Posted 10:39 AM by Creditwrench

There are 9 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. the IRS
From: "michellegross2002" <michellegross2002@yahoo.com>
2. He did it again!
From: "paulajan18" <pp11851@aol.com>
3. ...leveraging the attorney and public officials
From: "Kingsman Funding" <kngsfund@bellsouth.net>
4. Re: the IRS
From: "Taylor" <taylor@sappllc.com>
5. Re: Re: question
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
6. Re: He did it again!
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
7. Re: the IRS
From: Randall White <white_design@yahoo.com>
8. Re: question
From: "Bill Bauer" <creditwrench.jaccuse@blogger.com>
9. Re: .................................. Forum and Calendar CHANGES on www.Richa
From: "Bill Bauer" <creditwrench.jaccuse@blogger.com>

Message: 1

Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:55:41 -0000
From: "michellegross2002" <michellegross2002@yahoo.com>
Subject: the IRS

I'm looking for some input regarding a notice of delinquency from the
IRS. The notice is to my husband, a canadian citizen who has been a US
resident for 35 years or so.

It's for the years 2001 and 2002. They have gotten info from
Leadenhall Trust in the Bahamas, from Toronto Dominion and from two
Bank of America accouts in the US.

Two of the three Leadenhall accounts are in corporate names, one of
the Bank of America accounts is in a corporate name (incorporated in
the state of Delaware) and what business do they have including a
Canadian account in the mix.

Can anyone point me in the direction of getting info to respond to
this privately owned, none governmental agency?

Appreciate any input!

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:08:52 -0000
From: "Taylor" <taylor@sappllc.com>
Subject: Re: the IRS

I have a claim in the courts of Bahama's against Leadenhall Bank and
Trust. I may have an answer for you. email me at taylor@sappllc.com
Taylor

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:53:48 -0500
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Re: question

In the hearing I have coming up on 8-15 at 3 pm. this is exactly what I intend to do.
I visited with my liar, um.... excuse me, I mean LAWYER yesterday at his office.
He made me so angry, I almost fired him on the spot!!! And I fully intend to fire him
BEFORE the hearing... because he made a statement to me that exposed his intention
to cause me to lose... I told him that the principals in the case (the bank themselves)
will not be present in the courtroom, as they almost always are NOT, and he said,
"That doesn't matter".

He's either
a.) incompetent
b.) lazy
c.) stupid
d.) complicit with the other side
e.) all of the above

Take your pick.
Charlene/Hot Springs Arkansas

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Bauer
To: Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: [Cornforth-Strategies] Re: question

--- In Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com, "taylor4law"

This is a bit misleading. Attorneys can testify but must be under oath
in order to do so. That requirement is almost always ignored by the
courts and attorneys regularly make statements that are improper,
disparaging or otherwise unacceptable when dealing with pro se
litigant cases. They do so in order to improperly influence and
prejudice the court. The only remedy for that is to be alert and in
the event that the plaintiff's attorney makes such statements the
pro se must immediately object and force the court to put the attorney
in the witness chair and under oath where he can be questioned.

Once you have him in the witness chair you can then turn him into the
court jester of the day and cause him ruin his own case. If the court
refuses to put him under oath for questioning then you have an
appealable issue and establishing a grounds for appeal is one of the
most important things you can do.

Also the idea that you can plead such cases as Trinsey v. Pagliaro
into the record based on equal protection is patently false and
misleading. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Trinsey v. Pagliaro is a 1964 Pennsylvania District Court case and
therefore is not controlling case law in any court outside of the
District in which the ruling was made. In any other court it is only
advisory and the judge in your district may consider it or he may
refuse to give it any credence whatever. It is his choice and his
alone. If the case were a Pennsylvania State Supreme Court case then
it would have had controlling authority in every court in Pennsylvania
and if it were a United States Supreme Court case then it would have
had controlling authority in every court in the land. Such is not the
case and Trinsey v. Paglario is only an advisory case. That means that
the court can safely ignore your pleading if they so choose.

Equal protection has absolutely nothing to do with it.
which the ruling was made.

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:58:33 -0500
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: He did it again!

WOW!!!! THIS IS GREAT!!!!
Blessings to you and Richard and may more VICTORIES
be coming your way!!!!!
Charlene/Hot Springs, Arkansas

----- Original Message -----
From: paulajan18
To: Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 6:39 PM
Subject: [Cornforth-Strategies] He did it again!

Thanks to my angel, I have another victory today!
We won an appeal in Superior Court in July 04' and although we did
prevail, a much too cocky attorney with a super ego continued to re-
file the same matter under a different case number. He tried like
hell to wear me down. But with Richard's expertise and tenacity, we
were able to get a Motion for Summary Judgment denied. Believe it or
not,we still have more to conquer. But with Richard by my side, I have
the hope of completely prevailing. Much too long of a story to really
get into here. (10 yrs.)
All I can say is THANK YOU RICHARD! AGAIN!

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 10:32:40 -0400
From: Randall White <white_design@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: the IRS

The following is a starting place in dealing with the IRS.

Correct any erroneous W-2¹s using the form 4852 and correct and rebut any
erroneous 1099¹s and file a 1040 return based upon the corrected documents,
with the corrected documents attached to the 1040 return. This approach is a
proper legal administrative remedy in compliance with Title 26 which does
not involve any arguing and is readily accepted by the IRS.

If you do not get the desired results within the confines of administrative
remedy, then it will be necessary to sue for deprivation of rights.

On 8/5/05 4:55 PM, "michellegross2002" <michellegross2002@yahoo.com> wrote:

Message: 8
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:57:45 -0000
From: "Bill Bauer" <creditwrench.jaccuse@blogger.com>
Subject: Re: question

In Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Storm <stormyt@g...>
wrote

Bill

> from Penna, do you have a like to this case?

No, I do not. Richard brought this case to our attention maybe two or
three years ago at a J-accuse meeting. That had to be at least 3 years
or more ago because the meeting I reference was held back at the old
JIMMY'S ROUNDUP CAFE here in Oklahoma City and we moved from there to
the VFW HALL on N. Virginia Ave. and met there for at least a year.
Then we moved to a restaurant in S. OKC known as "FAVORITES" and held
meetings there for a few months then moved to COIT'S ROOT BEER STAND,
held meetings there for quite a few months and now have moved to
DENNY'S on S.W. 74th and S. I-240 service road.

While we were still meeting at JIMMY'S ROUNDUP Richard revealed that
he had searched a long time to find that case. Back then you could not
find that case anywhere so I looked up the case and published it to my
webpage at and it
took a couple of years before others started to copy that page and
also broadcast it. Now there are a lot of references to be found in
GOOGLE and most other search engines.

If you check GOOGLE you will find that I have about 5 links or so on
the subject on the first page of GOOGLE LINKS.

So, you can see that Richard Cornforth and I go back a long ways. In
all those years I have never missed a J-accuse meeting that I can
remember and I have been a member of j-accuse since it's inception.

I also attended Richard's very first seminar which was held at the
public library in Moore, Oklahoma and I video taped that meeting and I
probably still have the video tape from that first meeting.

>
> On 8/5/05, Bill Bauer <creditwrench.jaccuse@b...> wrote:

;This is a bit misleading. Attorneys can testify but must be under oath in order to do so. That requirement is almost always ignored by
the courts and attorneys regularly make statements that are improper,
disparaging or otherwise unacceptable when dealing with pro se
litigant cases. They do so in order to improperly influence and
prejudice the court. The only remedy for that is to be alert and in
the event that the plaintiff's attorney makes such statements the
pro se must immediately object and force the court to put the attorney
in the witness chair and under oath where he can be questioned.

Message: 9
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:00:16 -0000
From: "Bill Bauer" <creditwrench.jaccuse@blogger.com>
Subject: Re: .................................. Forum and Calendar CHANGES on www.Richa

As most here are now well aware of, I am an old friend and supporter
of Richard and his work. I see and talk to him at all of our J-accuse
meetings so if I have something to discuss with him I will do so at
any time I choose to do so. Whether he agrees with me or not may aor
may not be another matter entirely. He does not always agree with me
and I do not always agree with everything he says or does either. That
fact does not change our mutual regard for each other.

I can assure everyone that when I see posts here attempting to
convince readers of this group that John Gliha and his theories about
modern money mechanics, the two faces of debt, and the rest of his
junk legal theories are viable and they should go to his website or
others that also teach such garbage instead of talking about Richard
Cornforth and his strategies and teachings I will be most unhappy
about that kind of conduct. Attempting to promote the theories of
others in Richard's forum is most unkind and unethical.

Another thing that needs to be understood is that
nothing posted in any Yahoo groups is likely to ever get any listings
in any search engine unless it it ported to the web somehow.
Messages posted in forums such as the one that is about to be or has
been abandoned do get a few listings in Google from time to time if the
forum is active and has good content but even those are few and far
between unless the forum has an active RSS feed and a few API keys to
help promote it.

Getting publicity on the web
is a very tough proposition and requires someone with an intimate and
working knowledge of search engines and how they work.

I am doing all I can to support this group by porting
it's messages to the official J-accuse Blog at but messages that are posted attempting to lure people to other groups that teach theories and ideas that are completely against those that Richard teaches will do nothing but harm the public image of Richard Cornforth and his Jaccuse movement.

Keeping this forum on topic and talking only about Richard and his teachings and seminars is what is important. If that isn't happening
then Richard does need to be informed since as has been pointed out by
the moderator, Richard don't have time to personally monitor this
group and he asked me to do that and keep him informed this last
Thursday night. I'll do just that.