PRA showdown

[weishaupt1776]

Alright Guys and Gals, I will be watching this more closely. I know who you are and you know who you are

No sh!t slinging. Let's stay focused on the big three

Facts

Law

Procedure

If any posts deviate from this, they will be deleted

If anyone insinuates, insults, or posts childish digs, they will be warned. 3 warnings overall, even outside of this topic area shall constitute a recommendation for being banned

[weishaupt1776]

Let the PRA showdown begin !

Here is the bloody history
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/succes...-movement.html
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...-part-2-a.html
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...continued.html

[David Merrill]

There was a mysterious DOJ Dismissal (Lawrence case) in a criminal case and Demosthenes wrote about it on Quatloos. - http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...888&postdays=0

http://www.deathandtaxes.com/bio.htm
http://www.americansovereign.com/new...ber/sleuth.htm

It caught my attention because Demosthenes quoted documentation from the case that mentioned arguments about the OMB# on IRS Forms. Reading through I remembered details about an investigation over a decade ago relating OMB#s and the unsigned Delegation of Authority. So I joined in on the Quatloos thread and when I began prodding some nerves there, the thread was shut down.

Somebody here was reading the DOJ press releases and noted a dramatic decline in posted new criminal cases that corresponded with the Dismissal:

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...172&postdays=0

While writing there I noticed that people kept bringing in a PRA argument. This did not fit in well with the scenario as I understood it and the idea that a PRA argument caused the Dismissal was ridiculed on Quatloos. I started getting wind of a second case that lost in the trial court (Springer case) and Demosthenes and other Quatlosers really got a kick out of how many cases have lost on PRA arguments.

Then I started listening a little and the argument is that the PRA from 1995 has superseded the PRA of 1980. That is the argument that lost in the trial court and is now in appeal. However the only pertinent PRA noted on the 1040 Form and instructions is the PRA of 1980, supported by some points brought up on the other related threads.

We have our opinions and some believe that Springer following what Lawrence thought was the reason behind the Dismissal was a good idea. However that lost in the trial court and some people are sensitive to the idea that the appeal stands even less of a chance of success.

Weishaupt is probably getting prodded into getting involved and is responding the best way he can. People cannot have such diametrically opposed views as Suijuris and Quatloos without some fireworks. - http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/p...ewprofile&u=56 Demosthenes has a widely renowned reputation for snuggling up to people all friendly and then turning her non-cop investigations over to the IRS for investigation. Her non-cop status giving her access to techniques that would come under scrutiny if done by official police officers.

So Weishaupt is out of line regulating people like this. He needs to be moderated as a moderator. And people who are getting upset with Demosthenes, just lighten up a bit. Quit spending so much time responding to her jabs, especially if you think that she is wasting people's time anyway.

And if you don't like my presumptions then understand they are made because the PRA argument is not worth investigation. I see what is happening in contract law within both a civil and criminal forum on the 1040 Form and Page 78 of the Instructions:

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

So quit complaining to Weishaupt about my presumptions. Everybody can see I am making them so quit wasting posts complaining about it. I am also presuming that Springer signed a 1040 Form.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[dawgwise]

"I am also presuming that Springer signed a 1040 Form."
David Merrill

For clarification - are you David presuming that he, Mr. Springer, sometime in his life signed a 1040 form and that effects the current time - OR - are you presuming that he filed a 1040 form for the year or years in question today?

[Backbone]

David
In your rendition of your personal understanding of the PRA/OMB issue, you neglected to give your understanding or impression of the William Lear of Muskegon Michigan case. You need to add this one to your synopsis.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

There was a mysterious DOJ Dismissal (Lawrence case) in a criminal case and Demosthenes wrote about it on Quatloos. - http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...888&postdays=0

http://www.deathandtaxes.com/bio.htm
http://www.americansovereign.com/new...ber/sleuth.htm

It caught my attention because Demosthenes quoted documentation from the case that mentioned arguments about the OMB# on IRS Forms. Reading through I remembered details about an investigation over a decade ago relating OMB#s and the unsigned Delegation of Authority. So I joined in on the Quatloos thread and when I began prodding some nerves there, the thread was shut down.

Somebody here was reading the DOJ press releases and noted a dramatic decline in posted new criminal cases that corresponded with the Dismissal:

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...172&postdays=0

While writing there I noticed that people kept bringing in a PRA argument. This did not fit in well with the scenario as I understood it and the idea that a PRA argument caused the Dismissal was ridiculed on Quatloos. I started getting wind of a second case that lost in the trial court (Springer case) and Demosthenes and other Quatlosers really got a kick out of how many cases have lost on PRA arguments.

Then I started listening a little and the argument is that the PRA from 1995 has superseded the PRA of 1980. That is the argument that lost in the trial court and is now in appeal. However the only pertinent PRA noted on the 1040 Form and instructions is the PRA of 1980, supported by some points brought up on the other related threads.

We have our opinions and some believe that Springer following what Lawrence thought was the reason behind the Dismissal was a good idea. However that lost in the trial court and some people are sensitive to the idea that the appeal stands even less of a chance of success.

Weishaupt is probably getting prodded into getting involved and is responding the best way he can. People cannot have such diametrically opposed views as Suijuris and Quatloos without some fireworks. - http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/p...ewprofile&u=56 Demosthenes has a widely renowned reputation for snuggling up to people all friendly and then turning her non-cop investigations over to the IRS for investigation. Her non-cop status giving her access to techniques that would come under scrutiny if done by official police officers.

So Weishaupt is out of line regulating people like this. He needs to be moderated as a moderator. And people who are getting upset with Demosthenes, just lighten up a bit. Quit spending so much time responding to her jabs, especially if you think that she is wasting people's time anyway.

And if you don't like my presumptions then understand they are made because the PRA argument is not worth investigation. I see what is happening in contract law within both a civil and criminal forum on the 1040 Form and Page 78 of the Instructions:

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

So quit complaining to Weishaupt about my presumptions. Everybody can see I am making them so quit wasting posts complaining about it. I am also presuming that Springer signed a 1040 Form.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by dawgwise

"I am also presuming that Springer signed a 1040 Form."
David Merrill

For clarification - are you David presuming that he, Mr. Springer, sometime in his life signed a 1040 form and that effects the current time - OR - are you presuming that he filed a 1040 form for the year or years in question today?

I am presuming that what I heard, I think here, is true. Lindsay Springer signed a 1040 Form for the timeframe covered in the civil suit he lost in the trial court. That is my presumption - that what I heard is true.

However I believe that any 1040 Form where he admitted the form is valid upon its face with the same notice as found on the 2005 Form would be construed to mean he is waiving any arguments about the form being bootleg. Especially by a federal magistrate (municipal corporation officer).

In your rendition of your personal understanding of the PRA/OMB issue, you neglected to give your understanding or impression of the William Lear of Muskegon Michigan case.

I made an comment about that?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

There is a legal requirement to use the official IRS forms and not some modification (like the Eugene May forms or some other version of a 1040 with changed headings), and, although there have been prosecutions and penalties for using the homebrew forms, there has not been a penalty imposed for the use of the IRS-issued 1040 (I mean punishment for choosing to use that form, as distinct from what was written or not written by the person using it). This is significant evidence that the IRS-issued 1040 is the legitimate form and not a bootleg.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

There is a legal requirement to use the official IRS forms and not some modification (like the Eugene May forms or some other version of a 1040 with changed headings), and, although there have been prosecutions and penalties for using the homebrew forms, there has not been a penalty imposed for the use of the IRS-issued 1040 (I mean punishment for choosing to use that form, as distinct from what was written or not written by the person using it). This is significant evidence that the IRS-issued 1040 is the legitimate form and not a bootleg.

Which begs the question (from David Merrill at least):

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

You must enter your SSN(s) above.

in the upper right hand corner of the Form 1040. Since there is nothing in the law (attached) requiring the Identification Number for the Taxpayer to be the Social Security Number, how is it that the Form can require under penalty of perjury that the Taxpayer supply his or her SSN?

That is of course a simpler version of the quandary that is getting people in hot debate between two camps; Quatlosers and Suijurisites. There are some who feel that if the Form is at all subject to the 1980 PRA then it is naturally subject to the subsequent legislation amending it in 1995.

Speaking for myself, if I have been involved in taxable events during the year that meet or exceed the minimum amount required that I file a Return, I will use any form that meets the requirements of a Return. If there are problems in the Form then I would simply provide the information that is Required to meet the requirements of a proper Return.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...rve_System.mp3
Public Money v. Private Credit

In other words Shoonra, I do not believe you. You may find quotations to support what you say and it will still have that Quatloser spin about it. For instance you might show me an implementation of the Public Law attached through the CFR which clearly tells us that the IRS will "term" the Identification Number "social security number" and that means the TIN is the SSN because the IRS/Treasury/DOJ and courts have "termed" it by the same spelling.

I say if the Form has legal requirements that are not in conformity with the law, then there are no legal requirements on its face worthy of me signing under the penalty of perjury. That sort of sophistry, saying the SSN is the TIN and vice versa renders the Form unsignable.

Applied to what I understand to be the events in the Lawrence and Springer trials that means that Lawrence was pulled into a prosecution where he thought that he was making a point about the PRA through the OMB#s on the Form. Being a criminal matter there was required to be a proper and lawful Delegation of Authority to enforce IRS actions on the Income Tax - which do not exist. I have seen copies of this delegation of authority and it was unsigned - therefore without lawful effect. So the DOJ backed down and dismissed all charges. Not only that there has been a dramatic decline in the amount of criminal tax cases filed in general:

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...888&postdays=0
http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...172&postdays=0

Subsequently Lindsay Springer became convinced that the PRA argument held merit and tried it in a civil case (according to Demosthenes' correction to me) and it failed in the trial court. The argument is basically that the Form fails to meet muster with the 1995 Amendments to the PRA (and some say even the 1980 original Act too). Well, that is all moot for the reason that the Taxpayer signs the form knowing so, or being expected to know so. The Notice is given to research the form on the bottom of Page 1 and it is clearly on Page 78 of the Instructions cited that the Form will be complying with the PRA of 1980, not 1995. People may or may not agree with me but the Taxpayer as agent of the IRS doing the initial assessment of tax liability (voluntary compliance) by signing is agreeing that the Form 1040 complies with the PRA of 1980 and therefore that is the only requirement. One cannot put the signature to the paper until one feels the Form is the proper form just as I could not fill in the Identifying Number required until after I had decided that number was the same sequence of numbers of "my" Social Security Number. [Which clearly belongs to a trust held in my custody by the Card. I simply lend the trust my consciousness and breath life into the trust by signing it and telling people it is "mine".]



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Shoonra cannot produce citations to support my theory. Nobody can. Should the process get through criminal trial with acquittal then it would be sealed. But careful attorneys they are, like with Lawrence, the DOJ will dismiss such a matter the moment they see the risks.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Which begs the question (from David Merrill at least):

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



in the upper right hand corner of the Form 1040. Since there is nothing in the law (attached) requiring the Identification Number for the Taxpayer to be the Social Security Number, how is it that the Form can require under penalty of perjury that the Taxpayer supply his or her SSN?

That is of course a simpler version of the quandary that is getting people in hot debate between two camps; Quatlosers and Suijurisites. There are some who feel that if the Form is at all subject to the 1980 PRA then it is naturally subject to the subsequent legislation amending it in 1995.

Speaking for myself, if I have been involved in taxable events during the year that meet or exceed the minimum amount required that I file a Return, I will use any form that meets the requirements of a Return. If there are problems in the Form then I would simply provide the information that is Required to meet the requirements of a proper Return.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...rve_System.mp3
Public Money v. Private Credit

In other words Shoonra, I do not believe you. You may find quotations to support what you say and it will still have that Quatloser spin about it. For instance you might show me an implementation of the Public Law attached through the CFR which clearly tells us that the IRS will "term" the Identification Number "social security number" and that means the TIN is the SSN because the IRS/Treasury/DOJ and courts have "termed" it by the same spelling.

I say if the Form has legal requirements that are not in conformity with the law, then there are no legal requirements on its face worthy of me signing under the penalty of perjury. That sort of sophistry, saying the SSN is the TIN and vice versa renders the Form unsignable.

Applied to what I understand to be the events in the Lawrence and Springer trials that means that Lawrence was pulled into a prosecution where he thought that he was making a point about the PRA through the OMB#s on the Form. Being a criminal matter there was required to be a proper and lawful Delegation of Authority to enforce IRS actions on the Income Tax - which do not exist. I have seen copies of this delegation of authority and it was unsigned - therefore without lawful effect. So the DOJ backed down and dismissed all charges. Not only that there has been a dramatic decline in the amount of criminal tax cases filed in general:

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...888&postdays=0
http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...172&postdays=0

Subsequently Lindsay Springer became convinced that the PRA argument held merit and tried it in a civil case (according to Demosthenes' correction to me) and it failed in the trial court. The argument is basically that the Form fails to meet muster with the 1995 Amendments to the PRA (and some say even the 1980 original Act too). Well, that is all moot for the reason that the Taxpayer signs the form knowing so, or being expected to know so. The Notice is given to research the form on the bottom of Page 1 and it is clearly on Page 78 of the Instructions cited that the Form will be complying with the PRA of 1980, not 1995. People may or may not agree with me but the Taxpayer as agent of the IRS doing the initial assessment of tax liability (voluntary compliance) by signing is agreeing that the Form 1040 complies with the PRA of 1980 and therefore that is the only requirement. One cannot put the signature to the paper until one feels the Form is the proper form just as I could not fill in the Identifying Number required until after I had decided that number was the same sequence of numbers of "my" Social Security Number. [Which clearly belongs to a trust held in my custody by the Card. I simply lend the trust my consciousness and breath life into the trust by signing it and telling people it is "mine".]



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Shoonra cannot produce citations to support my theory. Nobody can. Should the process get through criminal trial with acquittal then it would be sealed. But careful attorneys they are, like with Lawrence, the DOJ will dismiss such a matter the moment they see the risks.

Daivid, you just do not get it do you? Lindsey did not file his case because of the Lawrence case. Lindsey is the one that is the expert here on the PRA and was the one that put the defense together for Lawrence. The Lawrence had nothing to do with convincing Lindsey of anything.

I also want to keep reminding everyone that this is not about taxes. I guess I will have to keep saying that because most here do not get it, with the exception of DW, myself, and Backbone. IT IS NOT ABOUT TAXES IT IS ABOUT PENALTIES FOR FILING A BOOTLEG "1040" FORM, PERIOD.

I do not know how I can mke this any plainer. DM keeps making assumption after assumption and is incorrect. One of those assumptions is that there can be do PRA defenses if you have filed a form previously. It is about fraud David. If fraud is involved the contract is null and void from the beginning. People are being lied to and one of the lies is the Revenue Ruling of April 10, 2006. Shoonra posted the correct version in another thread we were dealing in at the time.

Just because someone has filed a "1040" form in the past or even the present does not mean one cannot use the PRA defense once known. There may be some question as to whether someone can use the defense after knowing and then using the form. The circumstances would have to be known in order to make that determination.

I am hoping to get deeper into the violations end of it in a later post. I will say that people need to understand this issue befor posting. I do not care who that angers either. The meaning of PRA is being convoluted when it is clearly speeled out in the law.

[David Merrill]

Daivid, you just do not get it do you? Lindsey did not file his case because of the Lawrence case. Lindsey is the one that is the expert here on the PRA and was the one that put the defense together for Lawrence. The Lawrence had nothing to do with convincing Lindsey of anything.

But then again, if I have it correct, Lindsey lost. The PRA argument failed in trial court. It doesn't matter who convinced who to try the PRA argument.

That adjusts the logic a little though. The possibility is that the PRA argument will only function in a criminal trial setting because it touches upon the OMB# fiasco. The Delegation of Authority for criminal enforcement is only relevant in a criminal trial.

So that is the next correlation for you to investigate folks. Of all the PRA failures what is the percentage of civil v. criminal?



http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/springer1.pdf

Notice the footnote on the bottom of Page 1.

Plaintiff argues that Form 1040 and its variations (1040A, 1040EZ, and 1040ES) do not have valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) numbers, in violation of the PRA.

Regards,

David Merrill.