Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

Tony
As following the protocol of the peaceful inhabitant and after multiple sincere attempts with private communications to the pope down to local county probate court, and all public actors in between, like many of us, I have been ignored.  The truth of the matter, I have no "pending issues" with the public actors.  I do this study because I know it is the rights thing FOR ME to do - surrender, assign and deliver the dead paper back to Caesar, honor him in the public so that Caesar will honor his commitment to those select few in the private.  But again, no response from any of Caesar's minions.  

I recently came across the attached documents from the RBM yahoo group.  It has to do with an IRS matter but I suspect it can be used for any issue with a public actor.  The first attached file is called IRS ltr.  IRS_ltr.doc

To me this document has conflicting statements contained within.  As some of you may know, there is no difference legally between JOHN DOE, John Doe, and john doe.  These are all factitious entities.  The interesting thing this man did was clearly make a "counter deed" to "HIS ESTATE.".  I do not see LEGALLY how he can claim something that is clearly "state property, as all property vests in the state.  A name is property and we can ONLY obtain a copy of that person for our use, thus being left spoliated, as everything we do IN that name, automatically vests and benefits the state, as usufructuary.  

The second document attached  with regard to reverionary interest  Reversionary_Interest_ltr.pdf

I really like this.  I am almost thinking this was created by Boris.  

Both documents refer to enclosures of 1.  the authenticated BC, 2 Declaration of ownership and 3. Declaration of status and release without consideration.  Numbers 2 and 3 were not attached to the email.    

The lady who brought these documents to the groups attention specifically believes that we must "claim our abandoned estate", honestly, I am not "feelin that too much" based upon the seizure and confiscation under the declared national state of emergency NOR do I see the estate as "abandoned.".  But of course, I must be open to be corrected.  I have delivered and assigned the R/I and the usufruct to and for the account of the United States, as usufructuary in essence, that the public officials get off their asses and administrate the property according to the rule of usufruct.  Golly, I want to send the US all the checks I receive in the name as outlined in the last line of the Declaration of Independence, as I accept this offer, so that the treasury can reduce ITS national debt.  I still got ignored.  I am trying to help and I get ignored - go figure?

The lady also made clear that the man who presented these docs to the IRS has had "the name removed" from the system.  

I would like to ask this group what are its thoughts about the attached docs, the counter deed claiming ownership of the "estate" and if anyone can add any docs like the "declaration of ownership and declaration of status with release without compensation" docs so that we can take a better look at this potential remedy.

thanks  Tony
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
Sorry to disappoint, those docs are not from boris ;)


the "estate" as people like to call it, stands as an ABANDONED CHILD for it is a creation of the State by way of operation of law, and since the people have yet to return to the land to collect their "estates" or "interests" as a result of the "bankruptcy re-organization act" commonly known and described as "civil war" ...

those CHILDREN are abandoned in the sense their purpose has gone unfulfilled; the "charter" being unexpressed, thus remain a WARD of the ORPHANGE called united states of America located in Pennsylvania, this is the reason one obtains a 98-ein, for that number is issued from Pennsylvania, thus the CHILD comes out of the ORPHANAGE and OUT OF WARDSHIP and the APOPTION FEE is the surrender of the reversion with pledge of the usufruct as the LIVERY IN SESIN to return the WARD to its NOBILITY STATUS so it can receive the inheritance of the Father.
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

Tony
I do understand the presumption/operation of law that we are "dead or lost at sea."  So to clarify, specifically:  It is your opinion that we can come back and actually CLAIM OUR estate or interests due to 12 USC 95a?  

It took me a long time to "get and understand" this issue the birth document was created by state FOR the state' s benefit.  I am just a mere USER.  It is not MY document, because I am only entitled to a "copy" not the original.  Some folks believe you can "counter deed" the authenticated BC and claim that as YOUR property, as it has been abandoned.  I can see me as a third-party or indirect beneficiary, as I have been left spoliated with no method to "pay my debts" IF I were to have any.  However, I am open to make this claim of the property is abandoned and now I am claiming it, but I do not find any evidence to assume the property or estate is abandoned SINCE there is activity within that estate [licenses, W2, 1099, bank account, etc] and we then accept the role of trustee de son tort.    

I went to the local county probate court, asking the judge for help, aid and guidance.  It was 55 pages that went out to him.  I wanted to "return back to the land."  I got no response.    

You give a good example of the ward.  Another way to say what you said is to simply give them the signature by accommodation/equity required FOR their books so that they balance.  In other words, if everyone did this, there would be no debt.  But like I said, it seems that no one receives a response from these actors.  

The 98 EIN has to do with setting up the Living Trust, irrevocable, a separate entity NOT linked to the individual's SSN.  How is that working out?  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

chiefcustodian
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
so essentially we would be adopting back our abandoned child...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

iamsomedude
Administrator

completing the adoption process into the kingdom
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

1970grave
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
iamsomedude wrote
the APOPTION FEE is the surrender of the reversion with pledge of the usufruct as the LIVERY IN SESIN to return the WARD to its NOBILITY STATUS so it can receive the inheritance of the Father.
Livery of seisin could refer to either:

Livery in deed, whereby the parties actually went on to the land, and the transferor symbolically delivered possession of the land by handing over a twig or a clump of earth to the recipient - would this represent a BLOOD thumbprint

Livery in law, whereby the parties went within sight of the land and the transferor declared to the recipient that possession was being given, followed by the recipient entering onto the land - How do i enter 'at law'

The symbol of livery for a house was the door's ring or hasp; for mills, the "clap and hopper"; for a church, a psalm-book and keys, and so on. - would this represent ones SEAL




Life is for living and the art to being free
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

PaperCut
In reply to this post by Tony
The "Reversionary_Interest_ltr.pdf" looked familiar to me, it is from Winston Shrout on his Reclaiming your Status & Assets DVD.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

Monarch
I received a letter from the IRS "in reply to your correspondence dated....".  The letter stated "We have determined the arguments you raised are frivolous and have no basis in law.  Federal courts have consistently ruled against such arguments and have ruled against such positions.  If you persist in sending frivolous correspondence, we will not continue to respond to it.  Our lack of response to further correspondence does not in any way convey agreement or acceptance of the arguments advanced.  If you desire to comply with the law concerning your tax liability, you are encouraged to seek advice from a reputable tax practitioner or attorney."

Because I have not sent any correspondence to the IRS, I was dumbfounded by their letter, so I just called them to find out specifically what correspondence they were referring to.  Turns out it was my assignment and reversion that was sent to the U.S. Department of Treasury nine months ago (and it certainly did no pose any "arguments" but did contain supporting references.) When I asked how the IRS came into possession of it, she said correspondence sent to the Treasury comes to/thorough the IRS.

I adivised her that my intent was simply to assign the reversionary interest in the NAME back to the US DOT for.its benefit and asked what was frivolous about that.  She specifically referenced MY reference to 12 USC 95(a)2 and the term(s) "Accepted for Honor".  She said those are frivolous references and assertions.  I then asked how one is able to assign the reversionary interest of one's NAME back to the US DOT and she replied, "there's is a lot of stuff on the Internet that just is not true".  

The good news is (for me, and others who may be concerned about their own correspondence)i, there are no repercussions on this occasion, but she did make it clear (as does the letter), that should they receive further "frivolous correspondence", it could result in a $5,000 penalty.  

Has anyone else received this feedback?  Is the assignment and reversion in fact, frivolous and moot?  If so, it would seem appropriate to terminate the UCC filings as well...


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

Tony
I do not know the answer.  It appears that an offer was made, there was no acceptance, therefore there is no meeting of the minds thus no contract.  But I do not know if any public official has the authority to turn away such offer.  It would appear to me under 31 USC 3113, the secretary is obligated to accept IF it helps the US. 

Sounds like they do not need to equity to balance their books.  Does this mean the account demonstrates a zero balance?

I do not understand - why did she state those are frivolous arguments when in fact it is supported in their law? 

Accept for honor is frivolous?  I guess I would have asked her if the account has been settled in full and that there was no need to have any further conversation?   

Unfortunately, I have no heard of anyone receiving such a response.  I too sent this out to the Treasury, Governor, Pope, golly there were 9 in all.  I never got any response. 

Jim Comey if you are reading this under NSA, please know we are trying to help save the US.  OK!

Jim, I loved when you said at the congressional hearing before congress that as an attorney you can argue both sides of the argument.  I fully agree with you. 

I will forward this to a few others, as it just appears to me that this agent is doing damage to the US.

From: Monarch [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA] <[hidden email]>
To: Tony <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

I received a letter from the IRS "in reply to your correspondence dated....".  The letter stated "We have determined the arguments you raised are frivolous and have no basis in law.  Federal courts have consistently ruled against such arguments and have ruled against such positions.  If you persist in sending frivolous correspondence, we will not continue to respond to it.  Our lack of response to further correspondence does not in any way convey agreement or acceptance of the arguments advanced.  If you desire to comply with the law concerning your tax liability, you are encouraged to seek advice from a reputable tax practitioner or attorney."

Because I have not sent any correspondence to the IRS, I was dumbfounded by their letter, so I just called them to find out specifically what correspondence they were referring to.  Turns out it was my assignment and reversion that was sent to the U.S. Department of Treasury nine months ago (and it certainly did no pose any "arguments" but did contain supporting references.) When I asked how the IRS came into possession of it, she said correspondence sent to the Treasury comes to/thorough the IRS.

I adivised her that my intent was simply to assign the reversionary interest in the NAME back to the US DOT for.its benefit and asked what was frivolous about that.  She specifically referenced MY reference to 12 USC 95(a)2 and the term(s) "Accepted for Honor".  She said those are frivolous references and assertions.  I then asked how one is able to assign the reversionary interest of one's NAME back to the US DOT and she replied, "there's is a lot of stuff on the Internet that just is not true".  

The good news is (for me, and others who may be concerned about their own correspondence)i, there are no repercussions on this occasion, but she did make it clear (as does the letter), that should they receive further "frivolous correspondence", it could result in a $5,000 penalty.  

Has anyone else received this feedback?  Is the assignment and reversion in fact, frivolous and moot?  If so, it would seem appropriate to terminate the UCC filings as well...





If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://underground-cantina.83190.x6.nabble.com/Counter-deed-of-the-authenticated-BC-and-reversionary-interest-tp93p356.html
To unsubscribe from Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest, click here.
NAML


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

PaperCut
A Friend and I sent our BC to the SOS for Authentication, his in Michigan, mine went to Georgia. When his come back from Michigan the postage on the SASE was not cancelled out, I thought perhaps because it was within the state. My first attempt was returned to me from GA as I had not obtained a "Birth Pen in Hand" certified copy of the BC, the Postage on that SASE was cancelled out. When the Authenticated Copy come back from Georgia, the Postage on the SASE was not cancelled out. So it appears that when the authentication happens, something immediately changes in how its mailed back to the recipient, I have been pondering and researching ever since, but I have not been able to come up with a reason as of yet. Has anyone else noticed similar circumstances?

~Terry

August 5 2016 3:12 PM, "Tony [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA]" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I do not know the answer. It appears that an offer was made, there was no acceptance, therefore there is no meeting of the minds thus no contract. But I do not know if any public official has the authority to turn away such offer. It would appear to me under 31 USC 3113, the secretary is obligated to accept IF it helps the US.
Sounds like they do not need to equity to balance their books. Does this mean the account demonstrates a zero balance?
I do not understand - why did she state those are frivolous arguments when in fact it is supported in their law?
Accept for honor is frivolous? I guess I would have asked her if the account has been settled in full and that there was no need to have any further conversation?
Unfortunately, I have no heard of anyone receiving such a response. I too sent this out to the Treasury, Governor, Pope, golly there were 9 in all. I never got any response.
Jim Comey if you are reading this under NSA, please know we are trying to help save the US. OK!
Jim, I loved when you said at the congressional hearing before congress that as an attorney you can argue both sides of the argument. I fully agree with you.
I will forward this to a few others, as it just appears to me that this agent is doing damage to the US.

From: Monarch [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA] <<a target="_blank" rel="external nofollow" link="external" tabindex="-1" data-x-broken-href="/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&amp;node=357&amp;i=0" href="javascript:false">[hidden email]>
To: Tony <<a target="_blank" rel="external nofollow" link="external" tabindex="-1" data-x-broken-href="/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&amp;node=357&amp;i=1" href="javascript:false">[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest
I received a letter from the IRS "in reply to your correspondence dated....". The letter stated "We have determined the arguments you raised are frivolous and have no basis in law. Federal courts have consistently ruled against such arguments and have ruled against such positions. If you persist in sending frivolous correspondence, we will not continue to respond to it. Our lack of response to further correspondence does not in any way convey agreement or acceptance of the arguments advanced. If you desire to comply with the law concerning your tax liability, you are encouraged to seek advice from a reputable tax practitioner or attorney."

Because I have not sent any correspondence to the IRS, I was dumbfounded by their letter, so I just called them to find out specifically what correspondence they were referring to. Turns out it was my assignment and reversion that was sent to the U.S. Department of Treasury nine months ago (and it certainly did no pose any "arguments" but did contain supporting references.) When I asked how the IRS came into possession of it, she said correspondence sent to the Treasury comes to/thorough the IRS.

I adivised her that my intent was simply to assign the reversionary interest in the NAME back to the US DOT for.its benefit and asked what was frivolous about that. She specifically referenced MY reference to 12 USC 95(a)2 and the term(s) "Accepted for Honor". She said those are frivolous references and assertions. I then asked how one is able to assign the reversionary interest of one's NAME back to the US DOT and she replied, "there's is a lot of stuff on the Internet that just is not true".

The good news is (for me, and others who may be concerned about their own correspondence)i, there are no repercussions on this occasion, but she did make it clear (as does the letter), that should they receive further "frivolous correspondence", it could result in a $5,000 penalty.

Has anyone else received this feedback? Is the assignment and reversion in fact, frivolous and moot? If so, it would seem appropriate to terminate the UCC filings as well...




If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://underground-cantina.83190.x6.nabble.com/Counter-deed-of-the-authenticated-BC-and-reversionary-interest-tp93p356.html
To unsubscribe from Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest, <a target="_blank" rel="external nofollow" link="external" tabindex="-1" data-x-broken-href="" href="javascript:false">click here.
NAML


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://underground-cantina.83190.x6.nabble.com/Counter-deed-of-the-authenticated-BC-and-reversionary-interest-tp93p357.html
To unsubscribe from Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest, click here.
NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

Tony
Honestly, does it really matter?  The main idea is you got the authenticated BC returned.  Sometimes, I have received mail without the stamp being cancelled.  I can logically guess, the machine does not always cancel the postage. 



From: PaperCut [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA] <[hidden email]>
To: Tony <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

A Friend and I sent our BC to the SOS for Authentication, his in Michigan, mine went to Georgia. When his come back from Michigan the postage on the SASE was not cancelled out, I thought perhaps because it was within the state. My first attempt was returned to me from GA as I had not obtained a "Birth Pen in Hand" certified copy of the BC, the Postage on that SASE was cancelled out. When the Authenticated Copy come back from Georgia, the Postage on the SASE was not cancelled out. So it appears that when the authentication happens, something immediately changes in how its mailed back to the recipient, I have been pondering and researching ever since, but I have not been able to come up with a reason as of yet. Has anyone else noticed similar circumstances?

~Terry

August 5 2016 3:12 PM, "Tony [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA]" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I do not know the answer. It appears that an offer was made, there was no acceptance, therefore there is no meeting of the minds thus no contract. But I do not know if any public official has the authority to turn away such offer. It would appear to me under 31 USC 3113, the secretary is obligated to accept IF it helps the US.
Sounds like they do not need to equity to balance their books. Does this mean the account demonstrates a zero balance?
I do not understand - why did she state those are frivolous arguments when in fact it is supported in their law?
Accept for honor is frivolous? I guess I would have asked her if the account has been settled in full and that there was no need to have any further conversation?
Unfortunately, I have no heard of anyone receiving such a response. I too sent this out to the Treasury, Governor, Pope, golly there were 9 in all. I never got any response.
Jim Comey if you are reading this under NSA, please know we are trying to help save the US. OK!
Jim, I loved when you said at the congressional hearing before congress that as an attorney you can argue both sides of the argument. I fully agree with you.
I will forward this to a few others, as it just appears to me that this agent is doing damage to the US.

From: Monarch [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA] <<a target="_blank" rel="external nofollow" link="external" tabindex="-1" data-x-broken-href="/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&amp;node=357&amp;i=0" href="javascript:false">[hidden email]>
To: Tony <<a target="_blank" rel="external nofollow" link="external" tabindex="-1" data-x-broken-href="/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&amp;node=357&amp;i=1" href="javascript:false">[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest
I received a letter from the IRS "in reply to your correspondence dated....". The letter stated "We have determined the arguments you raised are frivolous and have no basis in law. Federal courts have consistently ruled against such arguments and have ruled against such positions. If you persist in sending frivolous correspondence, we will not continue to respond to it. Our lack of response to further correspondence does not in any way convey agreement or acceptance of the arguments advanced. If you desire to comply with the law concerning your tax liability, you are encouraged to seek advice from a reputable tax practitioner or attorney."

Because I have not sent any correspondence to the IRS, I was dumbfounded by their letter, so I just called them to find out specifically what correspondence they were referring to. Turns out it was my assignment and reversion that was sent to the U.S. Department of Treasury nine months ago (and it certainly did no pose any "arguments" but did contain supporting references.) When I asked how the IRS came into possession of it, she said correspondence sent to the Treasury comes to/thorough the IRS.

I adivised her that my intent was simply to assign the reversionary interest in the NAME back to the US DOT for.its benefit and asked what was frivolous about that. She specifically referenced MY reference to 12 USC 95(a)2 and the term(s) "Accepted for Honor". She said those are frivolous references and assertions. I then asked how one is able to assign the reversionary interest of one's NAME back to the US DOT and she replied, "there's is a lot of stuff on the Internet that just is not true".

The good news is (for me, and others who may be concerned about their own correspondence)i, there are no repercussions on this occasion, but she did make it clear (as does the letter), that should they receive further "frivolous correspondence", it could result in a $5,000 penalty.

Has anyone else received this feedback? Is the assignment and reversion in fact, frivolous and moot? If so, it would seem appropriate to terminate the UCC filings as well...




If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://underground-cantina.83190.x6.nabble.com/Counter-deed-of-the-authenticated-BC-and-reversionary-interest-tp93p356.html
To unsubscribe from Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest, <a target="_blank" rel="external nofollow" link="external" tabindex="-1" data-x-broken-href="" href="javascript:false">click here.
NAML


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://underground-cantina.83190.x6.nabble.com/Counter-deed-of-the-authenticated-BC-and-reversionary-interest-tp93p357.html
To unsubscribe from Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest, click here.
NAML



If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://underground-cantina.83190.x6.nabble.com/Counter-deed-of-the-authenticated-BC-and-reversionary-interest-tp93p358.html
To unsubscribe from Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest, click here.
NAML


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

PaperCut
The only reason it struck me as odd is that there was $3 worth of postage on each envelope, you would think the cancelling out of that amount of postage would be a priority, and the fact that "authentication" is in the private, the Postal Service is in the public, I was looking at it from a jurisdictional stand point, I ultimately don't care about the postage stamps, it was just something interesting to note.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

iamsomedude
Administrator


who gives a shit?

you got the docs ...

the rest of this crap is an attempt to fabricate a controversy where one does not exist.

Hell, for that matter, why did you use 3$ when 3 cent postage would have worked??

next time, if you feel so damn adamant about cancelling the postage, sign across the stamps on the SASE and put an end this stupid discussion.
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

rowanlefwyn
In reply to this post by Monarch

The letter is issued from an office that has zero to do with administratively or even locally with what you are attempting to achieve. You assign RI to the UST you end up with an IRS office on the west coast  blabbing on about some mysterious arguement...why? I'd sure like to know why.  

Granting a RI to anyone isn't an argument. Granting or transferring property is an act, not an argument. If I sent you a gold necklace as a gift would that be an argument? Would a conflict be created or an insult? Where is the conflict at?

Even during my, ahem, unenlightened days, when the IRS lost my deposits, and I corrected them I'd receive letters claiming I was arguing in a frivolous way. It's a form letter that is issued from the vast moat of ignorance that surrounds virtually everything. Constructively you can only use the IRS' own logic against them.

I received a form letter that babbled on why I needed to pay my taxes. I wrote back. Okay. What would you like me to pay them with?

No response.

The key word in the matter is frivolous. Your argument is easily broken down.However one can only do that if an argument was offered in the first place. An argument can only be deemed frivolous if it was offered in the first place. There is no law that can take impossibilities into account.
 
I'd send a letter back asking what arguement was offered?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Counter deed of the authenticated BC and reversionary interest

rowanlefwyn
In reply to this post by Monarch
The letter is issued from an office that has zero to do with administratively or even locally with what you are attempting to achieve. You assign RI to the UST you end up with an IRS office on the west coast  blabbing on about some mysterious arguement...why? I'd sure like to know why.  

Granting a RI to anyone isn't an argument. Granting or transferring property is an act, not an argument. If I sent you a gold necklace as a gift would that be an argument? Would a conflict be created or an insult? Where is the conflict at?

Even during my, ahem, unenlightened days, when the IRS lost my deposits, and I corrected them I'd receive letters claiming I was arguing in a frivolous way. It's a form letter that is issued from the vast moat of ignorance that surrounds virtually everything. Constructively you can only use the IRS' own logic against them.

I received a form letter that babbled on why I needed to pay my taxes. I wrote back. Okay. What would you like me to pay them with?

No response.

The key word in the matter is frivolous. Your argument is easily broken down.However one can only do that if an argument was offered in the first place. An argument can only be deemed frivolous if it was offered in the first place. There is no law that can take impossibilities into account.
 
I'd send a letter back asking what arguement was offered?

And I would ask what license and authority the IRS had that it could trump United States Code?  Title 12 may be on the internet as a matter of public record or convenience but is still published by the United States. The government publishing office. Merely the fact that something on the internet doesn't make it untruthful. Show them where THEIR argument is invalid. Just because a law is accessible to the public via the internet doesn't invalidate it. That is really a frivolous argument