PRA continued

freeindeed · #1 07-06-2006, 07:28 AM

Okay everyone, I have started a new thread regarding the PRA and continued it from here. I would appreciate it if all would stay on topic. There are many things happening that can change things for the better.

One thing that is happening is that more and more attorneys are stepping up to the plate regarding the PRA. An attorney in the Ward Dean criminal case (not Larry Becraft who remains chicken for fear of sanctions) is filing a motion to set aside the indictment based on the PRA.

As Demo stated Dr Tom Clayton has also filed a motion to dismiss counts 3-8 in his criminal case, aslo relying on the PRA.

In the Blackstock case a motion for arrest of judgment and to dismiss indictment is before the court and the "judge" will make a rulling, hopefully soon. We are optimistic that Blackstock will walk. Does that mean I am saying he will walk? No just that we are optimistic about it.

The word is getting out and we will see more and more of the same. This is the time the heat needs to be turned up. The IRS is in clear violation of the PRA and that is very evident. Many people are in prison for a fraud perpetrated by the IRS regarding the filing of a bootleg "1040" collection of information that should not be there.

David Merrill · #2 07-06-2006, 07:36 AM

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

Every Taxpayer signing the 1040 Form knows or is expected to know about PRA. Maybe we can see some details about that notice at the bottom of Page 1? I suppose the papers that accompany the 1040 Form in the mail are what hold Page 78. Does anybody have a scan of Page 78 to show us?

Regards,

David Merrill.

Backbone · #3 07-06-2006, 07:42 AM

Freeindeed - Thanks for keeping us informed on this issue. Everyone needs to read the Motion that was written for Blackstock. The information in this motion is very informative and enlightening. It will give you a qucik run down on the PRA issue. I also feel that we are on the the cusp of some very interesting court cases. One thing is for sure - a number of judges are going to have the chance to rule on this issue. Kind of makes you wonder what the different people that are in jail are going to do with this information. This is becoming a very interesting ride.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Okay everyone, I have started a new thread regarding the PRA and continued it from here. I would appreciate it if all would stay on topic. There are many things happening that can change things for the better.

One thing that is happening is that more and more attorneys are stepping up to the plate regarding the PRA. An attorney in the Ward Dean criminal case (not Larry Becraft who remains chicken for fear of sanctions) is filing a motion to set aside the indictment based on the PRA.

As Demo stated Dr Tom Clayton has also filed a motion to dismiss counts 3-8 in his criminal case, aslo relying on the PRA.

In the Blackstock case a motion for arrest of judgment and to dismiss indictment is before the court and the "judge" will make a rulling, hopefully soon. We are optimistic that Blackstock will walk. Does that mean I am saying he will walk? No just that we are optimistic about it.

The word is getting out and we will see more and more of the same. This is the time the heat needs to be turned up. The IRS is in clear violation of the PRA and that is very evident. Many people are in prison for a fraud perpetrated by the IRS regarding the filing of a bootleg "1040" collection of information that should not be there.

David Merrill · #4 07-06-2006, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backbone

Freeindeed - Thanks for keeping us informed on this issue. Everyone needs to read the Motion that was written for Blackstock. The information in this motion is very informative and enlightening. It will give you a qucik run down on the PRA issue. I also feel that we are on the the cusp of some very interesting court cases. One thing is for sure - a number of judges are going to have the chance to rule on this issue. Kind of makes you wonder what the different people that are in jail are going to do with this information. This is becoming a very interesting ride.

Please supply the Readers with a link.

Thanks!

xMakox · #5 07-06-2006, 07:52 AM

Page 78 is irrelevant, there is no page 78 on a 1040 form. PERIOD.

Now, I asked you if the 1040 must comply to PRA or not. You said yes. Now try and explain how the DOJ will get out of this, they have defaulted on the issue.

You say it must comply, DOJ says it does not comply. End of story.

You really seem like you are just wasting people's time, the issue isn't about if the 1040 must comply or not anymore, they are caught in a lie and there is no easy way out.

Not once have you seen DOJ or the IRS say the 1040 complies with PRA, if you have please post it. They have defaulted, this is a matter of fact on the record. PERIOD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

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

Every Taxpayer signing the 1040 Form knows or is expected to know about PRA. Maybe we can see some details about that notice at the bottom of Page 1? I suppose the papers that accompany the 1040 Form in the mail are what hold Page 78. Does anybody have a scan of Page 78 to show us?

Regards,

David Merrill.

xMakox · #6 07-06-2006, 07:54 AM

How could he have a link for something he "feels"? You are confused and wasting people's time with this nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Please supply the Readers with a link.

Thanks!

freeindeed · #7 07-06-2006, 07:57 AM

I must agree with xMakox here. The instructions are irrelavant. The note at the bottom of the 1040 does not comply with the PRA. It is the form "1040" itself that must have the notice on it that no one is required to file a collection of information that does not have a valid OMB number.

freeindeed · #8 07-06-2006, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

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

Every Taxpayer signing the 1040 Form knows or is expected to know about PRA. Maybe we can see some details about that notice at the bottom of Page 1? I suppose the papers that accompany the 1040 Form in the mail are what hold Page 78. Does anybody have a scan of Page 78 to show us?

Regards,

David Merrill.

Read the motion for Blackstock. You will see that in the arguments brought up that not all know or are required to know about the PRA. The saying that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is addressed in Blackstock's motion. Why don't you take the time to read David. How else are you going to talk intelligently to others about the PRA?

freeindeed · #9 07-06-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Please supply the Readers with a link.

Thanks!

Demosthenes supplied the link to Blackstocks motion here if you care to read it.

xMakox · #10 07-06-2006, 08:13 AM

These are facts that I know them.
- DOJ says the 1040 is not subject to PRA.
- DOJ has defaulted and allowed the facts on the record to reflex that the 1040 form does not comply with the PRA and never has.
- DOJ has defaulted and admits the IRS and the commissioner are telling people not to file unless the form complies with PRA.
- The details are irrelevant and not an issue, DOJ has defaulted. PERIOD David is trying to say the 1040 complies, but this has not been an issue in any of these cases, DOJ admits they do not comply. PERIOD!!!!!!

I don't care if the 1040 must comply or not, they have a serious problem, with no easy answer or defense that I can think of. I will not predict a victory in every case under every situation... it is not a silver bullet, it simply exposes the lie. If you can't understand this without going on some long rant than I don't know what to tell ya.