<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
		>

<channel>
	<title>Family Guardian | Lancellote | Activity</title>
	<link>https://famguardian.org/members/lancellote/activity/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://famguardian.org/members/lancellote/activity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for Lancellote.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 03:56:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=3.5.0</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
		
								<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">fa7bfd5b2fe8923dc49bfe84b7a2704a</guid>
				<title>Lancellote replied to the discussion Can you actually Willfully fail to file? in the forum 5.5.1. Legal Research Assistance</title>
				<link>https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/can-you-actually-willfully-fail-to-file/#post-13013</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:45:50 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/can-you-actually-willfully-fail-to-file/#post-13013"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> Can you actually Willfully fail to file?</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>Re-consent; I recently and last year personally have stopped the IRS from garnishing the wife&#039;s pay check. Yes, consent was my word to the employer, I do not consent you Mr employer to give any of the wifes labor to the IRS&#039; Mafia, employer agreed and told the IRS employee, will not consent nor sign the form. IRS, never comeback, until six&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-5940"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/can-you-actually-willfully-fail-to-file/#post-13013" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">9cc3c838329d7ccb4cdf5d20c59c67a2</guid>
				<title>Lancellote replied to the discussion Rebutted contentions about admiralty Jurisdiction in the forum 5.5.1. Legal Research Assistance</title>
				<link>http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/rebutted-contentions-about-admiralty-jurisdiction/#post-11669</link>
				<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:02:45 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/rebutted-contentions-about-admiralty-jurisdiction/#post-11669"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> Rebutted contentions about admiralty Jurisdiction</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>Re-Maritime, (1972 Congress superceded Nacirema Co. V Johnson by extending the LHWCA landward beyond the shoreline of the navigation waters of the United States. Pub. L. 92-576, 86 Stat. 1251, amending 33 USC 903 (a).</p>
<p>See Ship V. pennsylvania (1980)</p>
<p>Lancellote</p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
		