The PRA Part 2

[freeindeed]

Here is the new thread I started regarding the PRA for those that would like to keep up with it. Lawrence has already had a victory using it and now we are waiting on Lindsey Springer's victory as well.

Please do not assume that Lindsey will lose because he "signed" a "1040." That is an erroneous assumption.

[freeindeed]

Daivid Merrill makes 2 assumptions here and here. The first assumption is that their are citations where the current PRA of 1995 has lost. The second assumption is that Lindsey Springer has signed a "1040" tax return and has waived his right to bring up the PRA issue and will lose. All I have to ask David is proof of claim. Daivid, you never did answer my post where I asked you to provide the citation of court cases where you have made the claim the PRA has lost. Again check the link above where you made that claim.

Lindsey is no dummy and has it together. Like I keep saying watch and listen and we all may learn something. Quit making unfounded claims or provide proof.

[dawgwise]

I don't want to remove any thoughts of Lindsey Springer's actions, however I want to bring to light a prior instance where someone filed a 1040 along with the PRA challenge and the DOJ walked...

Didn't William Lear, with his challenge of authority and Fed. Rules of Evidence 902, show that the IRS/Treasury used the alternate OMB form 83-1 not requiring any citation of statutory or regulatory authority making the 1040 a PROPOSED form, under 5 CFR 1320.9 reserved for proposed forms, rather than a certified form by use of form 83?

Didn't Mr. Lear file and sign a 1040 "under duress" but not submit the payment?
Didn't the DOJ "walk" from Lear?

I know the circumstances are not the same for Lear and Springer but Lear did sign a 1040 and further prosecution was halted, as far as I know.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Daivid Merrill makes 2 assumptions here and here. The first assumption is that their are citations where the current PRA of 1995 has lost. The second assumption is that Lindsey Springer has signed a "1040" tax return and has waived his right to bring up the PRA issue and will lose. All I have to ask David is proof of claim. Daivid, you never did answer my post where I asked you to provide the citation of court cases where you have made the claim the PRA has lost. Again check the link above where you made that claim.

Lindsey is no dummy and has it together. Like I keep saying watch and listen and we all may learn something. Quit making unfounded claims or provide proof.

From another thread:

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Why are you assuming that Lindsey filed a "1040?" Did he? You need to get your facts straight before you start making statements like that one.

I don't need to prove anything. You are telling me somebody got into tax court without signing a 1040 Form? That never happens. When one signs the 1040 Form they basically assign themselves in that name to be collection agent for the man or woman in the future. That is the essence of Voluntary Compliance - the IRS is expecting the Taxpayer to make the initial assessment of liability. That signature on a 1040 Form with the SSN identifies the signing party to be the Taxpayer. Period.

The 1040 Form has for who-knows-how-long had a notification about the PRA at the bottom of Page 1:

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

The first assumption is that their [sic] are citations where the current PRA of 1995 has lost.

Nope. I have not made that presumption. I think the Reader can simply discern that is not the issue. There is a list of citations where the PRA has lost. And you are following one such case now. It has lost and is in appeal.

I am not bothering to keep track of the names on these cases. I am simply counting. What you call a major victory is the DOJ mysteriously dismissing a case. The DOJ backed off so abruptly that even skeptics like Demosthenes on Quatloos were puzzled:

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...=asc&s tart=0

In Demo's ponderings to other Quatlosers she revealed some of the paperwork behind the dismissal to be about the OMB# used on IRS Form. I recognized that from research some folks did over a decade ago at the Federal Register, tracking the Delegation of Authority (unsigned) for enforcement power to the IRS.

The subsequent failure of the OMB# argument proves to me that the initial success was misconstrued by misdirection to be that the tax court is utilizing the earlier PRA instead of the current PRA. My assertion is that people are falling for that Red Herring instead of keeping the real nerve the OMB# touched upon with the DOJ/Treasury/IRS.

Lindsey is no dummy and has it together. Like I keep saying watch and listen and we all may learn something. Quit making unfounded claims or provide proof.

I believe that the Readers can easily discern what is going on by my posts and the other posts that are self-explanatory. Your sensitivity to the matter simply tells me that you are hoping for the metaphysics of prayer to make the failing appeal succeed. For instance we both agree that time will tell. When the appeal fails then maybe it will be appealed again. And so on until the Supreme Court exhausts the appeals. And if people buy that there is hope in whether or not the defendant waived the PRA of 1980 or 1995 then the DOJ may well be able to initiate new criminal cases soon:

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...=asc&s tart=0

But like you say, we will know soon so please don't let my stance upset you. I need not know the details you want me to research to maintain my perspective. The proof is right there at the bottom of Page 1 on the 1040 Form. The PRA argument is bogus and a Red Herring to misdirect people's attention from the important aspect of the OMB# argument. Of course Demosthenes may have been distributing counterintelligence pondering about the dismissal but I just don't give her that kind of skill level. Maybe if I would have been writing and heckling there but it had been a few weeks and she was genuinely writing to her fellow Quatlosers without seeming to think about me reading her thread.

When the PRA argument you are talking about fails appeal I will have all the proof I need. Because the defendant has signed a 1040 Form it already has failed appeal, you just do not believe that yet.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by dawgwise

I don't want to remove any thoughts of Lindsey Springer's actions, however I want to bring to light a prior instance where someone filed a 1040 along with the PRA challenge and the DOJ walked...

Didn't William Lear, with his challenge of authority and Fed. Rules of Evidence 902, show that the IRS/Treasury used the alternate OMB form 83-1 not requiring any citation of statutory or regulatory authority making the 1040 a PROPOSED form, under 5 CFR 1320.9 reserved for proposed forms, rather than a certified form by use of form 83?

Didn't Mr. Lear file and sign a 1040 "under duress" but not submit the payment?
Didn't the DOJ "walk" from Lear?

I know the circumstances are not the same for Lear and Springer but Lear did sign a 1040 and further prosecution was halted, as far as I know.

DW,

Lear was accused of parole violations for NOT filing a "1040," which was a condition of his parloe. The case was dismissed because of documents filed with the court, one of which was regarding the PRA. We has spoken with Rose Lear and she told us that Lindsey Springer's docs are the ones that should be used. I also believe that MRG made a post regarding the Lear's as well, but cannot remember exactly where.

[freeindeed]

David I bring your attention to the following quote from you:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Exactly. The PRA arguement [sic] is the same as it ever was. It fails and the citation on that are as long as any attorney's arm.

Did you not make the above claim? Prove it!!

If Lindsey filed a "1040" so what. The "1040" is bootleg and people have been lied to. The collection of information must have the notice that "a person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a control number which is valid," which is not on the form. Being in the instruction booklet does not count, because the instruction booklet does not have to cmply with the PRA. The collection of infomation does, however.

You continue to make assumptions without proof. You make statements that people lose and will continue to lose using the PRA. You know nothing of the issues that Springer has brought up in his appeal, but you claim he will lose.

You are correct about one thing and that is time will tell. The IRS has committed fraud and continues to do so and is evidenced by their use of the PRA in their revenue ruling of April 10, 2006.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

There is a list of citations where the PRA has lost.

There you go again. What citations are you referring too? Please provide them for all to see. Are they regarding the instructions or the "1040" itself? Please David share with us what you know. You keep saying there is a long list of citations. What citations? Can you provide them or not or is it another assumption, presumtion on your part?

I do not care what Demosthenes on Quatlooser says. You seem to be obsessed with what the Quatloosers say. They are part of the disinformation squad.

The fact is the PRA is a "complete defense, bar, or otherwise" against filing bootleg forms which is what the "1040 tax return" is. Congress removed any assumption or presumption the IRS is exempt. They must follow the PRA regarding collection of information and they are not. PERIOD!!!!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Dawgwise

Didn't Mr. Lear file and sign a 1040 "under duress" but not submit the payment? Didn't the DOJ "walk" from Lear?

There you have it. If that detail is true that is key to understanding what I am saying about Voluntary Compliance and waiver. Submitting the payment is agreement (consideration) to the contract terms and a signature under duress is faulty at best!

Freeindeed; your persistence on the issue aside from announcing news about the appeal is just supporting my point about the counterintelligence tactic of the Treasury I believe you and several others have fallen for since the dismissal.

When may we expect to hear about the appeal?


Regards,

David Merrill.

There you go again. What citations are you referring too? Please provide them for all to see. Are they regarding the instructions or the "1040" itself?

P.S. I already have by link to Quatloos. And you yourself are speaking about one such failure yourself, now in appeal. Just cite that case if you want the Readers to have citations.

http://www.quatloos.com/

Your promising case is their headliner and they have brought to light two or three other PRA failures since the Dismissal! The way it works is that attorneys (at DOJ) Shepardize these PRA failures into that figurative list as long as any attorney's arm. This stare decisis is used to convince any federal tax judge because he is just a Treasury agent anyway.

This quotation by the Wall Street Journal is appropriate to Demosthenes putting her foot in her mouth:

By exposing tax-scam artists, she also has revealed Internal Revenue Service shortcomings.

Demosthenes inadvertantly revealed the real nerve the Dismissal touched on about the Delegation of Authority of the Treasury to the Commissioner of the IRS.

[freeindeed]

David please read my responses in red below.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Freeindeed; your persistence on the issue aside from announcing news about the appeal is just supporting my point about the counterintelligence tactic of the Treasury I believe you and several others have fallen for since the dismissal.

When may we expect to hear about the appeal? Unfortunately, I have no control over that. When Lindsey has it done and filed he will post it. When that happens I will let you know. I know some of which he putting in it, but I will not presume to know all that he will include, so I will not speculate. He has a very good chance of winning and my belief is based on what took place in 2 different courts in the same building, one being his case that was dismissed. If you read his case closely you will see saome of the flaws in that dismissal. That is all I will say until it is posted.


Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. I already have by link to Quatloos. And you yourself are speaking about one such failure yourself, now in appeal. Lindsey's case is not a failure until all appeals have been exhuasted. The "judge" in his case shot herself with the ruling, IMO. Lindsey is putting a taped conference call up on his website when it is ready. He explains in that call what happend and why, I believe, the ruling will be overtuned. If you had read the case you would see the problems I see, as they stick out like a sore thumb. Just MHO.

You still have not provided the other cases you say were lost. If you are talking about the Blackstock case that was not the main issue. Remember there can be no other issues before the court or you risk losing. The case was lost for other reasons. If you are talking the Texas case I think I have already explained that it was a very weak attempt at the PRA defense and it was a motion to quash the indictment. It did not make it into the court as evidence at trial, therefore the jury could not hear it. Like I said provide a case where the PRA was correctly used and lost, not including Springer's becasue it is not over yet. So you see you have no proof. Until you do quit making assumptions. Just cite that case if you want the Readers to have citations.

[PANICPASS]

The "judge" in his case shot herself with the ruling, IMO. Lindsey is putting a taped conference call up on his website when it is ready. He explains in that call what happend and why, I believe, the ruling will be overtuned. If you had read the case you would see the problems I see, as they stick out like a sore thumb. Just MHO.

The judge didn't shoot herself with the ruling. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing. There is nothing to explain what happened in the ruling other than the fact that nothing the judge said was the truth. Who cares about opinions? What Linsdey wanted to hear was the truth and what he got was opinions. The problem with the ruling is that there was no truth in it- NONE AT ALL. That was done for a reason.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

The "judge" in his case shot herself with the ruling, IMO. Lindsey is putting a taped conference call up on his website when it is ready. He explains in that call what happend and why, I believe, the ruling will be overtuned. If you had read the case you would see the problems I see, as they stick out like a sore thumb. Just MHO.

The judge didn't shoot herself with the ruling. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing. There is nothing to explain what happened in the ruling other than the fact that nothing the judge said was the truth. Who cares about opinions? What Linsdey wanted to hear was the truth and what he got was opinions. The problem with the ruling is that there was no truth in it- NONE AT ALL. That was done for a reason.

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