September 2015 Ponzi Scheme Roundup

Posted by Kathy Bazoian Phelps

    Below is a summary of the activity reported for September 2015. The reported stories reflect: 5 guilty pleas or convictions in pending cases; over 51 years of newly imposed sentences for people involved in Ponzi schemes; at least 3 new Ponzi schemes; and an average age of approximately 52 for the alleged Ponzi schemers. Please feel free to post comments about these or other Ponzi schemes that I may have missed. And please remember that I am just relaying what’s in the news, not writing or verifying it.

    Roger Stanley Bliss, 57, pleaded guilty to charges relating to his attempt to hide a sailboat after he was accused of running a $25 million Ponzi scheme by representing that he was trading exclusively in the shares of Apple. Bliss is also facing charges that he operated an investment club that took in money from about 708 investors, promising returns of up to 300%.

    Charles L. Erickson, 72, was arrested and accused of running a $3.4 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded at least 8 victims. Erickson allegedly took money from fellow members of his Ashland church in Massachusetts, claiming that the Holy Spirit revealed an investment strategy to him.

    Gregory G. Jones resigned as a lawyer in lieu of discipline by the State Bar of Texas. Jones was the subject of a disciplinary proceeding for his role in advising clients to invest in Edwards Exploration LLC and Edwards Operating Co. LLC. Jones represented that he knew the principal of the companies, Spencer Edwards, and that he was familiar with the business ventures. But the businesses were actually running a Ponzi scheme.

    George Lindell, 67, and Holly Hoaeae, 40, were found guilty in connection with a Ponzi scheme called “The Parking Lot” in which 166 people invested over $26 million and lost a net amount of $8.9 million. The scheme was run in connection with the operation of their business, “The Mortgage Store.”

    Stafford S. Maxwell, 46, was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months in prison and ordered to pay about $1.4 in restitution in connection with the Millennium Capital Exchange Inc. Ponzi scheme. Maxwell was the former Chief Executive Officer and former owner of Millennium who defrauded victims out of more than $2 million. The company was supposedly engaged in foreign exchange trading and promised investors returns of 48% to 72%.

    James E. Neilsen, 55, pleaded guilty to charges relating to a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors out of $1.6 million. Neilsen ran the scheme through Neilsen Financial Services and Ulysses Partners LLC. He promised 9% to 10.5% returns to investors from supposedly investing their money in business ventures, but instead used the money to pay back earlier investors or on himself.

    Gina Palasini was indicted in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme that defrauded 6 investors out of over $1 million. Palasini is already serving a 10 year prison sentence on related state charges. Palasini continued to sell accident, life and death insurance even after her insurance license was revoked in 2006. Palasini also promised her clients assistance in obtaining Medicaid or Veterans Affairs benefits and encouraged them to invest in annuities, sometimes promising them that they would qualify for benefits and 10% interest.

    Gaeton “Guy” Della Penna, 62, was sentenced to 5 years in prison and ordered to pay $2.8 million in restitution for his role in a Ponzi scheme in which he promised investors a 5% return plus principal repayment after 18 months.

    James Peister, 63, was sentenced to 6 years in prison for running a $17.9 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded 74 investors. Peister had sent fictitious account statements to investors and false financial statements to an independent auditor.

    Trendon Shavers, 33, pleaded guilty to operating a Ponzi scheme that involved the virtual currency, Bitcoin. Shavers ran the scheme through his company, Bitcoin Savings & Trust and claimed that he would pay investors 1% interest on their investment every 3 days, or 7% per week. Shavers had more than 750,000 Bitcoins worth about $4.5 million when he shut down the company in 2012. The SEC charged Shavers and ordered him to pay back $40.7 million in a civil lawsuit.

    Sunil Sharma was sentenced to 33 months in prison for running a Ponzi scheme through his companies, Gold Coast Holding and Safe Harbor Tax Lien Acquisitions. Sharma raised $8.36 million from 32 companies and told investors he would invest in bonds in emerging markets in Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Instead, he engaged in day-trading stock options and spent the investors’ money on a home, a Mediterranean cruise and lease vehicles.

    Jerry Smith, 52, saw his 40 year prison sentenced dismissed by an appellate court. Smith had pleaded guilty to charges relating to the Ponzi scheme run with his business partner, Jasen Snelling. The appellate court concluded that Smith committed one single act of criminal conduct by failing to register as a broker-dealer and that the proper analysis was not the number of times Smith transacted business. The court remanded for the trial court to re-sentence Smith with the court’s calculation to find that the total term Smith may receive is 10 years.

    Dror Soref, 75, was arrested in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme run through Not Forgotten LLC. Soref, CEO of Skyline Pictures, is a film director known for making Weird Al Yanovic music videos, but is now accused of working with Michelle Kenen Seward, 42, in defrauding investors out of at least $11 million, promising them returns of 10% to 18%. Such returns were also promised by another company run by the two of them called Windsor Pictures LLC. It is estimated that at least 140 victims invested over $21 million with Soref and Steward.

 

    Frank Spinosa, 54, is scheduled to plead guilty to charges relating to his relationship to Scott Rothstein while he was a vice president at TD Bank. Spinosa was accused of making oral assurances to at least two investors that certain accounts contained hundreds of millions of dollar when these “locked” accounts actually only held about $100. Spinosa was facing many years in prison if convicted on all charges, but may only face a maximum of 5 years for the single count of wire fraud conspiracy.

    Kaveh Vahedi, 53, who was convicted of running a Ponzi scheme through KGV Investments and Countrywide Financial, was sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 18 year sentence was imposed despite the fact that the government was asking for an 8 year sentence and the probation office recommended 10 years. The scheme defrauded 31 investors who invested more than $12 million in supposed development projects on promises of a profit of 50% of their principal investment within 9 months. The sentencing judge call the scheme the “most heartbreaking, vicious fraud ever,” because Vahedi had defrauded cancer victims, the elderly, and others already in financial trouble, convincing them to mortgage their homes in order to invest.

    Charles Wooden, 48, and Hendrickx Toussaint, 44, were sentenced to 7 years and 3 years 10 months in prison, respectively, for their $5 million real estate Ponzi scheme run through Aeon Capital Management LLC. They provided fake documents to investors to conceal that the money was not used to purchase real estate as promised and fake bank account statements to reflect that investors’ money was still in escrow.

    Troy Wragg, 34, Amanda Knorr, 32, and Wayde McKelvy, 52, were charged with running a $54 million green energy Ponzi scheme through Mantria Corp. The SEC had filed a civil action against them and each of them were ordered to pay $37 million in 2012. The scheme promised as returns high as 484% from a green energy technology called “biochar” that would turn trash into fuel and “carbon-negative” housing developments. The scheme raised $54.5 million. Before the Ponzi scheme was shut down, former President Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative had honored Mantria for its effort to “help mitigate global warming.”

    Joseph Zada, 57, was found guilty of charges relating to a $50 million Ponzi scheme. The SEC had previously obtained final judgments against Zada and his company, Zada Enterprises LLC, in connection with a $27.5 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded at least 60 investors. Zada had promised 7% to 12% interest rates and promised some investors 48% returns in connection with oil-related investments in the Middle East.

    Brian Zuzga, 39, was sentenced to 6 years in prison and ordered to pay $10.7 million in restitution for his role in a Ponzi scheme that defrauded more than 100 victims out of more than $11 million. Zuzga had previously pleaded guilty to running the scheme through Assured Capital Consultants, along with Jenifer E. Hoffman and John C. Boschert.

INTERNATIONAL PONZI SCHEME NEWS

England

    Spencer Mitchell Steinberg, 45, and Michael Strubel, 53, are on trial for allegedly using fake contracts with the London 2012 Olympics to defraud £40m from friends and family. The two defendants, along with Jolan Marc Saunders, 39, who has pleaded guilty, told investors that Saunders Electrical Wholesaters Limited supplied electricals including trouser presses and kettles to major hotel chains. It is alleged that instead they used the funds to purchase expensive homes and vehicles.

India

    Shibonoy Datta and Ashok Saha were arrested in connection with the Rose Valley Ltd. Ponzi scheme.

    Chittaranjan Mohanty, Bikram Pradham and Manas Kanungo were arrested in connection with allegations that they were running a Ponzi scheme through Unique SMCS, a cooperative society that used 700 local youths as agents to collect money from people. Unique SMCS ran 5 schemes and promised investors that they would double their money in 5 years and get 7 times their money in 10 years.

    The Securities and Exchange Board of India imposed a record penalty of 72.7 billion rupees ($1.1 billion) on real estate developer PACL Ltd.

South Africa

    The National Consumer Commission has launched preliminary investigations into the following nine alleged Ponzi schemes: WorldVentures, Kipi aka Mydeposit241, Make Believe, NMT Investments, Instant Wealth Club, MMM South Africa, DIPESA, Sikhese (Pty) Ltd., and the Wealth Creation Club.

Thailand

    Thirteen defendants appeared in Criminal Court in Bangkok in connection with the alleged scheme of the Ufun Store. The scheme allegedly defrauded about 120,000 people out of more than 20 billion baht. The company had been granted permission to sell herbal drinks, fruit drinks and cosmetics last year, but is believed to have been operating a scheme to bring in new members rather than sell products. The defendants are Apicharat Saenkla, 40, Ratthawit Thiti-arunwat, 34, Chaithorn Thonglorlert, 41, Ritthidej Warong, 39, Monpan Thanabundit, 41, Peeraya Kanphrom, 26, Chotipat Wuthipanpokin, 38, Nipaporn Lamee, 36, Theerawat Patcharasuyayai, 21, Natwaran Uttamakaeo, 24, Chaisong Wanasbodiwong, 36, Kevin Lai, 48, and Yang Yuan Zhao.

NEWSWORTHY LEGAL ISSUES IN PENDING PONZI SCHEME CASES
 
    An appellate court upheld a $72 million judgment against Huntington Bancshares Inc. in connection with the Cyberco Holdings Inc. Ponzi scheme. The ruling upheld a bankruptcy court decision that found that Huntington ignored signs of wrongdoing and continued to allow a related company to move money in its accounts. Meoli v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129909 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2015).

   
    The bankruptcy trustee of Fair Finance Company, a company run by Tim Durham, announced his intention to make a first distribution to victims of the Ponzi scheme. The distribution will be $18 million, or about 8% - 9% of the losses in the case. Nearly $230 million of claims were submitted in the bankruptcy case. Durham is serving his 50 year prison sentence and his co-conspirators Jim Cochran and Rick Snow were sentenced to 25 years and 10 years, respectively.

    Cleveland Cavaliers forward Mike Miller filed a lawsuit to recover the balance of his $1.7 million loss from the alleged Ponzi scheme run by Randy Hansen and Vincent Puma through RAHFCO Hedge Funds.

    A lawsuit was filed by about 30 investors against CommunityOne Bank in North Carolina in connection with the $40 million Ponzi scheme run by Keith Franklin Simmons, who was previously sentenced to 40 years in prison. Simmons was sentenced to 40 years after a jury trial last year in which he was found to have defrauded more than 400 investors who placed more than $35 million with Black Diamond.

    The Receiver in the R. Allen Stanford $7 billion Ponzi scheme won a summary judgment finding that 6 investors must return approximately $2 million in profits they received.

    A court approved a settlement between thousands of investors in the Allen Stanford scheme and BDO for the sum of $40 million.

    A class action attorney asked a federal court for permission to sue at least 20,000 net winners in the TelexFree Ponzi scheme. Daniil Shoyfer, a TelexFree promoter, would be the lead class-action defendant.

    3M, a multinational conglomerate ranked No. 101 on the Fortune 500 list, was denied its insurance claim seeking to recover funds in connection with its investment of its employee-benefit plan assets in the Ponzi scheme run by WG Trading Company. Even though 3M recovered all of its money invested through the receivership proceedings, it sought to be paid earning on those investments. A court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that 3M owned a limited partnership interest in WG Trading and that it did not own the earnings of WG Trading, so 3M’s insurers are not obligated to compensate 3M for a loss when it never possessed the earnings. 3M Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131197 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2015).

Your Federal Withholding

The 1099 is for reporting gambling proceeds won or lost at casinos. When we look at the Federal Reserve Note we find that is a promise to pay, but it is not payment, but is a future event, and a future event that has not happened yet amounts to speculation whether or not the promise to pay would actually occur. Thus the use of Federal Reserve Notes themselves are gambling proceeds and thereby a Suspicious Activity reportable on 1099-OID and other means of reporting. Thus whoever is getting a paycheck in US dollars is receiving an ISSUE that is reportable on 1099-OID, because; the Federal Reserve Note otherwise referred to as US dollars are evidence of speculation on a future event, (promise to pay), that is gambling on the
future event, as one does not know if that promise to pay will return to the source or not. It seems that it will not return to the “Source” unless it is reported on Federal Tax Form 1099 to enable the ISSUE to enter the Electronic Circuit in a journey to the “SOURCE”. Without entry therein it is doubtful that the promise to pay can occur. (The Tax Return).
So it seems that wherever a check is issued, is the “ISSUE” reportable on 1099-OID; or, where a cash item in a Federal Reserve Note is given and/or received, or a bond or other type security given in commercial paper that is payable in Federal Reserve Notes or US dollars, is the gambling proceeds reportable on 1099-OID.
The 1099 OID filing instructions refer to the “ISSUE” as the reportable item, and that is the check at the source that has not yet returned to the source. It can’t return to the source until it enters the closed circuit via the Federal Tax Form 1099 in its journey back to the “source”. One could say that the first issue, the check, being the “Source”, is the venue, and after filing 1099 on that issue, the item returning to the “source” I suppose the difference in the Source of issue and the item returning to source, (a tax), is the returning item, is charged electronically and travels in a CLOSED circuit back to the source for settlement in exchange!
When you receive a bill for a product you have used, and there was no check, therewith, for you to pay the bill, the amount of that bill is Withholding and is a Federal Withholding in possession of the person who gave you the bill without a check to pay it. Thus, the action for settlement is to report a tax liability assessed in a 1040 tax return, and tax the same as income tax on a 1099-OID filed, therewith. It is the IRS, then, who will tell the bill collector that the amount of the bill is a Federal Withholding. (the withholding in the bill is the amount of Federal Withholding admitted in the bill). The bill is evidence of that amount withheld, and without a check or money order to accompany the bill sent to you, the absence of the check or money order is the admission of Withholding for that amount.
So, there you have the reason to tell the bill collector the amount billed to you is a Federal Withholding, withheld by the sender of the bill, and is cause to assess the same on 1040 and [to] tax the assessment on a 1099-OID, therewith, for settlement and closing in exchange Treasury Direct #(SSN-yours)
What is said above should be all you need to take care of your bills. When you get the bill that did not include a check for you to pay [that] bill, that should be sufficient information for you to report the same on a 1040 and 1099-OID without any further correspondence. (the bill was given for the cost of a product your personal credit was used to create…by assuming the use [of the ghost account]. The 1040 is the assessment of that taxable income debt and the 1099-OID is the Tax Return to the source of your credit for settlement and closing in exchange Treasury Direct #(SSN-yours).
So, it is the tax refund that is the remedy and that makes the action in Small Claims Court unnecessary. I suppose it could be made a Court of Record by putting copies of the 1040/1099 into the court record, but it is the IRS Forms 1040/1099 that makes an Administrative Court the Court of Record with a remedy. The Administrative Court is that of the IRS. That is what the tax court record will consist of, and that is probably the only Article III Court of Record bound with Revenue in the New Venue.
The Bill gives information that makes it obvious the actual payment is withheld, so it is that Withholding that is your taxable income! The requests for the billing agency to file 1099-OID on the issue(s) seems to be alright, but so far the requests have been met with silence and that silence is taken as a Refusal and Dishonor and therefore cause to go ahead and file both the 1040 and the 1099-OID. The tax assessment (1040) can be done on receipt of the bill…when the bill did not include a check, therewith, to enable you to pay the amount due. The fact exists that the funds have been Withheld from you, expressed in the bill, because it requests you to pay those absent funds. Obviously, they have been Withheld and the Withholding is Federal
because of the Public Policy HJR-192. So, I think the funds can be reported as a Federal Withholding in possession of the named recipient on the 1099-OID.
It is your credit they use to pre-pay any plan to use the agency services. So, you might ask for the plan to use their services, and provide you the papers to file Federal Tax Form 1099-OID on the issues, to enable you to pre-pay the available services used to make settlement for closing in exchange Treasury Direct #(SSN-yours).
Request the plan to enable us to use their services pre-paid. That will require the use of 1099-OID. Maybe, when one gets a bill from a company or agency one can accept the bill and return it asking for the plan to enable him to make settlement by set-off or report the item/issue as taxable income and request your tax refund from IRS in tax recovery.
When we focus our attention on the Withholding, we see it as, in fact, Federal Withholding, by virtue of HJR-192 and subsequent legislation thereon; and we can report it as such when we get a bill, and there is no check therewith. Thus, they have withheld the payment, and the same is Federal Withholding. (They probably obtained use of the Withheld credit by assuming the use of the amount used and Withheld from us, and admitted the same was prepaid when they sent us a bill for the product of our own credit (the ghost)-That was identity theft!)

Successful A4V

ATT Success Letter

Unsecured Debt Can Be Terminated

Debts can be purged using the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit history
can be restored by using the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Creditors can be defended
against with knowledge of simple contract law, Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, rules of court and the basis that banks do not loan anything. Debt
collectors can be defended against with the basis that an assignee cannot
establish any contractual nexus to enforce a claim.
Banks are prohibited from loaning. They can’t loan other depositor’s money
because of the matching principle under GAAP. They can’t loan out nor risk any of
their own assets because of Federal Reserve regulations.
In order to accept a credit application or promissory note, the banks must convert
the customer’s note into a check and give it back to him. Only they can do this
because they have a monopoly on negotiable instruments. It is the customer who
creates the currency and funds the line of credit to himself. The customer is the
depositor (creditor). The banks conceal this fact by carrying out what appears to
be a loan approval process for each customer. There is no loan from the bank.
The object in defending yourself against a creditor that has not assigned the
account to a debt collector is to manipulate the creditor into a new agreement
and/or force the account into collections.
The creditor can be sent a notice of final payment with the expectation that the
creditor will not dispute the payment or its terms in writing, thereby accepting it
as payment in full. When the final payment is accepted, and the creditor has
failed to respond or object to the notice of final payment, it makes it very difficult
for them to maintain a claim against the account holder.
In practice, the creditor will call you to ask about late payments. It is prudent to
take a record of the caller’s name, company, mailing address, and phone and fax
numbers, date and time of call, and then request that the caller limit
communications with you only to writing. It is best to disconnect the call after
obtaining this information and then to send a written correspondence making the
same request.

If the calls continue, you can do this again or make a complaint with your state’s
attorney general’s office.
In most cases, the creditor will assign the account to collections. Once this
happens, the third party collection efforts are regulated under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.
The debt can be assigned, but that doesn’t automatically mean that you have a
contract with the new 3rd party debt collector; in fact you don’t as long as you
don’t contract with them by acquiescence.
The third party assignee usually has no agreement with the debtor, so in order to
recover the loss that it chose to incur; it needs the debtor’s consent. This is
usually obtained by deceit, by tricking the debtor into accepting a new obligation.
You can request from them a validation of the purported debt. This they’re not
going to be able to fully respond to – the collector never provided any services or
products, neither is there an automatic obligation for you to pay.
When the collector responds with anything but some written agreement, evidence
of your consent or evidence of consideration (e.g. payment), they have failed to
validate.
Most collectors who receive this request will never pursue the collection.
If the collector persists in ignoring your request for validation, a complaint to the
Federal Trade Commission may be appropriate. Just listing the address for the
FTC on the second notice is likely to get positive results.

Get the full process with form and how to manual included in the Secured Party Creditor Pack..

How to Stop an IRS Audit

"Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint" Flora v. U.S. 362 US 145 [unless, of course, you neglect to "volunteer".

Notice: The following is presented to you via Bill Drexler's newsletter, with permission. Before, and if, you use it , be sure the case cites are correct. [and you understand and can EXPLAIN them.

Certified Mail:

To: IRS Representative/Agent:

It is required of you in your official capacity, and requested of you as an individual person acting under color of law, that you answer the following list of questions, 32 in number, WHICH
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER under the provisions of the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and various court decisions. Under each question the pertinent authorities have been cited which mandate a complete answer from you upon this request. Thank you for your cooperation.

1) State the authority, giving the specific section of the IRC for the solicitation of the information that you desire (Freedom of Information Act; Privacy Act; US v. Newman, 441 F2d 170; Treasury Form Letter L-423 with Publication 876 - same authorities cited for #1 thru #5).

2) State whether the disclosure of the requested information is mandatory or voluntary. If mandatory, what penalties may/will result from non-compliance in furnishing the data you
requested?

3) State the principal and specific purposes for which the information requested is to be used in any and all capacities.

4) State the routine uses which may be made of the requested information, or any other use to be made of the requested information.

5) State the effects upon this person of whom you have requested information, specifically the taxpayer, for not providing to you the information requested.

6) Explain and show that the investigation involved is of the kind authorized by federal statute (Martin v. Chandid, 128 F2d 731; Pacific Mills v. Kenefick, 99 F2d 188).

7) Explain how and why the demand for information is not too vague and/or broad in scope (US v. Newman, 441 F2d 170; US v. Williams, 337 F Supp 1114; First National Bank of Mobile v. US, 160 F2d 532; US v. Coopers and Lybrand, FSupp 942; Hubner v. Tucker, 245 F2d 35).

8) Explain and show that the information sought is relevant or material as a lawful subject of inquiry (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. US, 240 F2d 387; US v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 415 F2d 1284; May v. Davis, 7 F Supp 596; US v. Brown, 536 F2d 117).

9) Explain why and how the investigation is pursuant to legitimate
purpose(s) (same authorities as #6 thru #8).

10) Explain why and how the inquiry for information may be relevant to the purpose(s) (same authorities as #6 thru #8)

11) Show and prove that the information is not already in your possession or can not be obtained from other sources (same authorities as #6 thru #8).

12) Show and prove that the Secretary or his delegate has determined that this further examination is necessary (IRC Section 7605[b]).

13) Show and prove that all other administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) have been followed to the letter of the law (Martin v. Chandis, 128 F2d 731; US v. Powell, 379 US 48).

14) Show and prove that after initial investigation, the Secretary or his delegate has determined that further examination is necessary and warranted (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Cooppers & Lybrand, F Supp 942; US v. Williams, 337 F Supp 1114; Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 945).

15) Show and prove that the taxpayer has been properly notified that further examination is necessary (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; IRC Section 7605[b]).

16) State the exact reason(s), in detail, for the examination of each year specific information is requested (US v. Third Northwestern National Bank, 102 F Supp 879; FOIA).

17) State whether there is a misconception and/or mistake in the tax return for each year that information is requested (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090).

18) State exactly wherein the mistake lies, or if in fact one exists (US v. London Insurance Agency, Inc. 72-2 T.C.; US v. Powell, 379 US 48; Hubner v. Tucker, 245 F2d 35).

19) Specify exactly which item(s) of income or expense item(s) is (are) in question on the tax return(s), if any. (same as # 18).

20) State why the specific income and/or expense item is in question, or is being examined (same as # 18).

21) Explain why and what issue in law or in fact is questioned, if any (FOIA; US v. McCarthy, 514 F2d 368).

22) State the name, address, and telephone number of any person or persons informing you of any questions or concern involved in any item or any tax return or any activity of the taxpayer
(Sixth Amendment; US v. Zack, D.C. Nev 4/20/74; Favre v. Henderson, 409 US 942; FOIA).

23) State exactly what was said, either verbal and/or written concerning any item, tax return or activity of the taxpayer by any person(s) informing or directing you to conduct an examination,
directly, and/or indirectly (Same as # 22).

24) State and prove that the taxpayer is not being subjected to an examination based on or for any political, ideological, harassment, pressure tactic, or bad-faith purpose, and is not being singled out for prosecution as an example to other taxpayers for any reason (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090; US v. McCarthy, 514 F2d 368; US v. Roundtree, 420 F2d 845; Chaukin v. Alexander, 401 F Supp 817; FOIA).

25) State and explain why the examination can not and will not amount to an inquisition or arbitrary inquiry on the part of the examiner (Local 174 International Brotherhood of Teamsters
v. US, 240 F2d 387; US v. McKay, 372 F2d 174; US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 415 F2d 1284; US v. Third Northwestern Bank, 102 F Supp 879).

26) State and explain why IRC Section 7605 [b] does not apply to any examination where "...No taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination or investigation..." (Pacific Mills v.
Kenefick, 99 F2d 188).

27) State the exact methods used, either past and/or present to gather information concerning this taxpayer, and whether information was gathered through the use of surveillance, telephone wire-tapping, mail coverage, interviews, illegal entry, informers, spies, or otherwise (FOIA; US v. Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090; Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F3d 945).

28) State whether the verification of specific deductions would be the limited scope of the examination (US v. Powell, 379 US 48).

29) State and explain any objection to the use of electronic recorder(s) during the pursuit of this examination (IRS Manual MT 9900-26, 1/29/75, paragraph 241.5).

30) State whether the examiner would be prejudiced against a taxpayer who arranges his affairs to minimize his taxes as the law permits( Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US 465; Knetsch v. US, 361).

31) Show and prove to this Citizen how the IRS Commissioner has jurisdiction over any subject matter concerning this Citizen (Hale v. Hinkle, 201 US 43; Murdock v. Pa, 319 US 105; US v. LaSalle Bank, 437 US 298; 26 USC Section 6011).

32) Unless otherwise shown, this Citizen hereby pleads and does give public notice that the IRS Commissioner has an absence of jurisdiction over this Citizen's person (Same as # 31)

What can you do? File your UCC-1 claim on the CORPORATION that carries your name in their ledgers and take control of your Treasury Direct Account.  You are considered a citizen of a Federal territory because of Fourteenth Amendment citizenship.  Since you have not objected to your status as a subject of the Federal jurisdiction, you may be presumed to be content with your Federal citizenship.

UCC 1 Debt Elimination 12/1/15

On May 23, 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden, (R-OH) Chairman of the House Banking and Finance Committee brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. To protect themselves from these charges both the House and the Senate, on JUNE 5, 1933, passed House Joint Resolution 192. It provided that the people, who had delivered their gold to the federal government following an illegal proclamation by President Roosevelt, would be exempt from paying their debts since their means of payment, their substance, had been taken from them. HJR 192 provided a remedy for the crime.

The basis of UCC-1 debt elimination derives from HJR-192 in which the Corporate US board of directors, the Congress, removed from the flesh and blood men and women of the several united States of America their substance with which they can pay for things and replaced it with fictitious "money" in the form of debt instruments called Federal Reserve Notes. This created the exemption.

Essentially, the acceptance/redemption debt elimination process obtains access to the trust account that the federal government has been using since your birth to monetize and pay off the national debt. They automatically made the government the trustee of that account and used your energy and talent to fund the national government. With your birth certificate sent from the state in which you were born, the Department of Treasury creates a constructive trust account that permits the corporate United States and all of the other subsidiary corporations, states, counties, cities, etc. to interact with you as a corporate, fictitious entity. They are fictitious public entities that cannot interact with you, the real, living person. But they have convinced you, the living flesh and blood person that they are referring to you. You have voluntarily accommodated this interaction on behalf of your fictitious entity, your "corporation."

By filing your UCC-1 financial statement, security agreement, negotiable bill of exchange and the Federal Reserve routing numbers with the fictitious corporate government entities, you separate yourself from that accommodation and take the position as the first creditor to that debtor. The debt belongs to the Corporate You, but the real you has been making the payments. Now you will stand first in line to utilize the collateral held in your trust account by the government. Using this trust account as they have done, you can assign credit to the bank at which you, the fictitious entity, owe the debt. A simple transaction discharges that debt. Who can now complain that the debt is not satisfied? You have done what you have agreed to do, but the credit did not come from your checking account. It was a non-cash transaction in the public fiction of commerce under the Uniform Commercial Code.

In the case of mortgage elimination, the credit in your “strawman” man account is directed to redeem your note through a commercial Bill of Exchange. This credit is transferred to the bank holding your mortgage to discharge the debt. If the bank accepts this legal tender as per mortgage agreement, you request the reconveyance of the deed back to you. Should the bank refuse the offer of legal tender and will not discharge the debt, they are in dishonor by failing to perform according to the mortgage agreement. As the grantor of that mortgage you can revoke your agreement within 33 days by foreclosing on the bank. Simultaneously, you seek judicial review of the administrative procedures you have followed in accordance with pertinent statutes. Even if the judge refuses to sign the order, in 6 months it is ruled in your favor by default. Should the bank refuse to reconvey the deed, a clear title is provided by transferring the property through three trusted individuals: buyer A for $10 and consideration and after 10 days sold to buyer B for $10 and consideration for another 10 days, buyer C and finally to you for $10 and consideration for 91 days, then it is recommended that the property be sold to your asset protection program in which you are established as its beneficiary. This avoids loss of property made vulnerable to the predatory attorneys due to the new status of a property that is free and clear of debt.

Discharge Almost Any Debt with Proper Use of the UCC....