bank regarding the endorsement and/or to continue to deal with the IMF and fight the civil is overwhelming, over burdensome and beyond many peoples time availability.

Once it snapped into place for me, it is really quite simple to understand and apply. Many suitors have been doing this since I first mentioned it nearly two years ago. We have a right to public money. Cashing your paycheck for public money is a non-taxable event. If that is too difficult for people to understand or believe then I say you are indicating a major source of what disease plagues America and basically all the Special Drawing Rights (paper gold) nations.

I have assembled a simple lesson plan:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...rve_System.mp3
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...lic-money.html

Listen to the audio file while reading the article. Then understand that people have tried, according to law to exchange FRNs for USNs and have been tendered FRNs of equal value. That is because FRNs are USNs since early 1971:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq...al-tender.html

Read the last paragraph of the page.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...blic_money.jpg

One suitor even got a full Refund of Withholdings from the State for the two years and he is a State employee. That is how careful any knowledgeable attorney is not to interfere with the right to run one's household finances with public money (USNs in the non-endorsed form of FRNs). That is the only thing, that option, that makes central banking and what it has become with fractionalizing legal.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...y_of_Money.zip

Therefore until Americans will take the time to understand public money v. private credit these distractions, these flopped causes will continue to clutter up the issue with frivolous arguments about PRA.

Then on the other hand, if Lindsey Springer and Stumpo are correct, my disapproval is inconsequential. They have the entire history since before 1980 to argue with; and even a federal magistrate cannot change history.

Just listen to Robert Lawrence on that: next post...



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

continued...

Robert Lawrence; Barry Smith’s [LegalBear’s] New Cash Cow


It is always interesting to note how someone’s confirmations will enforce a belief set. Circumstances for Robert Lawrence have fallen in such a way to completely confirm that the PRA is an effective argument in federal court and there is likely no convincing Bob otherwise, especially now that he has begun a lecture circuit saying so.

For some time I have been saying the Lawrence Dismissal with prejudice was due to Robert Lawrence getting the OMB# Fiasco onto the record where he ‘opened the door’ to reveal some things he may not even be aware of about Delegation of Authority from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Commissioner of the IRS; chiefly that the original delegation was literally left unsigned for decades (practically). The IRS acquires authority for criminal prosecutions only through the BATF and of course through territorial jurisdiction in Washington DC and on US territories like Virgin Islands etc. On nearly all IMF (Individual Master File) reports when properly decoded, some fabrication of the sort has been spun into the numerical coding. The OMB#s must track through the Office of Management and Budget and consequently through the Federal Register and the statute has to be transparently traceable to some kind of Delegation of Authority for the DOJ to be able to stand upon anything but ignorance and acquiescence of the “Taxpayer” for a proper prosecution. That is what Bob Lawrence put on the record that caused the DOJ to back off – and sometimes I think the DOJ/Treasury through inadvertent agent provocateurs may have been successful in a tactic to divert and obfuscate that fact; especially when Bob himself is convinced there is hope for ‘dozens of cases in the pipeline’ that will in his humble opinion transform the shape of the IRS and exonerate thousands of people. First you should hear independent confirmation about my take on this from a radio interview… The fellow being interviewed just comes up, off the cuff, with the OMB# Fiasco as an example of remedy failing and succeeding simultaneously because of some misunderstandings:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._backs_off.wav

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...b_Lawrence.bmp
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...b_Lawrence.wmv


Bob Lawrence spoke in Denver to about twenty people in the conference room of the County Buffet. He granted commercial license to his new friend Barry Smith/LegalBear for recording rights and would not allow me to set up video recording equipment. When Bob announced that was to honor a federal injunction against him from speaking publicly and commercially, I forbade him from granting that obvious cash cow* to Barry by taking a couple shots and audio recording of the lecture. Herein is proof that Bob Lawrence is not lecturing commercially; he has not granted anybody in specific commercial licensure at all. Anybody can record him exercising his “First Amendment rights” freely and do with the recordings as they please as long as they are not for sale. There is nothing Bob can do about it for recourse without admitting to violating the injunction.

Back to confirmations. Robert Lawrence is so convinced upon two pieces of very convincing evidence that the PRA argument alone is what scared the DOJ that I did not feel it proper to approach the microphone and embarrass him in front of the small gathering. I felt that would have been futile.

Bob has for evidence confirming his PRA theory:

1) The DOJ asked for a continuance to bring in an expert on the PRA and that was denied, and
2) a motion in limine from the DOJ to exclude the PRA argument (which I suspect was really to exclude the OMB# Fiasco in truth)

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...firmations.wav


Lindsey Springer, a good friend of Bob’s has been proving how especially in civil court, the prosecution of the IRS for a bootleg and fraudulent PRA/OMB# will fail. Here is Bob’s admission that the Taxpayer is notified properly of the 1980 PRA:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ll_Page_78.wav

To make that clear under contract law, the Taxpayer uses the 1040 Form with eyes wide open under good faith:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf

The bottom of the 1040 Form refers directly to notice of the 1980 PRA on Page 78 of the Instructions. See for yourself.

And more importantly here is Bob’s admission that he considers Title 26 of the United States Codes as much law as the federal magistrate pretending to be a judge. [One glance at the beginning table/notice of the US Code books reveals Title 26 was never enacted into positive law.]

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...980_v_1995.wav

and

Before what court? They cited a statute on the 1040 Form for instance before the court of Lindsey Springer and he like Bob thinks that is cited before the federal magistrate? If in the court of Lindsey Springer the Form was adjudicated faulty he should not have succumbed to pressure over the telephone or whatever (I am sure IRS agents are wise enough not to coerce people in writing) to the point he felt victimized into filing a civil suit that failed to name the county clerk and recorder because technically, Springer had never even been libeled – no publication of a fraudulent Notice of Federal Tax Lien. No wonder Robert Lawrence is hoping to avoid bad case law, he is surrounded by it in association with foundationless cases like Lindsey Springer’s civil cause, now flopping in appeal.

Bob lectures about idiot patriot arguments generating bad case law and premises things he wishes not to disclose upon the need not to generate bad stare decisis.


http://friends-n-family-research.inf...strung_Bob.wav
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...arry_Smith.wav
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...quirements.wav
http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._a_problem.wav
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...d_validity.wav
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ress_knows.wav




Above are some snippets (in sequence as spoken) that explain in my opinion the basic architecture of Robert Lawrence’s beliefs on this matter. It is clear to some people that the OMB# tracking through the Federal Register is much more threatening to the DOJ/Treasury credibility than some discretionary paperwork imposed upon legitimate tax collection such as the PRA. If it has indeed in law been invalid since 1980, who cares? Do Bob and Lindsey think they can convene a jury who cares? Bob and I are in complete agreement that the excuse generated by the DOJ, that the income figures were a little off when submitted to the grand jury on the initial indictment, is nothing but a cover story. Fine. Where Bob and I disagree is the real item on the record that the DOJ saw potential for development and subsequently forcing a federal magistrate to opine about – that without hijacking delegation from the BATF and/or an illusion we are territorially in the US while out in the States the IRS has no criminal prosecution authority.


Regards,

David Merrill.

The lecture in full:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_session1.mp3
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_session2.mp3

* Aside from the obvious commercial plug for Barry Smith’s (LegalBear) legal services fighting the IRS for people in the recording snippet, somebody who stayed a little into the Q&A session tells me that he left when Barry took over to promote his new Cash Cow – starting up federal cases for folks with the PRA argument.

[freeindeed]

What really is something I do not understand is that people have used the arguments that David and others have espoused to their peril. I am not interested in leading someone to jail with failed arguments. If you are a labeled a tax protester and the PTB come after you criminally you will probably end up in the grey bar hotel. Few have escaped this fate.

The PRA is not about taxes and it seems that some of the posters on this site just can't get past that. It is locked into their brain and there is nothing that will change that. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that if you get rid of the penalties for not filing a 1040 form it has nothing to do with taxes. It has everything to do with how the agency penalizes for not filing a form.

The PRA is clear about how an agency is to acquire approval for the various forms it uses to collect information from the public. The PRA was encated to protect the public from having to disclose information to an agency subject to the Act if it does not comply in every respect with the collection of that information. The 1995 PRA clearly states the IRS is subject to the1995 PRA.

This is something the people can understand. David Merrill speaks of something that is way over people's heads and is something the people care nothing about. The majority of people do not want to know anything about what David espouses because, for one reason, people are being put in jail for espousing the arguments he talks about.

Most of what is spoken of on this board regarding "income taxes" is theory. Very few escape criminal convictions and the ones that do have their money taken civilly anyway. The only exceptions would be to have nothing that can be taken. If you have nothing chances are they will not come after you at all, but most will not make this sacrifice.

The only remedy is to remove the IRS ability to penalize. You remove that and the IRS becomes ineffective. If they become ineffective then they go away. It's not going to happen with the usual "TP" arguments. It can happen with the PRA and the protection it affords. I have not heard of anyone going to jail for protesting the penalty, but have seen many go to jail for protesting the tax.

I am going to repeat what I have stated so many times here and that is, THE PRA IS NOT ABOUT TAXES, IT'S ABOUT PENALTIES I guess that is a concept that is just too hard for some to grasp.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

In other words, Long Live the Lawrence Dismissal. There is a good reason the DOJ would insist to dismiss that cause with prejudice and then force an injunction on Robert Lawrence not to lecture.

If you knew anything about Lawrence you would know that the injuction was issued long before he was indicted. It had nothing to do with the PRA.

[dawgwise]

David said: "You seem to take these posts as personal attacks."

David's use of conjecture fails him again and again. I don't seem to be anything other than caring for humanity. Any personal attack came forth long ago and by and from you with other conjecture and the offering of non-proof as though it were proof. So it was, so it is.


While few know certain facts about money and contract and government, there are fewer who can impliment and/or act upon those facts posted here by David.

Mr. Springer et. al. have and are sheding light upon certain facts about the penalty aspect to large numbers numbers of people, good american people.


David said: "One suitor even got a full Refund of Withholdings from the State for the two years and he is a State employee."

That is wonderful for the "one" and maybe for David.
What value is that for all those imprisoned?
What value is that for all those being hammered / penalized as I write?
How many people have been freely given and taught all truths not relating to the PRA and how many people have been kept from being imprisoned because they were able to use those truths and/or concepts?
If the IMF/BATF proceedure worked for everyone, everyone would be able to use it successfully and many of those that tried to use it, and failed, would not be in JAIL.

That was, in part, the gist of my previous post and not anything to do with anything other than what I posted.

p.s. I am ever so saddened to so often have had to read and continue to read the joy and glee by some in advancing the "idea" that the PRA is a flop. Sort of reminds me of a son who wishes his father would die in order to gather the inheritance.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

What really is something I do not understand is that people have used the arguments that David and others have espoused to their peril. I am not interested in leading someone to jail with failed arguments.

This is something the people can understand. David Merrill speaks of something that is way over people's heads and is something the people care nothing about. The majority of people do not want to know anything about what David espouses because, for one reason, people are being put in jail for espousing the arguments he talks about.

To the contrary. Nobody in court especially, including here or on Quatloos can justify saying that public money is not ours to transact business with by right.

People are not being put in jail for the public money v. private credit argument I am talking about. It is the reason the DOJ/Treasury dismissed the Robert Lawrence criminal prosecution suddenly and with prejudice!

http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._backs_off.wav



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Dawgwise;

Any personal attack came forth long ago and by and from you with other conjecture and the offering of non-proof as though it were proof.

I just keep offering the same proof over and over again. You seem to want me to change it to less convincing proof with your continual demand for proof when proof has already been conclusively provided:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf

Look on Page 78 noticed at the bottom of the current 1040 Form. Notice is made to the 1980 PRA; not the 1995 PRA. I think many Readers can understand that is proof the Lindsey Springer argument and about any PRA-based cause is a flop. Carefully go through my opening post quoted above:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...-cash-cow.html

Robert Lawrence truly believes that Title 26 has been enacted on law and it is not law. (see attached image) The foundational aspect of the DOJ backing off was that it was a criminal proceeding, not a civil proceeding. The only way to proceed is civil, and that is to say the taxpayer was properly notified the "law" would be the PRA of 1980 found Notice on Page 78 of the 1040 Form Instructions.

P.P.S. Dear Dawgwise;

I am not saying the PRA argument is a flop to sadden you. It is to avoid the tactic of that particular distraction from working to obfuscate the real reason for the Lawrence Dismissal.