Legal Bear

[Nikki]

You missed my point:

It would be so easy to just verify that the OMB# behind the PRA tracks through the federal register back to Title 26 - The Internal Revenue Code. Knowing Wesley, he has already done that and now hopes you can run interference in time for this not getting to SPRINGER to utilize in appeal.


Regards,

David Merrill.

You just changed your point. Up until a few minutes ago, the OMB number tracked back to ATF. Now, it's buried somewhere in 26USC via the Federal Register.

We don't believe you. If you have some knowledge regarding a relation between 26USC and the OMB number, post it. Otherwise, you are again caught in another of your lies.

[David Merrill]

You missed my point:

It would be so easy to just verify that the OMB# behind the PRA tracks through the federal register back to Title 26 - The Internal Revenue Code. Knowing Wesley, he has already done that and now hopes you can run interference in time for this not getting to SPRINGER to utilize in appeal.


Regards,

David Merrill.

You just changed your point. Up until a few minutes ago, the OMB number tracked back to ATF. Now, it's buried somewhere in 26USC via the Federal Register.

We don't believe you. If you have some knowledge regarding a relation between 26USC and the OMB number, post it. Otherwise, you are again caught in another of your lies.

Big problem there Nikki;


You are not Wesley SERRA. You should quit speaking for him if you expect me to be listening.

[Nikki]

We expect you to listen no matter who's speaking.

We have long since passed expecting you to hear anything.

[notorial dissent]

And let's not forget comprehend! The really important part.

[David Merrill]

Interestingly Legal Bear (Barry SMITH) promoted Robert LAWRENCE after the DoJ became discouraged and withdrew their prosecution. LAWRENCE proceeded to appeal anyway and felt he had lost that (nonsensical) appeal.

Not exactly, David.

A dismissal is not appealable, even if someone wanted to appeal it. Lawrence sought costs and attorney's fees under the Hyde Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 3006A). He lost in the District Court. That was the order he appealed. And he didn't "feel" that he lost the appeal, he did lose the appeal.

However the appeal revealed to LAWRENCE and Lindsey SPRINGER too, their mistakes and assumptions.

Which 2007 lesson is, of course, why Springer is facing jail in 2010.

However Lindsey SPRINGER was set his erroneous presumption was correct, when he was already set straight through observing LAWRENCE he was wrong. With dire results I might add.

Perhaps you might rephrase that, this time in English.

They were so close to unraveling the OMB # Fiasco - (that all the OMB #s get validity from Title 27 U.S.C.) that it is infuriating to watch SPRINGER flush himself down the toilet.

Unfortunately, David, as the Seventh Circuit said in Lawrence's Hyde Amendment appeal, there is no validity to the "OMB # Fiasco":

Lawrence’s brief represents an attempt to prove that the PRA could present a valid defense to the criminal charges. Yet Lawrence conceded at oral argument that no case from this circuit establishes such a proposition, and in fact Lawrence cites to no caselaw from any jurisdiction that so holds. In contrast, the government referenced numerous cases supporting its position that the PRA does not present a defense to a criminal action for failure to file income taxes, including: Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991); and United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990). Nor is the correctness of Lawrence’s position evident from the language of the PRA itself. Lawrence provides no explanation for how government conduct can be vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith when there is no law contrary to it.

LAWRENCE in his appeal says a fatal presumption at the 5:37 Minute Mark:

He actually made a fatal error long before that. He filed a notice of appeal.

Albeit sophistry - Wesley was talking up a storm before I started getting to the basis of the authority for the PRA. The beauty of this is it circumnavigates SPRINGER's error as well as LAWRENCE's since the OMB # has never related to Title 26 - 1980 or 1995.

Neither one of you explains why Wserra has suddenly gone silent. As well proven neither one of you should explain for Wesley - I have quoted him chatting up a storm over issues he knows wont emberrass him.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Thule]

Neither one of you explains why Wserra has suddenly gone silent.

Um, perhaps because it is christmas eve and he has better things to do than help you research your claims.

[David Merrill]

Perhaps - the presumption is that I did not check the federal register years ago before Robert LAWRENCE was lecturing in Denver.

[Nikki]

When one spins tales from thin air, it is advisable to maintain some degree of consistency:

…
They were so close to unraveling the OMB # Fiasco - (that all the OMB #s get validity from Title 27 U.S.C.) that it is infuriating to watch SPRINGER flush himself down the toilet.

… That was my point that the circuit justices never addressed the OMB# Fiasco because both SPRINGER and LAWRENCE could not see it to present. The DoJ dismissed because they were getting too close to revealing that the authority behind the OMB#s used for Title 26 is found through Title 27 - Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The source of authority for the OMB# behind the PRA tracks back through the federal register to Title 27 of the United States Code. That is whether you utilize the 1980 PRA or the 1995 PRA. Alcohol, tobacco and firearms! Not Income Tax (Title 26).
…

…
It would be so easy to just verify that the OMB# behind the PRA tracks through the federal register back to Title 26 - The Internal Revenue Code. Knowing Wesley, he has already done that and now hopes you can run interference in time for this not getting to SPRINGER to utilize in appeal.

… Albeit sophistry - Wesley was talking up a storm before I started getting to the basis of the authority for the PRA. The beauty of this is it circumnavigates SPRINGER's error as well as LAWRENCE's since the OMB # has never related to Title 26 - 1980 or 1995.

Clearly, on Planet Merrill, the relationship between the OMB # and the Form 1040 is based on the Federal Register, 26USC, 27USC, all of the above or none of the above.

David assumes, as usual, that if he spews enough word salad, someone will eventually believe he has some nowledge of his subject matter.

Unfortunately, David is totally ignoring the actual statutes related to the OMB numbering and After all, the requirement to file a tax return is predicated on attaining a certain level of income which David hasn't seen in quite a few years -- irrespective of his mumbo-jumbo endorsements on his welfare checks.

[David Merrill]

When one spins tales from thin air, it is advisable to maintain some degree of consistency:

…
They were so close to unraveling the OMB # Fiasco - (that all the OMB #s get validity from Title 27 U.S.C.) that it is infuriating to watch SPRINGER flush himself down the toilet.

… That was my point that the circuit justices never addressed the OMB# Fiasco because both SPRINGER and LAWRENCE could not see it to present. The DoJ dismissed because they were getting too close to revealing that the authority behind the OMB#s used for Title 26 is found through Title 27 - Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The source of authority for the OMB# behind the PRA tracks back through the federal register to Title 27 of the United States Code. That is whether you utilize the 1980 PRA or the 1995 PRA. Alcohol, tobacco and firearms! Not Income Tax (Title 26).
…

…
It would be so easy to just verify that the OMB# behind the PRA tracks through the federal register back to Title 26 - The Internal Revenue Code. Knowing Wesley, he has already done that and now hopes you can run interference in time for this not getting to SPRINGER to utilize in appeal.

… Albeit sophistry - Wesley was talking up a storm before I started getting to the basis of the authority for the PRA. The beauty of this is it circumnavigates SPRINGER's error as well as LAWRENCE's since the OMB # has never related to Title 26 - 1980 or 1995.

Clearly, on Planet Merrill, the relationship between the OMB # and the Form 1040 is based on the Federal Register, 26USC, 27USC, all of the above or none of the above.

David assumes, as usual, that if he spews enough word salad, someone will eventually believe he has some nowledge of his subject matter.

Unfortunately, David is totally ignoring the actual statutes related to the OMB numbering and After all, the requirement to file a tax return is predicated on attaining a certain level of income which David hasn't seen in quite a few years -- irrespective of his mumbo-jumbo endorsements on his welfare checks.

Thank you for collating the question to Wserra;

There is a statute that says that the authority for the OMB# can be derived from Title 27? That would be pretty cool to read. Where is that? Title 26?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

See? That is what I thought Nikki;


You are not a trained attorney.


Did Wesley, the trained attorney suggest you try that? Did he PM you to try diverting me from the question? To simplify:

Does the PRA in essence (regardless 1980 or 1995) derive authority by OMB # through the federal register from Title 26 or from Title 27?

That is the part you don't quite get, Nikki. We know Wesley's credentials around here as a trained attorney. And he likes to jumble my posts, as you do like his sock-puppet, being a bit verbous about that - all the while, when I ask pointedly, he goes silent.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

all the while, when I ask pointedly, he goes silent.

Well, I see I last posted at about 6 AM on Thursday, Christmas Eve. I was in the office until about 1:30 PM, when we closed up shop. On my way home, I stopped at the store to pick up a few final supplies for Christmas dinner. I then went home, walked the dog, helped my younger daughter wrap presents, played backgammon with my older daughter, ate dinner (the fancy one is Christmas day, though), watched the latest Harry Potter movie (on and off, I'm not really a fan) with my family, then went to bed. I just finished doing the Santa thing. The kids (especially the teenage one) won't be up for a while, even on Christmas.

So I haven't exactly been "silent", you see. And you need to develop modes of interaction with family members that don't result in an order of protection.

Does the PRA in essence (regardless 1980 or 1995) derive authority by OMB # through the federal register from Title 26 or from Title 27?

Well, neither. The PRA "derives authority" (I'm not sure what that means in the case of a statute, but I use your phrase) from Congress, specifically in 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq (that's Title 44). The authority of the OMB Director to promulgate regs derives from 44 U.S.C. 3516 (that's also Title 44).

If this isn't what you mean, perhaps you could rephrase. And don't expect an answer right away. It is Christmas, and once the kids get up, I have better things to do.

Merry Christmas, everybody.

[David Merrill]

Thank you Wesley - Merry Christmas.

I will process that.

P.S. I hope it is clear that I meant Wserra went silent to my question. He was silent in addressing my question until now.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... lidity.wav

It may have to wait a day or two as my directory is rather large on LAWRENCE. It is better for me to just get down to the federal repository for the information. At this time I have found from Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 244 /Wednesday, December 20, 2006 /Notices:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB Control Number.

The current 1040 form utilizes OMB No. 1545-0074 for authority and validity.

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

Here is another example of convoluted argument:

http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta04001.htm

The author there understands that the #0074 is incorrect and finds an association with foreign earned taxable income but does not track the OMB # on the form, but rather follows the juxtaposition off into nonsense. As opposed to the logical argument - Why would the Treasury be presenting the #0074 as a valid number?

This is because they never thought to look in Title 27 - Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Or rather C.F.R. 27.

I found something interesting from another camp - Irwin SHIFF:

It shows that the implementing regulation for this statute is in C.F.R. 27, and that there are no implementing regulations for section 7401 in C.F.R. 26. Therefore, 26 USC 7401 can obviously only apply to those taxes (such as liquor, tobacco, and firearms) that are implemented in 27 CFR, which does not include income taxes, for which implementing regulations are contained in CFR 26 and not C.F.R. 27.(footnote)

(footnote) The fact the earlier in this litigation, the Government’s attorneys stated that they had received valid authorization from the Secretary and Attorney General to commence this lawsuit means that somebody is lying. It is clear from the absence of any implementing regulation in C.F.R. 26 for 26 U.S.C. 7401, that the Government’s attorneys could not have received any valid authority from the Secretary and Attorney General to commence this lawsuit.

From: http://www.paynoincometax.com/pdf/liability.pdf

But children; it will have to wait until after Christmas for Santa David Merrill to unravel why we find equal access by Google to the same document:

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-regs/td8655.txt

while searching 27 CFR 1545-0074 as when we search for 26 CFR 1545-0074. Meanwhile try it for yourselves.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

In case anyone is curious as to the basis of the OMB numbers, I suggest that they visit the OMB site and request Current Inventory for the Department of the Treasury.

They will find an extensive list of all information collection documents with current OMB numbers. A search for "1545-0074" will reveal an extensive list of documents associated with "U.S. Individual Income Tax Return."

Some might find it interesting that there is absolutely no reference to any section of the U. S. Code. Most will, however, realize that the OMB numbers are arbitrarily assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

The opinions of Irwin Schiff {not SHIFF -- another example of sloppy research} and the author of http://www.tax-freedom.com are incorrect and irrelevant.

In fact, the cited DEFENANT’S [sic] REPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, SINCE DEFENDANT IS NOT ‘LIABLE” FOR THE TAXES AT ISSUE from Irwin Schiff is interesting since Mr. Schiff LOST the case at issue, irrespective of his in-depth analysis of the law.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I... interesting since Mr. Schiff LOST the case at issue, irrespective of his in-depth urinalysis of the law.

There, fixed that for you.

Merry Christmas!

[David Merrill]

SCHIFF likely never got his thoughts through to the court. I just happened across his name. He likely endorsed private credit from the Fed and that would get him in a position where he couldn't argue effectively anyway.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAVie ... 4-1545-074#

Some might find it interesting that there is absolutely no reference to any section of the U. S. Code.

Hold that thought Nikki...

[Nikki]

SCHIFF likely never got his thoughts through to the court. I just happened across his name. He likely endorsed private credit from the Fed* and that would get him in a position where he couldn't argue effectively anyway.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAVie ... 4-1545-074#
Is there some point to the referenced hyperlink?

Some might find it interesting that there is absolutely no reference to any section of the U. S. Code.

Hold that thought Nikki...

* And we now return to Planet Merrill where the taxability of income can be negated by writing mystic runes on the back of a check.

[David Merrill]

In case anyone is curious as to the basis of the OMB numbers, I suggest that they visit the OMB site and request Current Inventory for the Department of the Treasury.

They will find an extensive list of all information collection documents with current OMB numbers. A search for "1545-0074" will reveal an extensive list of documents associated with "U.S. Individual Income Tax Return."

Some might find it interesting that there is absolutely no reference to any section of the U. S. Code. Most will, however, realize that the OMB numbers are arbitrarily assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

The opinions of Irwin Schiff {not SHIFF -- another example of sloppy research} and the author of http://www.tax-freedom.com are incorrect and irrelevant.

In fact, the cited DEFENANT’S [sic] REPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, SINCE DEFENDANT IS NOT ‘LIABLE” FOR THE TAXES AT ISSUE from Irwin Schiff is interesting since Mr. Schiff LOST the case at issue, irrespective of his in-depth analysis of the law.

Indeed!! Thank you Nikki. I don't need to get down to the federal repository to prove this out after all.

http://0-edocket.access.gpo.gov.library ... r70.96.pdf

You got me looking through the LAWRENCE directory and I found a photo of it.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Thule]

Indeed!! Thank you Nikki. I don't need to get down to the federal repository to prove this out after all.

http://0-edocket.access.gpo.gov.library ... r70.96.pdf

You got me looking through the LAWRENCE directory and I found a photo of it.

Um. Photo of what? What's this supposed to prove? Seriously.

[David Merrill]

I found a photo of that in my computer and used the number to find the current link with the C.F.R.

It proves my point. It was years ago so I was not sure what I was looking for. But Nikki hit it for me! The authority goes before the OMB and they just assign a number. And it has been the same number since the PRA of 1980 so it would be the reason the DoJ backed off the LAWRENCE prosecution. Bingo!!

Thanks again Nikki.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Thule]

It proves my point.

Yeah, but what was your point?