http://penaltyprotester.com/

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

OOPS!!! Forgot to put you on my ignore list. I will take care of that in a minute.

That OMB number 1545-0074 is not approved for the collection of information, as the case linked to shows. Nice try. Really doesn't matter though since I am not required to file anyway. LOL!!

The mistake I made earlier has now been corrected. You are now on my ignore list.

Agreed, why waste time responding with rational thought and facts when they've been conditioned by the system to only parrot the company line.

It's quite obvious UGAlawtroll prefers obfuscation over honest and direct answers. But what would you expect from someone who supports the police state and increased "business" for government entities and the legal industry required to support it.

[UGA Lawdog]

The only person demonstrating "rational thought and facts" here is me, because I show case after case after case that supports my position.

Maybe you should try reading them. You might learn something.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by charlesa6

Before you go any further, look at their avatar, what you see, Cats and rats, so that tell you something who they are.
I rest my case.
Lawl!!!

The only reason I put the link to Quatlooser is that the discussion over there is about someone having the case against him by the "United States" (IRS) dismissed with prejudice for the reasons this thread was started and that is the 1040 is a bootleg from due to the fact it has no valid OMB number. The link that KT supplied says it all. The IRS cannot penalize you for not filing a form that does not comply with the PRA. End of story.

Also take notice that as stated on Quatlooser Lawrence never made it to trial due to the fact that it was dismissed "with prejudice" beforehand. I guess the gubment knew they had no case. There was no jury to hear anything because there was no trial.

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

The only reason I put the link to Quatlooser is that the discussion over there is about someone having the case against him by the "United States" (IRS) dismissed with prejudice for the reasons this thread was started and that is the 1040 is a bootleg from due to the fact it has no valid OMB number. The link that KT supplied says it all. The IRS cannot penalize you for not filing a form that does not comply with the PRA. End of story.

That was a criminal trial. He still has to face the civil charges, where he'll lose.

Did you read the jury-member's statement? They wanted to convict, but the government failed to prove willfulness.

If you want to go into criminal court and plead, as he did, that you are too stupid to understand the laws, so you did what you thought what was right, good luck.

Before this guy got off, the last two who followed this approach, Schiff and Rose, both lost, and are in prison.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by AndyK

That was a criminal trial. He still has to face the civil charges, where he'll lose.

Did you read the jury-member's statement? They wanted to convict, but the government failed to prove willfulness.

If you want to go into criminal court and plead, as he did, that you are too stupid to understand the laws, so you did what you thought what was right, good luck.

Before this guy got off, the last two who followed this approach, Schiff and Rose, both lost, and are in prison.

Since I have not put you back on my ignore list yet, maybe you would like to look at my edit above. You will see that the case I am referring too never went to trial. So tell me AndyK, how could a jury hear it if it was dismissed beforehand. I can see you are still at it with the distortions and the obfuscations. Guess it is time to ignore you again.

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

Since I have not put you back on my ignore list yet, maybe you would like to look at my edit above. You will see that the case I am referring too never went to trial. So tell me AndyK, how could a jury hear it if it was dismissed beforehand. I can see you are still at it with the distortions and the obfuscations. Guess it is time to ignore you again.

I apologize. I thought you were referring to the trial in New York.

Read the full thread to which you referred. He's not off the hook. Charges can be filed again without incurring double jeopardy.

The DOJ attorneys didn't have adequate time to prepare their case, so they withdrew the indictment instead of facing a potential loss. They'll be back.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by AndyK

I apologize. I thought you were referring to the trial in New York.

Read the full thread to which you referred. He's not off the hook. Charges can be filed again without incurring double jeopardy.

The DOJ attorneys didn't have adequate time to prepare their case, so they withdrew the indictment instead of facing a potential loss. They'll be back.

WOW!! An apology from AndyK. Apology accepted. The government still has to overcome the PRA. According to the PRA the 1040 has no valid OMB number. This is the same thing Lear used to defeat the parole violation the government went after him for. That was also dismissed.

If the 1040 does not have a valid OMB number there can be no penalty for not using the form. It is laid out in the link that Kaos Theory provided, where there is documentation supporting this. I have read most of those documents and believe the government will have a tough time with it. This is not the OMB scam as espoused on Quatlooser either. That's just another obvious distortion.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

KT,

This is the same thing that was brought out here by Bob Shulz when Lear was freed from his probation and made a free man from prison.

The 1040 has no basis in law, as it is a bootleg form without a valid OMB number.

This is a case well worth watching. thanks for the link.

The government still has to overcome the PRA.

According to the PRA the 1040 has no valid OMB number.

This is the same thing Lear used to defeat the parole violation the government went after him for.

That was also dismissed.

It is not quite the same thing.

The people in the first case (Rose Lear) told me not to rely on the OMB info in their doc,
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/TaxInf...ority-9-04.pdf

and said that the Springer APA Complaint.pdf and the subsequent proceedings info Kaos provided,
http://penaltyprotester.com/

is the correct info, that should be put in the Lear doc instead of what is there.

Everything else in the Lear document was ok.

The DOJ/IRS backed off but are still apparently nagging the Lears but cannot do anything but harassment.

The Lear doc deserves some very close examination, especially tracking down for yourself the full text of the cites (especially the Statutes, CFR, Federal Register), you could get a good picture of what is going on.

I have been studying the Lear doc for about a year, and the input I got from the Lears as to the incompleteness of their OMB info (now elaborated by Springer), told me to concentrate on everything else.

Now what is lacking in the Lear doc has been added by Springer, plus some of the points in the Lear doc have been strengthened in the Springer.

Note that regardless of what might have been insufficient in the Lear OMB argument was inconsequential in backing off the IRS.

Also see:
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/TaxInf...onLearResp.pdf
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/TaxInf...hallenge_2.rtf

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by mrg

It is not quite the same thing.

The people in the first case (Rose Lear) told me not to rely on the OMB info in their doc,
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/TaxInf...ority-9-04.pdf

and said that the Springer APA Complaint.pdf and the subsequent proceedings info Kaos provided,
http://penaltyprotester.com/

is the correct info, that should be put in the Lear doc instead of what is there.

Everything else in the Lear document was ok.

The DOJ/IRS backed off but are still apparently nagging the Lears but cannot do anyhting but harassment.

The Lear doc deserves some very close examination, especially looking up for yourself the full text of the cites, you get a good picture of what is going on.

I have been studying the Lear doc for about a year, and the input I got from the Lears as to the incompleteness of their OMB info (now elaborated by Springer), told me to concentrate on everything else.

Now what is lacking in the Lear doc has been added by Springer, plus some of the points in the Lear doc have been strengthened in the Springer.

Note that regardless of what might have been insufficient in the Lear OMB argument was inconsequential in backing off the IRS.

Also see:
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/TaxInf...onLearResp.pdf
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/TaxInf...hallenge_2.rtf

Thanks MRG for the info. I did not mean to say the Lears used the same info in the Springer APA complaint. What I was referring too is that the same issue was brought up by Lear and that is the OMB number is invalid that is on the 1040 form making it a bootleg form. We (my study group) has also been in contact with Rose Lear and we have been working on documents ourselves, at least the paralegal in the group has been putting the docs together. We have some in our group that may need this in the future. It has been an ongoing process.

[mrg]

No, she just warned me about using the OMB info in William's doc, and then sent out the Springer Complaint and said that this was more valid, than what was in the Lear doc.

I have been studying all this and am working up to putting into perspective for myself in some kind of writing, sort of a compilation and editing piece.

It seems to involve a lot of research, for instance i need to find original quotable source material for a couple of things in the Lear doc, such as the source of "the historical statement..." Lear p.4 paragraph 2., and a hard copy reference as to the "assistant Commissioner(International), and some other stuff.

Then the Springer APA, PRA, and OMB stuff needs to be aligned with the Lear doc info at the top of p.4.