The PRA Part 2

[PANICPASS]

More assumptions. Even the appelate court cannot overlook her misquotes from Dawes. There is no way to color this.

The misquotes were intentional. And if you believe otherwise, you are very niave.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

The misquotes were intentional. And if you believe otherwise, you are very niave.

Intentional or not it will bite her in the butt. "Judges" do not like it when their rulings are overturned. We will see what happens with this. You know for people that claim to be on the side of truth, you sometimes do not show it. You are arguing with me rather than supporting a position that can have serious negative results for the IRS and DOJ. Who's side are you on anyway, Shoonra's?

[David Merrill]

Who's side are you on anyway, Shoonra's?

That is all I needed to hear out of Freeindeed. That seals it up for me. He knows the PRA argument has already failed. Nobody is going to be overturning the trial judge's decision/opinion. He knows that and is depending on some metaphysics (force of positive thinking or whatever) to help the appeal prevail.

The only assumption I see myself having made is that the defendant in the case in appeal has signed a 1040 Form some time in the past. That was when he waived the right to argue PRA with any force of law.

So Shoonra, we are now on the same side because I disagree with Freeindeed. Good thing I have always admired your talents as a law librarian/researcher.

Freeindeed may feel that I am argueing because I am for people failing in court and getting mowed down. Quite contrary. I suspect even that if the Treasury reads my posts they will overturn the trial decision just for tactical reasons - so that they can regulate how many of the slew of PRA arguments succeed and fail.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[freeindeed]

David,

All you have done is make assumptions and presumptions and have not backed up any of you allegations regarding the PRA. You say it is a loser with no supporting documentation whatsoever. I have posted the law and so have others. You have posted nothing but speculation. You have had it, eh? I have asked you time and again to back up what you say with proof and you have refused. To you this is all "internet yarn" anyway. I guess no proof is required with "internet yarn", eh? Have a nice day.

[David Merrill]

Like I said the only presumptions I am making are that the PRA case has already failed in the trial court and that the defendant has signed a 1040 or similar Form with notification about the PRA at the bottom of Page 1. He has already lost his appeal because he waived right to argue about PRA. And on and on for years; appeal after appeal.

I play a lot of chess and sometimes I will come up with a clever strategy and my opponent will see it. I get in a good position but it is properly defended and I will lose if I don't abandon it and regroup, forming a different strategy.

I think Freeindeed insists I am making a lot of presumptions because he is sensitive about the PRA argument being an inherent failure.

The way process functions is that the defendant was long before even getting into court directed to the PRA. Then the defendent signed the 1040 Form without reservation even after doing so.

So am I assuming the defendant signed the 1040 Form in error? Maybe.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[dawgwise]

Why not live in the "here and the now" and relegate the past for learning from it and look to, with bright-eyed anticipation, what the future may bring? Recently we've witnessed many opinions from judges, attorneys, Quatloos, and each other, and not one of the future predictions and/or opinions, regarding the final outcome, has been settled yet. The Larwence case was dismissed- that is recent past and to learn from. Springer's is not decidedly over, that is future and will then be something to learn from also. All the speculation in the world will not alter the course of events, only actions will.

PRA 2 thread was created, as I understand it, as a point of reference to keep up-to-date on the current happenings (as they happen) and/or news of future events that are planned but haven't happened YET. When those events take place it will then be the here and the now, for a moment, while it then slips into the past.

Dogs live in the here and the now, I sort of like that wisdom.

[PANICPASS]

I support the PRA position. The reason I do not believe it will prevail is this:

The judges of what we know today, as our “court system” will sometimes rule, seemingly in direct contradiction to the Constitution, established rules of procedure, and legal precedent. The reason for such actions is based on “doctrines.” Judges consider the complaints before them under the “Chaos Doctrine.” Even if you are right, the judge must dismiss your complaint, if it would undermine, or destroy the fiat monetary system, and the banking system, which controls the “credit” economy, which operates on “debt.”

When a judge is presented with a “money” issue (challenging the whole banking system), he is sitting, as an administrative agent of the trustee of the 1933 bankruptcy, and must not rule in your favor, and must not allow this to go to a jury, because that would create “Chaos.” If you present the “money” issue as a challenge to the whole system, you will not be successful.

This Chaos Doctrine would apply to the IRS, as well.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by dawgwise

The Larwence case was dismissed- that is recent past and to learn from. Springer's is not decidedly over, that is future and will then be something to learn from also. All the speculation in the world will not alter the course of events, only actions will.

The OMB# fiasco is not the PRA argument. I am simply trying to steer people to the real reason why the Lawrence case was so mysteriously dismissed; and that also explains why the PRA argument fails.

[freeindeed]

This is from a forwarded email to me. It is a snippet from that email.

Wait until you see the next document he files. He's cranking up the heat on the PRA argument, and I really think the end's very near.

This is from a close associate of Lindsey's. I am anxiously awaiting to see what Lindsey has put together myself. I would suggest to those that are interested to keep up with Lindsey's website. If I hear or receive anything of value I will share it.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think Freeindeed insists I am making a lot of presumptions because he is sensitive about the PRA argument being an inherent failure.

Why do you keep making false assumptions regarding me? You do not know me or what my thoughts are. This is not about me. It is about the PRA.

[dawgwise]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The OMB# fiasco is not the PRA argument. I am simply trying to steer people to the real reason why the Lawrence case was so mysteriously dismissed; and that also explains why the PRA argument fails.

I do understand David and for you to offer up ideas and concepts for others contemplation is great, but nonetheless the chips have yet to fall so let the chips fall where they may. In time we all shall know.

Speaking of chips, cow chips that is, let me offer up something I learned from Curly (trail boss) in the movie "City Slickers." He said there is one thing to know, just one thing. It took me years to determine what that one thing is for me - here it is.

I always ask myself "Who am I in relationship to __insert noun here___? (person, place or thing or idea)So I ask myself, "Who am I in relationship to Lindsey Springer?" I am only a serious onlooker. He knows things about himself and his case and situation that I do not. So I ask the same thing of anyone posting, "Who are they in relationship to ?" I know there are many, on this site that have great knowledge and experience. All I've succeeded in doing is survive the onslaught keeping my body parts intact. But nonetheless I know that no one knows as much about Lindsey Springer and his case than he.

Regardless the outcome, the fight will go on!