Re: IRS "systemic error department"
- Monday 18 April 2011
Life is not fair... Most people accept that.
The IRS is not fair. It still amazes so many.
One cannot have it both ways with the
defacto puppet government and the IMF's
much stronger collection arm.
Get out of the system.
"But that is not easy!"
Fighting the IRS is easier? [Rhetorical]
Create alternative ways of exchanging
labor outside of tax forms, and stop
creating a signed contract with the
"But that would require a whole change
of life style!"
Then remain a 14th Amendment citizen
and stop complaining.
Complaining is a waste of time. Do
something about it or move on.
- On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:57:21 -0400, "dave" <dwissel@...> wrote:
> Maybe Larry or Tommy Cryer? Google "Minns IRS" but most of the time heYou are wasting your time with that bunch. The only solution in their mind
> won't respond.
In the mean time wait until you are criminally indicted and contact them
for your criminal
defense rate schedule.
> Them: You want to negotiate with the IRS.not take them on. You're
> like a tax protestor and the IRS seeks retribution on tax protestors.Now,
> do you want us to file all your past tax returns?This why they run from me when they read my felony criminal complaint.
They won't even recognize having
received it let alone discuss the merits of it.
Once they have been put on NOTICE of the criminal nature of the IRS, they
can no longer ethically recommend you
file your returns since that would make them "accessories after the fact"
to criminal activity.
- Re:From: dave <dwissel@...>"Maybe Larry or Tommy Cryer? Google "Minns IRS" but most of the time he won't respond."They won't help you. You have to do it on your own. I recommend studying the materials available at www.1215.org. Videos of a seminar giving by the author of that site are available on YouTube. You may also learn a thing or two about the aforementioned attorneys and a few other "gurus"."Them: You want to negotiate with the IRS.not take them on. You're sounding like a tax protestor and the IRS seeks retribution on tax protestors (sic)."Yes, in violation of Pub. L. 105-206, Title III, Sec. 3707, July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 778."FOLKS2: An IRS manager flat out told me, 'Mr XXX, the courts are on OUR side.'"This is true in light of 5 USC § 556 Administrative Review. Read this carefully and understand the implications relating to § 553. If understanding the implications of § 553 are not enough, I recommend studying the materials available at http://www.supremelaw.org/ (thanks, frog farmer) regarding the jurisdiction and Summary Judgement in District Courts.Understanding Dr. Edwardo Rivera's arguments will help you understand District Courts as well. See: http://www.edrivera.com/. You don't need to pay for his course in order to study his concepts. The Organic Law is available at the GPO. You can get it for free. There are also audio recordings of his interview on a radio show on another site.You can fight while gathering evidence of the fraud and file a Complaint. You can file an Appeal for Review de novo, pursuant to 5 USC §§ 702-706.I recommend Jurisdictionary to help you learn to write your Pleadings.Participating in this fight is not for the weak at heart. Expect to loose sleep and study a lot. I hope you have a lot of time available for your studies and you like to read law. Remember anything you say can be used against you. The same concept applies to the other side. Can you get the other side to make commitments in writing? If not, what are you going to use as evidence?Other than that, have fun with it and put on a good show (these are actors, you know).MichaelNotice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.
Daniel Quackenbush wrote without support or authority, in apparent opposition to my quote from Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123, 159-60 (1908), and in a seeming attempt to discredit me, wrote, “This is not how the law is interpreted nowadays. We have absolute immunity for judges and prosecutors, and qualified immunity of police (and in some instances, prosecutors only have qualified immunity).” I asked, “Daniel: In support for your allegation, please cite a Supreme Court decision defining qualified immunity and post that definition here. Thank you, Bear” to which so far he has not replied. So, since Daniel has not replied, I spent 2 minutes finding these quotes, which seem to say that Daniel does not understand what “qualified immunity” is or how it works:
“Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury . . . ." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 815 - Supreme Court 1982.
“We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 815, 818 - Supreme Court 1982.
To my way of thinking, this is saying that qualified immunity works the same way as described in the quote I posted from Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123, 159-60 (1908).
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
My blog: legalbearsblog.com
Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com
(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)
> "Characteristically the Court has defined these elements byI used to carry preprinted constructive notices that I used to inform
> identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be
> available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we
> have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official
> "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within
> his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional
> rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious
> intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other
> injury . . . ." Harlow v. Fitzgerald
the people that I used to believe were public servants. They worked a
couple of times to get them to leave me alone. Once one got one after
helping me push a stalled unregistered car I had been traveling in (with
no DL) out of an intersection. He had begun to ask for the Big Three
but got it shoved in his face before he could finish. He handed it back
with a "have a nice day!" and he drove away.
> "We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionaryReasonable people can't avoid knowing when you give them Constructive
> functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages
> insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
> statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
> have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald
Notice in writing.