PDA

View Full Version : 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money



froze25
12-23-13, 04:53 PM
OK, So I have been making my demand for Lawful money now for just about a year and about to do my first Return (probably 2nd week in Jan 2014). Is there anyone else on this forum in the same boat? I figured this would be a good thread for us newbies going through it for the first time to help eachother. I will up load some sanitized pics of my checks/pay-stubs/1040's/W2's so we can check each others work and support our successes together.

Best, Froze25 Merry Christmas
:)

ag maniac
12-24-13, 04:11 PM
Make sure to file a new W-4 for 2014 -- EXEMPT

doug555
12-24-13, 10:50 PM
OK, So I have been making my demand for Lawful money now for just about a year and about to do my first Return (probably 2nd week in Jan 2014). Is there anyone else on this forum in the same boat? I figured this would be a good thread for us newbies going through it for the first time to help eachother. I will up load some sanitized pics of my checks/pay-stubs/1040's/W2's so we can check each others work and support our successes together.

Best, Froze25 Merry Christmas
:)


Be sure to review this thread: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?844-1040-help&highlight=10099

ag maniac
12-25-13, 06:34 AM
Be sure to review this thread: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?844-1040-help&highlight=10099

Thank you for that thorough compilation doug555 !!!

doug555
12-25-13, 07:24 PM
Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
Be sure to review this thread: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?844-1040-help&highlight=10099

Thank you for that thorough compilation doug555 !!!

You're welcome! But 1040 Help (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/1040-relief) is only 1/3 of the solution. Here are the 3 remedies needing to be implemented:

1. Demanding Lawful Money for All Transactions (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/lawful-money-demands-getting-started/)


"Lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)"

1782


2. Surrendering the Usufruct (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1146-Usufruct-Surrender-Remedy)


See also:
http://www.iamsomedude.com/)
http://www.iamsomedude.com/advanced.html
Example UCC Filings (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_UDRKZFhiY1lxejQ&usp=sharing)


3. Indorsing Bills as Credit Vouchers (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/indorsed-bill-remedy/)


See sample "Usufruct Indorsement (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_MVZsQ0hrWE44LTg/edit?usp=sharing)"
See how, in essence, this worked in Abraham Lincoln's time (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_M2hyWGw2dUVkOGc/edit?usp=sharing). Read carefully page 129 [excerpted below, highlighting added].

1785

froze25
12-26-13, 03:29 PM
Make sure to file a new W-4 for 2014 -- EXEMPT
I have been writing exempt on my W-4's since I started working back in 1993, but thanks for the heads up.:o

David Merrill
12-26-13, 04:14 PM
I have been writing exempt on my W-4's since I started working back in 1993, but thanks for the heads up.:o

That is interesting. Why do you want to file?

froze25
12-27-13, 03:33 PM
OK so here is what I have so far, I used the old 2012 IT-201 form for NY since they have not released the 2013 one yet but I figured it couldn't of changed that much.
15181519152015211522

froze25
12-27-13, 03:34 PM
15231524152515261527

froze25
12-27-13, 03:36 PM
And this is a sample check that I have another 48 of from the the rest of the year.
1528

doug555
12-27-13, 04:54 PM
And this is a sample check that I have another 48 of from the the rest of the year.
1528

Re: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1036-1st-Return-Redeeming-Lawful-Money&p=12280&viewfull=1#post12280 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1036-1st-Return-Redeeming-Lawful-Money&p=12280&viewfull=1#post12280)

Good notation on Line 21.

I would change "Net Pay" to "Regular Pay" (also add lines for any "Overtime Pay" and "Holiday Pay", however your Payroll Register lists them)

Re: this message: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1036-1st-Return-Redeeming-Lawful-Money&p=12284&viewfull=1#post12284 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1036-1st-Return-Redeeming-Lawful-Money&p=12284&viewfull=1#post12284)

CAUTION: And after looking at your stamp, it would leave some doubt as to whether you demanded lawful money for all transactions. This is WHY I use my exact wording handwritten only on the FRONT of all my checks and deposit slips: lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2) In this way, all transactions are covered, like direct deposits, debit cards, trades, EFTs, etc.

Suggestion: File in your local county registrar a notarized "Affidavit in Support of Demanding Lawful Money for All Transactions, nunc pro tunc, January ___, 2013" [date you starting your demands].

Also include the Notary's Certificate of Commission, proving s/he was a notary at the time of your signing.

See my Proof of Life (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_UVNXZ0pUNGhrdjg&usp=sharing) filing for examples of a filing cover sheet and a Notary Certificate.

Be sure to get 2 certified copies of your filing back out from the registrar so you can scan and upload that to your 1040 folder that you create on Google Drive for easy reference by the IRS if they want to check that link that you include on your Lawful Money Demand Schedule. You could also include a copy with your 1040 filing just as a good faith gesture to show your demand starting date.

You may also want review all of my Declarations (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_SXMyRWxNRlZUTldqM0tUSUE 3Zm1qdw&usp=sharing), as they may have been a factor in the honoring of my demands and 1040 reductions for the past two years.

P.S. Here is a sample affidavit: (no legal advice is given or to be construed)

AFFIDAVIT
In Support of
Demanding Lawful Money for All Transactions, nunc pro tunc, January ___, 2013

JOHN H. DOE, being duly sworn, does hereby solemnly declare:

1. That the Undersigned, JOHN H. DOE, hereinafter "AFFIANT", is over the age of eighteen (18) years and competent to testify; and further,
2. That AFFIANT has first hand knowledge of the facts testified to herein; and further,
3. That the facts testified to are true, correct, certain, and not misleading; and further,
4. That it was, is, and always will be the intent and deed of the Undersigned to demand lawful money for all transactions, nunc pro tunc, January __, 2013, per 12 USC 411; and further,
5. That it was, is, and always will be the intent and deed of the Undersigned to demand full discharge for all transactions, nunc pro tunc, January __, 2013, per 12 USC 95a(2); and further,

Further AFFIANT sayeth naught.

JOHN H. DOE, by _________________________________, Agent, January ___, 2014 A.D.
All rights reserved

STATE OF................................)
..............................................) ss.
COUNTY OF___________________)

On the ______ day of ____________________, 20____ A.D., before me, the above signatory personally appeared before me and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he or she executed the same in his or her authorized capacity and as a free act and deed, and that by his or her signature on the instrument, the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, signed under oath or asseveration, and accepts the truth thereof.

________________________
Notary name PRINTED Notary Signature Seal/Stamp

________________________
Notary City and State My commission expires

froze25
12-28-13, 12:23 AM
Doug, I went to the county clerks office they said that the affidavit was un-recordable, since it had nothing to do with a court-case or a real-estate transaction but suggested that I put it in the miscellaneous file at the court records office and they would file it there so I did, this is what I got. They took it stamped it received and said that it was in the miscellaneous file and if I wanted a certified copy of it I would just need to provide them with the date it was put into miscellaneous but they also stamped 2 other originals for me that I kept. Also got my banks notary to to notarize it for me just for fun he also read the document but did not ask me about it all he asked was what it was for and I said to make a public record of my demand he then wrote that in his log book.
1530

doug555
12-28-13, 01:36 AM
Doug, I went to the county clerks office they said that the affidavit was un-recordable, since it had nothing to do with a court-case or a real-estate transaction but suggested that I put it in the miscellaneous file at the court records office and they would file it there so I did, this is what I got. They took it stamped it received and said that it was in the miscellaneous file and if I wanted a certified copy of it I would just need to provide them with the date it was put into miscellaneous but they also stamped 2 other originals for me that I kept. Also got my banks notary to to notarize it for me just for fun he also read the document but did not ask me about it all he asked was what it was for and I said to make a public record of my demand he then wrote that in his log book.
1530

Well done Steven! That is exactly where mine is too, under Miscellaneous Notices. That is why I said "county registrar". But you did great!!! Bravo! Glad the clerk was so helpful.

Perhaps if you had used a Cover Sheet (like in my Proof of Life), it would have made it easier too, since the special wording I use triggers their cooperation for some reason.

REMINDER - IMPORTANT: Be sure to later get the Notary's Certificate of Commission (WITH COUNTY SEAL ON IT) from the Clerk at the Courthouse the next time you go, and then get it added to your affidavit filing to make it "full-proof". This is VITAL, even if "they" may say it is unnecessary. Most people skip this step and thereby leave that presumption (of Notary not being a legitimate notary at the time of signing) unrebutted. Don't let this loophole be available for them to use later in court to discharge your case, OK? (no legal advice given or to be construed).

Best regards,
Doug

froze25
12-28-13, 03:57 AM
Ok, so now my basic question is, from past experience has anyone included that filing with thier return, would they do/not do it and why? Is it to serve as back up later? If so how would you apply it? I can probably get the Notary's*Certificate of Commission*(WITH COUNTY SEAL ON) on monday, I did this all with the county ckerks office so I think I need to go there for it. Agree / disagree?

Freed Gerdes
12-28-13, 07:31 AM
David, I would like to start a new thread in honor of 100 years of Federal Reserve dishonorable behavior, titled 'Presumption of Voluntary Debt Servitude.' It will define the legal structure of our present situation, which should then shed some light on how to extricate the free man from the statutory government.

100 years ago the US government chartered a central bank, the Federal Reserve (see 12 USC). The primary feature of this central bank was that it had/has a monopoly on loaning debt to the government. It does this by issuing non-interest bearing notes (a note is evidence of a debt) called FRN's, in exchange for interest bearing Treasury bonds (a bond is evidence of a debt). These bonds are then sold to the rentier class or retained by the Fed; interest is paid on the bonds yearly. The initial charter was for 20 years, so in 1933 the charter came up for renewal. By this time, the US (corporate) government had borrowed enough money to be unable to pay the interest on it, so Congress passed JR792 (a Joint Resolution is not law, and only applies to the corporate government) admitting that the federal government was bankrupt, and FDR issued a presidential edict creating a trust, and pledging all the assets of the US (corporate) government into the trust, to be held by the bankers as collateral for the now unpayable debt. At the same time, the Labor Department began issuing birth certificates (a certificate is proof of ownership) for all new-born Americans. By issuing these certificates, after first registering the birth (regis: king; registration assigns ownership to the king), the US corp-gov was claiming ownership of its citizens, and pledging them as collateral for its debts.

Since there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the govt to claim ownership of its citizens, the legal sleight of hand began with the creation of Social Security, posited as a 'social contract' which would provide security for Americans in their old age. The SC later ruled that SS is not a contract, it is a welfare program, but it is also voluntary, and taxes may be collected to support its costs. A condition of volunteering for SS is to select a domicile in Washington, DC, the only territory within the continental US where the federal (corporate) govt has exclusive jurisdiction. By volunteering for SS, the free man becomes a 'contracted' voluntary debt slave. The contract, which is itself unconscionable (containing conditions which no honest man would offer, and no intelligent man would knowingly accept), makes the free man into a 14th Amendment citizen, a 'US citizen,' and a statutory citizen. Such a citizen has no Constitutional rights, having contracted them away to the US corp-gov; now all laws, rules, and statutes apply to this citizen. All his assets and all his future labor are pledged to the collateral for the corp-gov debt, so the state now has an interest in protecting its property, and can apply endless statutes (statutes are municipal law, enforceable only through contract), and normally applied to your corporate person, the legal persona created by your birth certificate, and enrolled into the trust against/without your consent.

All Federal Reserve banks are willing participants in this debt servitude scam. Note that the central bank never loaned any money to the corp-gov, it only loaned your credit. When it 'buys' Treasury bonds from the corp-gov, it 'pays' for them with newly printed currency, debt notes, not money. Every time you endorse a paycheck, you are taking responsibility for the creation of this amount of debt. Your employer and the bank cheerfully report the amounts of debt money you accepted responsibility for, and the IRS then expects you to pay 'income tax' as your share of the cost of paying the interest on this debt. The banks and the corp-gov, which is owned by the banks, understand that they will never pay off the debt; it is in their interest to increase the debt, thus increasing the interest due to them for creating the debt notes to 'pay for' all this debt. It is a scam to take money from you through taxes, and give it to the bankers, whose only contribution was to coerce politicians into setting up the scam. Money and power...

Now, today, the IRS keeps a permanent record (for the US Treasury) of all the debt you endorse. When you demand lawful money, you are taking the transaction out of the bankruptcy system. You are not using the Federal Reserve credit system, so no obligation to pay income tax is incurred. And because you use lawful money to buy things, no capture of the ownership of the asset occurs; the asset is not pledged as collateral for the corp-gov debt. So you can obtain legal title to the asset. However, if you do not rebut the presumption that you are a statutory citizen, the IRS will presume that the asset is pledged as collateral, making you subject to other taxes on property.

Note that the corp-gov has no right to confiscate your property and pledge it as collateral to the banks without your consent. They presume that you gave consent when you signed up for SS, and that you are continuing to consent when you do business with a Federal Reserve bank without rebutting their presumption that you want to deal in debt notes. However, the nature of a trust is that the Trustee (the Sec of the Treasury, who is an employee of the IMF) holds and protects your assets for you the beneficiary. You don't own the assets, as the corp-gov has registered them (claimed ownership) due to the residual debt involved in using debt notes instead of money. Debt cannot discharge debt; a FRN is a promise to pay, not payment, so 'purchasing' an asset with debt creates a lien in favor of the debt issuer, the Federal Reserve. Thus legal title remains with the corp-gov, and you get only equitable title, the right to use the asset. So by creating this trust, the corp-gov could claim legal title to your assets without compensation, because the assets are still 'yours to use.' However, this arrangement makes confiscation much easier should the banks decide that you are not being a good corporate citizen...

Many comments on this web site have stated that the state 'owns' your legal name, and that you can't 'own' anything legally because you have 'no money.' The state registered your name, and they put the name into the trust, thus making a presumption that you wanted to contribute to paying off the bankers. The state owns (holds equitable title to) all the assets in the trust. The state owns the legal entity YOUR FULL NAME, and allows you to use it, but doing so gifts all your assets to them as collateral on the debt. So you need to make your demand for lawful money, ab initio (in the beginning) and nunc pro tunc (now for then) and file it in the public record. This rebutts the original presumption that you wanted your assets pledged to the debt (they would not have been in the trust if you had been using lawful money from the beginning), you have discharged all debt claims against your estate; you have taken your assets out of the bankruptcy trust and claimed their legal ownership to yourself, you the living man. However, your corporate person is still a US citizen, a statutory employee of the corp-gov. YOUR FULL NAME is still under the jurisdiction of our current statutory courts. Statutory courts are not recognized by the Constitution; they are creations of the executive branch of our corporate government. They operate under contract law as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code. When you make your demand for lawful money and reside outside of Washington, DC, you are not in contract with the Federal government, so you can now rebut the presumption that you are a surety for your corporate person. Note that statutes, which are not law, but are basically corporate rules, only apply to corporate employees. If the statutory court cannot show a contract that you the living man have knowingly entered into with the state, they have no jurisdiction over you. Statutory courts never have jurisdiction over natural persons: contracts must be between equals, and the court is a corporate subdivision of the corp-gov, thus it can only deal with other corporations. Thus if the court cannot prove that you are surety for your corporate person, they can not make any claim against you the living man.

Comments, corrections, and criticism are invited.

Freed

Please Note These Two Corrections:

1. The claim by the corporate government to your assets and labor does not arise from the use of Federal Reserve Notes: it arises from the presumption that you are a voluntary debt slave, as indicated by your use of the transmitting utility (YOUR FULL NAME). This legal entity, a limited liability corporate subdivision of the corporate government, is owned by the state. You the living man have no claim to it now or later. You have a legal name which when not written in all capital letters is you the living man, and the state has no claim on that entity. Use it.

2. The obligation to pay income taxes arises from the use of FRN's, and also from the use of YOUR FULL NAME on your employment contract: this confirms the presumption that you voluntarily agree to gift your income to the state. The W-4 also confirms the presumption that you want your pay to be taxed 'as if you were a government employee.' The state can then tax you on the use of your income! This tax is assigned to YOUR FULL NAME, but since you agreed to be employed under your LLC, and you endorsed the paychecks, you have now confirmed the presumption that you have agreed to be a debt slave to the corporate government, so you are now the surety for the LLC's debts.

Freed

froze25
12-28-13, 02:54 PM
Great post, this book has a lot of info on the subject of pulling yourself out of the "system" its called the errant sovereign handbook this is volume one. http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/sovereignty/errant-sovereign-handbook.pdf I heard about it on a talk shoe call. Its a very interesting read.

This is volume 2 that assumes you have done what the the author suggests in volume 1

http://www.hourofthetime.com/1-LF/December2012/Hour_Of_The_Time_12092012-The_Sovereign_The_System_The_Interface_The_Errant_ Sovereigns_Handbook_Volume_2.pdf
That website has a ton of info on it if you dig for it.

For full disclosure I have done nothing in either volume myself.

Back to my last post, as to sending in the affidavit that I filed with my return. Has anyone done/not done that, success/failure, reasons for either?

Mark Allan
01-11-14, 07:50 PM
I'm in the same boat. However, I modified my Signature Card last year, prior to that years first paycheck..., so slightly different scenario. I won't be submitting photo-copies of checks processed.

And seeing ag maniac's instruction, I too modified my W-4, but still had some withholding. I believe David suggested that. Sorry if I misspeak for him. I further plan to again submit a new W-4 again, for this current year, & each and every subsequent year I am blessed with continued employment.

Mark Allan
01-11-14, 08:04 PM
Wow, I have been away from our site here for much too long.
This is precisely what I have been "agonizing" over. Thanks doug555 & froze25.
I have flown through the posts, so have not gone into the links provided as of yet. But, have fretted over "process" as year end approached. Will read through, digest what I can, & seek clarity when I feel turned about. Thanks folks!

Mark Allan
01-12-14, 01:19 AM
Freed, did you indeed start a separate thread on this discussion of yours?
I am curious about 1 additional step I took this past year beyond making my demand for lawful money at my bank, (via modified signature card); I published a Legal Notice making / stating my Declaration of Independence.

This solemn declaration made notice of my right to expatriate absolute, my res in trust to the foreign jurisdiction known as the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia, a democracy, and return to the Republic.

It went on to further declare any and all past & present political ties implied by operation of law or otherwise in trust with the democracy is hereby dissolved. This affidavit was first notarized, then published for 2 consecutive weeks.

Beyond this step I am unclear with whom this Official published notice should next be placed on file with, so as to obtain a status completely removed & no longer a US Citizen. Would, as you describe above I next somehow file or place the subsequent affidavit of publication received from the newspaper with my states, Secretary of State?

Hope that was clearly articulated, but this process is basically unknown to me & like froze, when at the county clerks, froze was fortunate to interact with helpful folks, getting pointed over to the county registrar. Being newbie here I merely wish to act & take purposeful steps. And so while making mistakes can be a learning process, truly there is limited time I myself have for tackling these things. Basically, its not laziness, but more a desire to accomplish much with the limited time I can devote toward this.

Regardless, of your response on this, or lack there of, Thanks for a great write up, and detailed description of what is for some, (me), a bit of a confusing several topics. You write clearly and flesh out detail & that's a gift. There are any number of really bright folks here. I will be excited if some make comment on your presentment.

David Merrill
01-12-14, 01:26 AM
David, I would like to start a new thread in honor of 100 years of Federal Reserve dishonorable behavior, titled 'Presumption of Voluntary Debt Servitude.'

I was confused about the title.

Freed Gerdes
01-13-14, 04:55 AM
Mark Allen, David did start a new thread titled Presumption of Debt Servitude; it is starting to attract some interest. As to your Declaration of Independence, that is an interesting approach, and I am not sure what should or needs to be done with it. If you follow the new thread, my view is that you should make your demand for lawful money, now, ab initio, and nunc pro tunc, and file it in the public record (County Clerk), then serve it on your bank and on the Regional Federal Reserve Bank for your region. The Regional FR Bank is a more reasonable agent for the Federal Reserve, and it is through the action of their debt instruments (FRN's) that the lien on your assets is maintained in the Treasury Trust held in YOUR NAME. So noticing the Regional FR Bank puts the whole FR system on notice that you are rebutting the presumption that you want to be a debt slave. David suggests putting all these records into a District Court file, but that may be difficult. My view is that if you have a good safe place to store them yourself, that is good enough. Since your Declaration is against the federal government, the Secretary of State is not involved. You might try including it in your tax return, since that corporation actually maintains your Treasury account records. But you will need to inform the IRS that you are demanding lawful money, or they will consider your Declaration an act of war. You the natural person have the right to cancel your contract with the Treasury, by ordering the Trustee (Sec of Treasury) to redeem your estate out of debt collateral using lawful money. Then you have the right to change the domicile of YOUR NAME to an address outside DC (and outside the Federal Districts, such as NC 282720). You do that by recording YOUR NAME as a dba with the secretary of State. Sounds like you are making good use of your limited time, and thanks for the kind words about my writing style.

Freed

froze25
01-15-14, 07:40 PM
Freed, did you indeed start a separate thread on this discussion of yours?
I am curious about 1 additional step I took this past year beyond making my demand for lawful money at my bank, (via modified signature card); I published a Legal Notice making / stating my Declaration of Independence.

This solemn declaration made notice of my right to expatriate absolute, my res in trust to the foreign jurisdiction known as the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia, a democracy, and return to the Republic.

It went on to further declare any and all past & present political ties implied by operation of law or otherwise in trust with the democracy is hereby dissolved. This affidavit was first notarized, then published for 2 consecutive weeks.

Beyond this step I am unclear with whom this Official published notice should next be placed on file with, so as to obtain a status completely removed & no longer a US Citizen. Would, as you describe above I next somehow file or place the subsequent affidavit of publication received from the newspaper with my states, Secretary of State?

Hope that was clearly articulated, but this process is basically unknown to me & like froze, when at the county clerks, froze was fortunate to interact with helpful folks, getting pointed over to the county registrar. Being newbie here I merely wish to act & take purposeful steps. And so while making mistakes can be a learning process, truly there is limited time I myself have for tackling these things. Basically, its not laziness, but more a desire to accomplish much with the limited time I can devote toward this.

Regardless, of your response on this, or lack there of, Thanks for a great write up, and detailed description of what is for some, (me), a bit of a confusing several topics. You write clearly and flesh out detail & that's a gift. There are any number of really bright folks here. I will be excited if some make comment on your presentment.

One thing, I always am freshly shaven and wear a suite and tie when ever I am conducting business whether that be banking, political or any other dealings that I care about the outcome. People treat you very differently if you look professional and keep a calm demeanor. You aren't there to fight with them you just want to do it the right way and need some help. It may not be the way it should be but it is that way.

David Merrill
01-15-14, 10:07 PM
One thing, I always am freshly shaven and wear a suite and tie when ever I am conducting business whether that be banking, political or any other dealings that I care about the outcome. People treat you very differently if you look professional and keep a calm demeanor. You aren't there to fight with them you just want to do it the right way and need some help. It may not be the way it should be but it is that way.


Good advice! I hope I used mothballs....

Mark Allan
01-18-14, 12:36 AM
In a different thread I mentioned I had published my personal Declaration of Independence. Within that
declaration I published my name as, Mark Allan of the NOUMEN family.

It was done this way from a common law practice I was told, so as to differentiate the name from the "occupation".
ie, MILLER vs miller the occupation, BARBER vs barber, you get the drift...

froze25
02-06-14, 08:35 PM
Today I mailed my returns in to the Fed and NY. I will update as things unfold.

Moxie
02-14-14, 06:00 AM
So you need to make your demand for lawful money, ab initio (in the beginning) and nunc pro tunc (now for then) and file it in the public record. This constitutes the appearance which proves that you are not legally incompetent, and it collapses the trust. Further, since you are rebutting the original presumption that you wanted your assets pledged to the debt (they would not have been in the trust if you had been using lawful money from the beginning), you have discharged all debt claims against your estate...

Q1: So, "ab initio" and "nunc pro tunc" makes the demand for lawful money effective all the way back to when the trust was set up? (Just double-taking the "too good to be true" vibe about this lol)

Moxie
02-14-14, 06:25 AM
P.S. I believe the Lawful Money Demand issue is CRITICAL, because we cannot claim anything as property if private credit of Fed is used to purchase it.

Including big-ticket items like cars and homes? If so.....

If people made their lawful money demand when buying their home, would their homes have not been foreclosed upon? And would the lawful money demand eliminate the need for quiet title and accepting the deed? Anyone done this?

JohnnyCash
02-15-14, 03:21 AM
Bank/mortgage company doesn't loan you lawful money. It creates new Fed Reserve currency under the pretense of lending it. That's really the core of the fraud isn't it?

BTW, this appears to be someone's first Lawful Money tax return:
http://jesse2012.com/W2_2013.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/1040_LM_1.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/1040_LM_3.jpg

Moxie
02-15-14, 05:19 AM
Bank/mortgage company doesn't loan you lawful money.

I'm aware of that; I thought the house/car payments made with the demand would "undo" the private credit.

Moxie
02-17-14, 03:35 AM
Q1: So, "ab initio" and "nunc pro tunc" makes the demand for lawful money effective all the way back to when the trust was set up? (Just double-taking the "too good to be true" vibe about this lol)

Sooo, the (void) ab initio voids the trust, then the nunc pro tunc is for the day the demand begins? Or does nunc pro tunc start from the beginning of the trust, too?

Nunc pro tunc -- "acts allowed to be done after the time when they should be done with a retroactive
effect."

So "should be done" is whenever I say it is?

Michael Joseph
02-17-14, 02:54 PM
Sooo, the (void) ab initio voids the trust, then the nunc pro tunc is for the day the demand begins? Or does nunc pro tunc start from the beginning of the trust, too?

Nunc pro tunc -- "acts allowed to be done after the time when they should be done with a retroactive
effect."

So "should be done" is whenever I say it is?

My personal opinion in this matter is that "IF I would have known" - about lawful money THEN I would have used it - is not good enough. Meaning other men and women have put food on their tables based on my actions. To think that I might go back and overturn your actions in my mind does not seem Equitable. As for my house we drew a line and from that day forward we changed the way we do business.

Nunc Pro Tunc = Now for Then
Ab Initio = From the Beginning

Those who desire Equity must do Equity. Which is a restatement of the golden rule. And of course I don't mean "He who has the gold makes the rules."

I had a friend who thought he could "get rid" of the SSN and all of the chattels associated with the ACCOUNT IN THE NAME = holding vessel = Estate held in Trust. So he went south of the border to a US Embassy and tried to tender documents saying "I do not desire citizenship any more". And the response was "then stop doing the things that make you a citizen". See the "trust accounts" were not setup by us so we do not have the power to annul them.

I recently helped a Doctor friend of mine who had been duped to attempt to sign away his Social Security benefits [an insurance program]. When he showed me the letter he sent to the SSA trying to nullify the account - I just laughed. He does not have the power to delete the account! He does not have SUPERUSER access to the account!

So even after trying to delete the account and even after waiving benefits with his signature - the lady on the other end merely asked - where do you want us to send the money? He paid premiums for 40 Quarters = 10 years - he was eligible for payout. Why would anyone want to waive benefit such as this? This makes no sense to me whatsoever and it shows complete lack of understanding. In my opinion, those who do not truly comprehend the nature of Trust cannot understand what the language on the back of the SSN Card means.

Shalom,
MJ

John Howard
02-17-14, 03:27 PM
Yes, I'll take the benefits. How else can I get my five oxen and four sheep (http://biblehub.com/exodus/22-1.htm)?

Anthony Joseph
02-17-14, 04:38 PM
if it is of benefit to use a 'thing', then use it; and, cause no harm or injury to another man while doing so

if it is of no benefit to use a 'thing', then do not use it; and, cause no harm or injury to another man while doing so

these two choices are always available, at any moment, if man so wishes; if you choose one, it does not cancel the availability of the other

man is unbound and unlimited in his capacity; only he decides what 'role' he plays at any given moment

corporations were/are created to help man, not harm him; and, man cannot harm a corporation (it is impossible for the living to cause harm to the non-living)

if a cause comes against you, who is the moving party? only he/she may offer testimony and verify a claim of a harm, injury or breach committed

has anyone ever heard the voice of 'UNITED STATES' or 'IRS'? what does it sound like, male or female?

Michael Joseph
02-17-14, 06:04 PM
If I improve a piece of land and I erect a fence bounding the land, doesn't my fence imply to all others to keep out? Isn't a survey a Fence?

Pro 22:26 Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts.

Pro 22:27 If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee?

Pro 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

Now lets say someone erects a mental fence - called a Law Boundary - and others decide they like those laws and they too would like to live under those laws. Now then the set of Laws - WHICH REPRESENT AN EQUITY - provide benefit for the men and women who abide under their Shade. The mental assemblage might even be given a name - in order to FENCE in the Equity. Those that have "skin in the game" will not abide those taking against what they worked so hard to establish. Thou shall not steal.

Now you say the Name is not real and no one can speak for it. I say that is not true. a man inherits in a name and he speaks for his inheritance [estate]. I notice that the law boundary is most times Copy Protected - so as to ensure that Trespass is not unintentionally made. The Law Boundary is most times published as well for the same purposes. Since all agree to live UNDER the SHADE of the Laws established for mutual benefit, then all agree to be bound also to the Judgments established for breaking those laws.

Simply put this is just a Named Trust Organization. And the Husbandmen [Trustees] speak for the Organization. THE TWO BECOME ONE. The Trustees might even License others to speak, as agent or licensee. Of course it is always up to man to decide where UNDER he/she will place their trust.

For IF I place my trust IN you, then I will submit to your rule. It is that simple. It is all about CHOICE - and SERVICE for man has nothing to give God that he creates except Choice and Service [which is to say Love]: If you Love me, then keep my Commandments.

So now the question begging to be answered is Whose Law should we take shade under? Now we are beginning to get a peek at the true Sovereign. The Law giver is Sovereign. And man, with the choice, decides which Law he or she will abide under. Now if the set of laws that a man fences in his life is beneficial to his or her existence, then the Law becomes a benefit upon said man or woman. And everyone within that FENCE undertakes under the same law and is made subject to that same Law and its Judgments.


Friend simply put, the entire setup is Voluntary.

Psa 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the MOST HIGH Shall abide under the shadow of THE ALMIGHTY.

Psa 91:2 I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress: My Judge; in Him will I trust.

So if we submit to another's rule, in keeping their Law - isn't this what Adam and Eve did? Didn't they submit to the Devil/Satan/Serpent instead of obeying Yehovah? They choose another lawgiver and in doing so made Satan their king [Sovereign].

A thing is a TERM not a word. Property, Estates and Claims and Dominion, Possession are focused on Things. Where it gets interesting is in INTEREST in Things. And the meaning of Trespass. Because clearly the fence I erected is made of wood that belongs to God, but I would not be happy if I found you in the backyard at midnight.

I have an equitable interest in the Thing, the assemblage of Things [House], etc. Now if all I work for is money and not things, then everyTHING acquired with this debt - money gives an interest to the Mortgagee [Lender]. THE BANK END UP OWNING everyTHING. by consent!

Consider if I, as Creator, establish a Trust. I also settle the Laws that the Trust will be governed, I also, appoint myself to be Trustee for a Class of Beneficiaries of which I am a member. Do any of the beneficiaries, besides myself, have any standing to change any aspect of the Trust? Not if the bylaws do not allow for it! By consent the men and women might take Shade or not. Just make a use of ANY website - and upon reading the TERMS OF USE - by consent you agree to the Terms BY YOUR USE.

Its all inside your mind she said to me....EXCEPT that the mental construct becomes real when you act upon it. That is either a two or three party contract.

However, since I like TO HAVE - QUIET - ENJOYMENT - so why shouldn't I afford you the same consideration? Pride and Ego get in the way due to Fear and Greed.

Shalom,
MJ

froze25
03-10-14, 03:53 PM
Quick update, I am at stage one of my federal return. Screen Shot here
1586

froze25
03-11-14, 05:51 PM
NY State Status with Screen shot, refund should be mailed by March 18th. :)
1587

Chex
03-11-14, 08:07 PM
Plan B standing by if they refuse to honor the law?

froze25
03-11-14, 08:13 PM
Plan B standing by if they refuse to honor the law? I need one? Wouldn't life just continue, my sole good theirs or their masters condemned to eternal damnation? Have you had bad experience with them not honoring the law Chex? What is your plan B?

Chex
03-11-14, 08:37 PM
I need one? You bet. Wouldn't life just continue, my sole good theirs or their masters condemned to eternal damnation? Have you had bad experience with them not honoring the law Chex? You bet What is your plan B?

What is plan B if they refuse to honor the law? Only 1 (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm),

Michael Joseph
03-12-14, 12:22 AM
I need one? Wouldn't life just continue, my sole good theirs or their masters condemned to eternal damnation? Have you had bad experience with them not honoring the law Chex? What is your plan B?


FEAR NOT. Be as David a young lad standing in the presence of Gladiators - looking around - he asked why haven't you charged? Who is this clown who defies the armies of the Living God? In the Name of Yehovah ben El Elyon - Charge.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the title-deed of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen.

Heb 12:7 Ye are suffering patiently for discipline, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom a father chasteneth not?

Heb 12:8 But if ye be apart from chastening, whereof all have become partakers, then have become ye fictitious children, and not sons.

JohnnyCash
03-12-14, 03:22 PM
Bill Holter says Option B is skip the pretenses altogether and just go straight to war. Doubt they have enough cash to though.

http://blog.milesfranklin.com/100-trillion-in-debt

froze25
03-21-14, 04:57 PM
1st Success, I received the NY State Return Yesterday. Pic attached 1591

JohnnyCash
03-23-14, 06:40 PM
The refund for the lawful money 1040 tax return (http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg) was just approved:

http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg

froze25
03-23-14, 08:42 PM
Nice Johnny, I just saw this on mine, I wonder what the Letter will say? 1592

JohnnyCash
03-24-14, 01:07 AM
I can certainly see the need to bash Lawful Money, to make it look like it doesn't work. Not my cup of tea but someone must play that role; understood. The banksters can't have thousands of taxpayers filing Lawful Money tax returns - they work TOO WELL!

Chex
03-24-14, 03:25 AM
You both have different scenarios.

froze25
03-24-14, 02:01 PM
I can certainly see the need to bash Lawful Money, to make it look like it doesn't work. Not my cup of tea but someone must play that role; understood. The banksters can't have thousands of taxpayers filing Lawful Money tax returns - they work TOO WELL!

Just to be clear I am not bashing, if anything I am trying to prepare to make the Lawful Money deduction execute as I intended. I wish to do this so that I can enjoy the fruits of my labor.

JohnnyCash
03-26-14, 11:35 PM
IRS refund sent!

http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg

Beautiful example of a LAWFUL MONEY Federal Income Tax Return filing for 2013. Note that a matching Form W2 was attached. Also, filer received a Form 1099 for the year with an amount in the tens of thousands but none of it was entered on the 1040.

http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_3.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg

Culminating in the refund to bank account on March 25th:
http://ctcwarrior.com/refund2013.jpg

THANKS EVERYONE!

David Neil
03-27-14, 12:06 AM
Congratulations.
I have just begun. I have redeemed lawful money on 3 paychecks. I did not sign my name anywhere on the check just the demand. They have all been credited to my account. Now I just need to wait for next year. In the mean time I procrastinate filling in this years return:mad:

EZrhythm
03-27-14, 12:19 AM
Why are you waiting for next year? Why not demand lawful money "nunc pro tunc" this year and years past and collect those refunds!

froze25
03-27-14, 01:53 PM
I have still not received the letter from the IRS as they indicated on their website. Has anyone else gotten this from the IRS, if so how did you respond?

David Neil
03-29-14, 05:10 PM
Why are you waiting for next year? Why not demand lawful money "nunc pro tunc" this year and years past and collect those refunds!

I am not sure of this mechanism. I have not set up a repository/court. I have also read posts that this was done successfully in the past but the IRS is no longer obliging this type of return.

Any recent success stories regarding "nunc pro tunc" on a return that has no precedent of actual demand for that tax year?

froze25
03-29-14, 05:34 PM
Ok, I got the letter from the IRS, Here it is suggested replies?
1596
Temporarily Deleted
1598

Moxie
03-29-14, 07:33 PM
One part of the letter says, "your position has no basis in law, IRC bla bla bla" which of course is not true law.

So I wonder if it's a matter of passing the "hot potato" back to them with a rebuttal letter?

And the word "may" as in "may file a bla bla bla against you" seems to imply a possibility, but no real commitment, like the obnoxious yapping neighborhood dog that barks at every little thing but never attacks, never catches the squirrel, etc..

David Merrill
03-29-14, 11:07 PM
Suitors with an evidence repository have had success by adding to the Clerk Instruction (Refusal for Cause):



I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money that I am doing.

But that is with a Libel of Review for an evidence repository and properly refusing for cause the FrivPen warning letter.

May I suggest:


Your letter postdated April 5, 2014 stating that I have filed a frivolous Tax Return confuses me. I have been making demand for redeemed lawful money most of the tax year 2013 and therefore should be getting nearly a full refund of all withholdings. Additionally I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money that I am doing. Please explain exactly where on the Memorandum of 40 Frivolous Arguments you find the Remedy I am using and respond immediately BEFORE charging me a $5,000 Frivolous Penalty.

Michael Joseph
03-29-14, 11:48 PM
Ok, I got the letter from the IRS, Here it is suggested replies?
1596
Temporarily Deleted
1598

froze do not listen to those who would tell you to NOT respond to this as it is just gobbygook. The IRS has convened a common law court in Admiralty and the matter is being heard RIGHT NOW. If you do not respond within 30 days, THEN you will be considered to be in default. And judgement is a matter of Res Judicata. You bring judgment in your silence. Therefore do not remain silent.

I have no idea what you sent them however you are now at a cross roads. If it was me I would write the agent to find out WHY the filing was frivolous - BECAUSE according to your records you deem it to be fine. They made a Claim - and if you remain silent their claim stands. So you write back - Counter Claim. In fact you are the accommodation party in this contract IF you have been endorsing the Federal Reserve System. So as such, it appears that you have an obligation. so what is it?

Are you or are you not? If you have kept your records, then maybe you send the agent a copy of front/back of check from beginning, middle and end of year cycle. Shows sustained performance. But read carefully - if you remain silent then you bring judgment on your own head.

Don't get wrapped around the axle - they beleive you to have an obligation - which you may or may not have. In trust law the trustee is PRESUMED guilty and must show his innocence. So are you righteous or not? If so you had best write back and prove it from within your Court of Record!


THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECENT CORRESPONDENCE - I HAVE EXAMINED IT VERY CAREFULLY AND FOR THE LIFE OF ME I CANNOT FIND WHERE MAKING A DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411 IS A FRIVOLOUS POSITION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER, I HAVE ATTACHED A SAMPLE OF DEMANDS FOR YOUR CONTEMPLATION - IF I CAN BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE - PLEASE ADVISE.

shalom,
MJ

P.S. I just saw David Merrill's post and I am in agreement.

froze25
03-31-14, 03:46 PM
froze do not listen to those who would tell you to NOT respond to this as it is just gobbygook. The IRS has convened a common law court in Admiralty and the matter is being heard RIGHT NOW. If you do not respond within 30 days, THEN you will be considered to be in default. And judgement is a matter of Res Judicata. You bring judgment in your silence. Therefore do not remain silent.

I have no idea what you sent them however you are now at a cross roads. If it was me I would write the agent to find out WHY the filing was frivolous - BECAUSE according to your records you deem it to be fine. They made a Claim - and if you remain silent their claim stands. So you write back - Counter Claim. In fact you are the accommodation party in this contract IF you have been endorsing the Federal Reserve System. So as such, it appears that you have an obligation. so what is it?

Are you or are you not? If you have kept your records, then maybe you send the agent a copy of front/back of check from beginning, middle and end of year cycle. Shows sustained performance. But read carefully - if you remain silent then you bring judgment on your own head.

Don't get wrapped around the axle - they beleive you to have an obligation - which you may or may not have. In trust law the trustee is PRESUMED guilty and must show his innocence. So are you righteous or not? If so you had best write back and prove it from within your Court of Record!


THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECENT CORRESPONDENCE - I HAVE EXAMINED IT VERY CAREFULLY AND FOR THE LIFE OF ME I CANNOT FIND WHERE MAKING A DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411 IS A FRIVOLOUS POSITION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER, I HAVE ATTACHED A SAMPLE OF DEMANDS FOR YOUR CONTEMPLATION - IF I CAN BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE - PLEASE ADVISE.

shalom,
MJ

P.S. I just saw David Merrill's post and I am in agreement.

Michael if you look at the earlier posts I made in this thread you can see exactly what I sent them. I have posted everything in my process here. Check page 1 and 2 of this thread. Thank you for your response I do agree with you to rebut the presumption.

froze25
03-31-14, 06:42 PM
OK so this is what I am thinking of using as my response letter. Let me know your thoughts.

Dear Sir or Madam;


The letter postdated April 7, 2014 (copy included with this letter) stating that I have filed a frivolous Tax Return confuses me. I have been making demand for redeemed lawful money most of the tax year 2013 and therefore should be getting nearly a full refund or a full refund of all withholdings. Additionally I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 that I have been and still are doing as evidenced by the copies of the checks that were included with my refund. I have included 3 of them with this letter as examples. To save money on postage I have not resent all of them. If the agents acting for the IRS need me to resend all of them I can and will upon request.

Please explain exactly where on the Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4 (included with this letter) you find the Remedy I am using or something similar that applies to my filing and respond BEFORE charging me a $5,000 Frivolous Penalty because I cannot find any connection with the process of redeeming Lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 or demand for lawful money reduction on Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4 (http://www.irs.gov/irb/2008-04_IRB/ar12.html).

On the letter that was sent to me it states "review the enclosed Publication 2105 (Why do I have to pay taxes)". Publication 2105 was not included in the letter but I went on irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf) and found what I believe to be the one that was supposed to be sent to me and included it with this letter. Is the included publication 2105 the one the letter I received from the IRS Post dated April 7th 2014 the Publication 2105 it was referring to? If it was the correct publication I was unable to find any reference to the process of redeeming lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 or demand for lawful money reduction.

If I am mistaken please tell me what section(s) apply to my return in your response so that I may understand for this as well as future fillings. If after further review the 1040 I filed is found by the IRS to be correct as I have determined it to be, please respond in kind and I will await the check in the mail. If not please answer my questions and we can work to a speedy resolution.

Warm Regards,
John Q. Doe

David Neil
03-31-14, 08:15 PM
I am not sure of this mechanism. I have not set up a repository/court. I have also read posts that this was done successfully in the past but the IRS is no longer obliging this type of return.

Any recent success stories regarding "nunc pro tunc" on a return that has no precedent of actual demand for that tax year?

Based on the travails of froze25 and the documents he cited I found this:
Frivolous tax returns; “nunc pro tunc.”
This ruling emphasizes to taxpayers, promoters, and return preparers that inserting the
phrase “nunc pro tunc” on a return or other document submitted to the Service has no legal effect and does not validate an invalid return, make a delinquent return timely, invalidate a signature, create a claim for refund of taxes previously paid, or reduce one’s federal tax liability

I will therefore not use this for my current tax year. I will make a valid lawful money deduction based on my evidence repository.

Froze25:
Did you include your affidavit "In Support of Lawful Money". If so I wonder if they are using that document to qualify for "other document submitted to the Service" That affidavit uses the term "nunc pro tunc"?

froze25
03-31-14, 09:04 PM
Based on the travails of froze25 and the documents he cited I found this:
Frivolous tax returns; “nunc pro tunc.”
This ruling emphasizes to taxpayers, promoters, and return preparers that inserting the
phrase “nunc pro tunc” on a return or other document submitted to the Service has no legal effect and does not validate an invalid return, make a delinquent return timely, invalidate a signature, create a claim for refund of taxes previously paid, or reduce one’s federal tax liability

I will therefore not use this for my current tax year. I will make a valid lawful money deduction based on my evidence repository.

Froze25:
Did you include your affidavit "In Support of Lawful Money". If so I wonder if they are using that document to qualify for "other document submitted to the Service" That affidavit uses the term "nunc pro tunc"?

David Neil, I did not sent that in with my return so they do not have a document with "nunc pro tunc"

Moxie
04-01-14, 01:22 AM
Frivolous tax returns; “nunc pro tunc.”
This ruling emphasizes to taxpayers..

Hmm, just wondering -- because the Suitor is no longer endorsing private credit, how can they still be a taxpayer? Isn't the whole idea to avoid paying the user fee for private credit and get the tax refund?

Would be nice to read more of EZ's view about the nunc pro tunc he mentioned.

stoneFree
04-01-14, 03:23 AM
My take here is that "froze25" has conspired to slur lawful money redemption. A setup from the get-go to portray REDEEMING LAWFUL MONEY in a bad light. This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.


IRS refund sent!

http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg

Beautiful example of a LAWFUL MONEY Federal Income Tax Return filing for 2013. Note that a matching Form W2 was attached. Also, filer received a Form 1099 for the year with an amount in the tens of thousands but none of it was entered on the 1040.

http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_3.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg

Culminating in the refund to bank account on March 25th:
http://ctcwarrior.com/refund2013.jpg

THANKS EVERYONE!

froze25
04-01-14, 03:37 AM
My take here is that "froze25" has conspired to slur lawful money redemption. A setup from the get-go to portray REDEEMING LAWFUL MONEY in a bad light. This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.

Stonefree, what I'm trying too do is get a full refund after receiving a semi threatening letter from the IRS, believe it or not that is what I am doing. With some luck this thread will help others to do the same even with threatening letters. That is why I'm attempting to document my experience. Can you show some examples of yours?

Freed Gerdes
04-01-14, 03:59 AM
Froze, here is your explanation in full for the IRS. You may find some or all of it useful in your reply.
I am an American Citizen by being born within the territory of the Union States (jus soli), and born to parents who were also American Citizens (jus patria). As an American Citizen I have certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the ownership of property. Just because the United States of America Corporation (federal government) issued a transmitting utility for me (YOUR FULL NAME) for my use in participating in the public trust, I never voluntarily and knowingly surrendered any of my unalienable rights for a commercial contract (see eg, NCGS 25-1.308 of the UCC), a practice deplored by the United Nations International Covenant on Enforcement of Individual Civil Rights (the ICEICR, now adopted by 176 nations). And since citizenship is a First Amendment right, I chose this past tax year to keep some of the fruits of my labor, which cannot be taxed by the IRS, as the living man has an unalienable right to earn his living through his labor. The use of lawful money is a formal way to rebut the presumption that I have agreed to be a debt slave to the corporate government. Since lawful money is issued by the US Treasury more or less in accordance with the Constitution, it is outside the purview of the IRS, which can only collect a privilege tax on monies gifted to the public trust through the transmitting utility, with endorsement of Federal Reserve credit (sight notes of zero maturity), and thus dealing in private securities, being the privilege. There is nothing frivolous about asserting my rights to retain the fruits of my labor. After all, paying income taxes is voluntary, as is participation in the public trust, and thus volunteering to commit all my property and labor as surety for the onerous national debt.

Freed

JohnnyCash
04-01-14, 04:01 AM
Yeah, and I forgot to include the matching W2. As an eyewitness to the events, I can testify that redeeming lawful money works. Saw the original untouched documents myself. So here is the full example of 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money from a W2 taxpayer:

http://ctcwarrior.com/W2_2013.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_3.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/refund2013.jpg

froze25
04-01-14, 01:19 PM
Yeah, and I forgot to include the matching W2. As an eyewitness to the events, I can testify that redeeming lawful money works. Saw the original untouched documents myself. So here is the full example of 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money from a W2 taxpayer:

http://ctcwarrior.com/W2_2013.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_3.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/refund2013.jpg

Congratulations on your success, was the 3 page of your return, the one that shows other income one of the IRS's forms or did you make it yourself? That is the only fundamental difference I see between your 1040 and mine. Also I see you only attached one check, I sent all of mine.

froze25
04-01-14, 02:13 PM
OK so this will be the finial draft of the letter:

Dear Sir or Madam;

The letter postdated April 7, 2014 (copy included with this letter) stating that I have filed a frivolous Tax Return confuses me. I have been making demand for redeemed lawful money most of the tax year 2013 and therefore should be getting nearly a full refund or a full refund of all withholdings. Additionally I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 that I have been and will continue doing as evidenced by the copies of the checks that were included with my refund. I have included 3 of them with this letter as examples. To save money on postage I have not resent all of them. If the agents acting for the IRS need me to resend all of them I can and will upon request.

Please explain exactly where on the Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4 (included with this letter) you find the Remedy I am using or something similar that applies to my filing and respond BEFORE charging me a $5,000 Frivolous Penalty because I cannot find any connection with the process of redeeming Lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 or demand for lawful money reduction on Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4. It is critical that you point out what exactly is frivolous about my Tax Return Filing in order for me to correct it properly.

On the letter that was sent to me it states, "review the enclosed Publication 2105 (Why do I have to pay taxes)". Publication 2105 was not included in the letter but I went on irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf and found what I believe to be the one that was supposed to be sent to me and included it with this letter. Is the included publication 2105 the one the letter I received from the IRS Post dated April 7th 2014 the "Publication 2105" it was referring to? If it was the correct publication I was unable to find any reference to the process of redeeming lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 or demand for lawful money reduction. Again, since you claim to have included a publication that you did not enclose with your Letter it is critical that you clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.

If I am mistaken please tell me what section(s) apply to my return in your response so that I may understand for this as well as future filings. If after further review the 1040 I filed is found by the IRS to be correct as I have determined it to be, please respond in kind and I will await the check in the mail. If not please answer my questions and we can work to a speedy resolution.

Warm Regards,

LearnTheLaw
04-01-14, 02:55 PM
Ok, I got the letter from the IRS, Here it is suggested replies?
1596
Temporarily Deleted
1598


I have to agree with Micheal Joseph that you must re-butt their proposal within 30 days or else you lose by default.

I appears that there have sent a proposed NEW contract to your all capitals Strawman in the hopes that you answer the letter, which in reality would be an acceptance to contract with them, which binds you back into their Jurisdiction.

Remember, they can not prosecute you outside of their Jurisdiction

It seems to me the best thing you could do is write across their letter in big bold red letters:

THAT'S NOT ME

REFUSED FOR CAUSE

Then get it Notarized and send it back registered mail receipt requested for your records

I may be wrong with my thinking so hopefully others on here can chime in


This not legal advise, it is only my opinion

froze25
04-01-14, 03:08 PM
I have to agree with Micheal Joseph that you must re-butt their proposal within 30 days or else you lose by default.

I appears that there have sent a proposed NEW contract to your all capitals Strawman in the hopes that you answer the letter, which in reality would be an acceptance to contract with them, which binds you back into their Jurisdiction.

Remember, they can not prosecute you outside of their Jurisdiction

It seems to me the best thing you could do is write across their letter in big bold red letters:

THAT'S NOT ME

REFUSED FOR CAUSE

Then get it Notarized and send it back registered mail receipt requested for your records

I may be wrong with my thinking so hopefully others on here can chime in


This not legal advise, it is only my opinion

I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).

LearnTheLaw
04-01-14, 03:20 PM
I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).

What would you expect them to say about it?

Remember, they are willing to lie to you in order to get you into their Jurisdiction

Like I said, hopefully others [like DM or MJ] will chime in

LearnTheLaw
04-01-14, 03:20 PM
I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).

duplicate post

Moxie
04-01-14, 05:17 PM
What would you expect them to say about it?

Remember, they are willing to lie to you in order to get you into their Jurisdiction

Like I said, hopefully others [like DM or MJ] will chime in

Bingo.

And even though I'm just a lowly flea (apparently) in the forums, I will chime in and agree.

Moxie
04-01-14, 05:30 PM
This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.

How does one discern between an "agent sent to dissuade" and a student making innocent comments or innocent mistakes in their learning process?


And I wonder how many innocent people have been driven away from these forums in the midst of their studies, never to return, all because some assumed them to be an agent based on the above. This is tragic. Even shameful.

Moxie
04-01-14, 05:33 PM
This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.

How does one discern between an "agent sent to dissuade" and a student making innocent comments or innocent mistakes in their learning process?


And I wonder how many innocent people have been driven away from these forums in the midst of their studies, never to return, all because some assumed them to be an agent based on the above. This is tragic. Even shameful.

fano24chevy
04-01-14, 06:31 PM
Agreed, you MUST respond. Having seen multiple copies of this letter (thanks Pete/CTC), it's imperative you write, notarize, registered mail w receipt to Ogden. Once you receive the receipt, CALL and follow up w Odgen. Load Skype and an MP3 recorder that records automatically when a call is placed w Skype. Get names, ID #s, etc. Follow w another letter to the one you spoke with (again, notarize, registered mail w receipt) about your phone conversation. Even this may not be enough to stop a letter from Maureen Green, charging the penalty. However, you have a "name" to pursue if it becomes necessary. The key is stop the train before the ACS (Automated Collection System) kicks in.

BTW, it's documented (by others) that the frivpen is actually a "User Fee" based on their own codes. Credit to "woody" on that one.

Not Legal Advice, just my two bits...

Moxie
04-01-14, 08:33 PM
This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.

Group question, not so much directed to StoneFree:

So how does one tell the difference between an "agent sent to dissuade" and an innocent student making comments or mistakes in their learning process?

And I wonder how many innocent people have been driven away from these forums in the midst of their studies, never to return, all because some assumed them to be an agent based on their questions and learning process/learning style. This is tragic. Even shameful.

What does it take for someone to prove they are not an agent?

Does anyone take the time to pray over this forum daily? How about group prayer - is there a prayer team for this forum?

Where is the fellowship?

Does agape love exist in here? Because if this place is of the Father, agape love should be thriving in here.

I have already invested many many study hours in these threads, hence my strong feelings on this subject. I have questions about what I’ve studied, yet I’m terrified to ask because of this very issue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jeanne Marie

Mark Allan
04-02-14, 02:39 AM
Froze, here is your explanation in full for the IRS. You may find some or all of it useful in your reply.
I am an American Citizen by being born within the territory of the Union States (jus soli), and born to parents who were also American Citizens (jus patria). As an American Citizen I have certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the ownership of property. Just because the United States of America Corporation (federal government) issued a transmitting utility for me (YOUR FULL NAME) for my use in participating in the public trust, I never voluntarily and knowingly surrendered any of my unalienable rights for a commercial contract (see eg, NCGS 25-1.308 of the UCC), a practice deplored by the United Nations International Covenant on Enforcement of Individual Civil Rights (the ICEICR, now adopted by 176 nations). And since citizenship is a First Amendment right, I chose this past tax year to keep some of the fruits of my labor, which cannot be taxed by the IRS, as the living man has an unalienable right to earn his living through his labor. The use of lawful money is a formal way to rebut the presumption that I have agreed to be a debt slave to the corporate government. Since lawful money is issued by the US Treasury more or less in accordance with the Constitution, it is outside the purview of the IRS, which can only collect a privilege tax on monies gifted to the public trust through the transmitting utility, with endorsement of Federal Reserve credit (sight notes of zero maturity), and thus dealing in private securities, being the privilege. There is nothing frivolous about asserting my rights to retain the fruits of my labor. After all, paying income taxes is voluntary, as is participation in the public trust, and thus volunteering to commit all my property and labor as surety for the onerous national debt.

Freed

Freed, I like it. While it doesnt look like froze will make a use, thanks for your input.

froze25
04-02-14, 03:02 AM
The letter has been mailed certified return receipt. I will update as it progresses.

froze25
04-02-14, 03:06 AM
The letter has been mailed via certified return receipt. I will update as it progresses.

LearnTheLaw
04-02-14, 01:27 PM
It appears that people are making posts to this thread, however I seem to be having trouble seeing the posts.

Am I the only one having this problem

LearnTheLaw
04-02-14, 01:27 PM
It appears that people are making posts to this thread, however I seem to be having trouble seeing the posts.

Am I the only one having this problem

David Merrill
04-02-14, 08:24 PM
It appears that people are making posts to this thread, however I seem to be having trouble seeing the posts.

Am I the only one having this problem

The technician replaced some corrupted files. So we should be okay now.

LearnTheLaw
04-03-14, 02:25 AM
the technician replaced some corrupted files. So we should be okay now.


thanks......

froze25
04-03-14, 03:19 PM
OK the letter is on its way. Screen Shots of Tracking attached
1599
1600

froze25
04-03-14, 05:10 PM
I am considering making Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew aware of my correspondence with the IRS agents working under him. My thinking is he is personally responsible for their actions and should be made aware of the situation. Thoughts?

froze25
04-04-14, 02:25 PM
OK, the IRS has received my correspondence. Screen shot below.
1601

JohnnyCash
04-06-14, 01:04 AM
You're not fooling me, froze25. I have another 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money success to show you all:

http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_Success.pdf

David Merrill
04-06-14, 04:06 AM
I am considering making Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew aware of my correspondence with the IRS agents working under him. My thinking is he is personally responsible for their actions and should be made aware of the situation. Thoughts?

If you are up for it, a Libel of Review is served on Jacob Joseph LEW.

froze25
04-06-14, 12:42 PM
You're not fooling me, froze25. I have another 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money success to show you all:

http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_Success.pdf
The 1040 and W2 show wages of $20?7.35 no one lawful money reduction or not would pay income taxes on that amount. How does that show success? Who's fooling who here?

froze25
04-06-14, 12:47 PM
If you are up for it, a Libel of Review is served on Jacob Joseph LEW.
I was thinking more in the line of Informing him of the correspondence I'm engaged in with agents that he is responsible for while CC'ing my congressman's office of the same.

ag maniac
04-06-14, 05:48 PM
The 1040 and W2 show wages of $20?7.35 no one lawful money reduction or not would pay income taxes on that amount. How does that show success? Who's fooling who here?


Ahhhh.....but the demand has been made....and evidence created........and did we forget about reducing the national debt also?


"End the Fed" or somesuch......

JohnnyCash
04-06-14, 07:36 PM
The 1040 and W2 show wages of $20?7.35 no one lawful money reduction or not would pay income taxes on that amount. How does that show success? Who's fooling who here?froze25, while the LAWFUL MONEY reduction on Line 21 didn't result in a higher refund, it shows there's nothing wrong with including a LM negative on a 1040 return. The filer received no phone call, no letter, no frivolous penalty. Just a refund approval from the IRS according to law. This indicates the IRS is in agreement with David Merrill that UN-privileged, NON-federal income [U.S. notes] can be NON-taxable. In fact this makes the 3rd victory I've witnessed first-hand (unredacted documents) with LAWFUL MONEY IRS filings; and the 4th including my own 7-year success. That makes it four for four with no losses.

The fact you're questioning the success here speaks volumes. You're attempting to influence public opinion. It indicates I was right about you all along; your goal in this thread wasn't a refund at all, but to knock lawful money tax filings as a CABAL operative. Thank you for the validation!

froze25
04-07-14, 03:25 PM
froze25, while the LAWFUL MONEY reduction on Line 21 didn't result in a higher refund, it shows there's nothing wrong with including a LM negative on a 1040 return. The filer received no phone call, no letter, no frivolous penalty. Just a refund approval from the IRS according to law. This indicates the IRS is in agreement with David Merrill that UN-privileged, NON-federal income [U.S. notes] can be NON-taxable. In fact this makes the 3rd victory I've witnessed first-hand (unredacted documents) with LAWFUL MONEY IRS filings; and the 4th including my own 7-year success. That makes it four for four with no losses.

The fact you're questioning the success here speaks volumes. You're attempting to influence public opinion. It indicates I was right about you all along; your goal in this thread wasn't a refund at all, but to knock lawful money tax filings as a CABAL operative. Thank you for the validation!

Have I ever claimed that your success never happened? Have I ever said that Redeeming Lawful money doesn't work? Did I do anything other then Point out that the amount of Income in your last post was under what would be considered the "poverty line" and wouldn't be subject to income taxes anyway?

What I have done is document my experience that I have had so far and what I am currently doing. What I can say is that my experience is my own and no one else's. Your paranoia speaks volumes. Could you please tell me how I am a Cabal operative, I didn't get the memo. Could you please explain what evidence you have that makes me a operative of the "Cabal" other then your opinion. Lets use "Shadow Government" instead of Cabal it sounds more sinister. For the record if I am not a member of either.

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe I did something wrong in my filing and that if we can compare two or more we can figure out the error. Perhaps I included too many copies of my pay checks with the 1040? Maybe they didn't like my breakdown of income that I included? Maybe its just poor bad luck and I got the agent that wanted to flag my return, there is more than one agent at the IRS? You see I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything what I am trying to do is improve a process so that others (including myself) may benefit from using Lawful money to reduce the National debt while increasing our resources (money to spend).

I am done arguing with you about who I am or what you think I am doing, you can either help with this process or keep making unsubstantiated claims about who I am or what I work for. I would prefer the help option.

JohnnyCash
04-07-14, 04:45 PM
Woke up this morning to discover no activity from the disinfo agents at all their usual hangouts. Began to wonder if you were under the weather, or perhaps the cabalist control grid is falling apart. Anyway, Good to have you here! And thanks for the validation!
http://src-fla.us/index.php/news2e629/78-news-articles/110-ben-fulford

froze25
04-07-14, 05:49 PM
Woke up this morning to discover no activity from the disinfo agents at all their usual hangouts. Began to wonder if you were under the weather, or perhaps the cabalist control grid is falling apart. Anyway, Good to have you here! And thanks for the validation!
http://src-fla.us/index.php/news2e629/78-news-articles/110-ben-fulford
Free energy devices would be the ultimate game changer, this is totally off topic but something of interest to me as a hobbyist engineer. Two major inputs to anything that is produced is Time and Energy. If Energy could become totally abundant and outside of anyone's or things control society would flourish. I believe that energy is being artificially restricted now through the various alphabet organizations of "Government" (EPA) to prevent the lose of control of the people and the steering of society(s) as a whole. This however would change the power structure of the world because the energy industry would be radically changed and the nations that depend on energy exports would find themselves in the poor house potentially overnight depending on the ease the Free energy device's construction and use. It would also allow for food to be grown in gigantic quantities using power intensive processes such as aqua/hydoponics further eliminating controls. All industrial processes would instantly become cheaper overnight and the living standards of most of the developed would would increase almost instantly with the undeveloped soon to follow. You can see how the "money masters" would fight this from happening to the death. Its unfortunate.

stoneFree
04-08-14, 01:08 AM
"Human beings have known for years, many decades even, that there are much better ways of creating energy than by burning fossil fuels. Since the early 1900's there has been a vast conspiracy to suppress this knowledge and those who have the most to lose in releasing free energy technologies were ruthless in their suppression. From Tesla (Ambient Energy) to Ford (Hemp Oil Cars) to Stanley Meyer (Water Fueled Cars) each and every technology that could have changed the world were brutally suppressed by the controllers of our fossil fuel system...

UNTIL NOW!


US Navy Game Changer - Converting Seawater Into Fuel

http://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-game-changer-converting-seawater-fuel-150544958.html

Washington (AFP) - The US Navy believes it has finally worked out the solution to a problem that has intrigued scientists for decades: how to take seawater and use it as fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as "a game-changer" because it would significantly shorten the supply chain, a weak link that makes any force easier to attack.

So why is this a big deal and why did it take the US Navy to announce this technology NOW when we've known about it for decades?

Simple: The SURVIVAL of the US Dollar is 100% dependent upon the people of the world using US Dollars for their purchases of petroleum fuel products!

They call it the "Petro Dollar" because the US requires every nation of the world to buy and sell oil in US Dollars. If not then we invade, bomb and destroy them until they relent. The reasoning is simple: oil is the largest commodity bought and sold on the planet. We consume 92 million barrels per day at $100/barrel...that's over $3T in US Dollars needed per year for oil transactions and much, much more than that needed in reserves at foreign banks to secure these purchases.

Basically, without the need to buy oil in US Dollars then all those US Dollars will come flooding back into the market causing serious hyper inflation and destroying the United States long running ability to run massive deficits.

That is why these new, free energy sources were not allowed to be introduced into the global population...

AND THAT IS WHY IT TOOK THE US NAVY TO BREAK THE NEWS!!!

Perch this on top of all the other anti-dollar news and you have quite the pile of explosive material that this fiat money system is teetering on!

It is happening my friends...stay ready and alert."

Chex
04-08-14, 03:01 PM
The US Navy been busy....

The U.S. Navy is planning sea trials for a weapon that can fire a low-cost, 23-pound (10-kg) projectile at seven times the speed of sound using electromagnetic energy, a "Star Wars" technology that will make enemies think twice, the Navy's research chief said. http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-test-futuristic-super-fast-gun-sea-202608368--sector.html?vp=1 and same with the Air Force (http://news.yahoo.com/secret-spaceplane-mystery-mission-094500663--politics.html).

Michael Joseph
04-11-14, 02:39 AM
I have been away for a bit working 16 hour days now for about a month is taxing to say the least. Not to mention the spiritual warfare which seems to increase about one when one is about the King's work.

If one reads PADELFORD carefully one will realize that the State Corporation cannot tax one who is not being taxed by the Federal Corporation. In our experience we usually receive the return first from the agent of the Federal Corporation and then we receive a refund later from the State. This has been the routine now for years.

At first however, when it was claimed that I was an ACCOMMODATION PARTY - I had to rebut and counter claim. If you do not recognize that a common law court is convened in those writings then you are gonna have a big headache later because when you are dragged into Court you are gonna be up the creek. They already have established an obligation in your silence. Now the only question is WHY DID YOU NOT FILE?

The last challenge that issues was met with what most might consider "fairy tales" but alas the gainsayer who would propound such as statement is himself deluded - seriously so - for that one is living His-Story within the construct of DEATH. And that is really sad.

Yet I take comfort [She is my Comforter - El Shaddai] in:



Psa 22:9 And yet Thou art He That took me out of the womb: Thou didst cause me trust when I was upon my mother's breasts.

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon Thee from the womb: Thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Psa 22:11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; For there is none to help.


And those who would help cannot understand. But thou Yehovah understandeth my plight in Yehoshuah. Send now the Comforter to lead me into all truth:

Psa 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Yea, I believe you El Elyon, I believe your promises - please allow me to remind you of your promises so that we can speak together and I might be justified:

Isa 43:26 Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.

I know your Great Promises as I have studied thy Word of LIGHT: thy Torah of Instruction:

Gen 1:3 And Elohim said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And I know that I have been redeemed and that I voluntarily sold myself into bondage but it is by thy GREAT NAME that devils TREMBLE and men quake - Yehoshuah : Yehovah my Savior, my Redeemer, my Kinsman

I AWAKE OUT OF MY SLUMBER to rise up and stand IN COVERTURE of my Husbandman in whom I have placed my Trust - as I prepare to be HOPEFULLY pleasing enough to be selected as His Bride:

Isa 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

Isa 52:2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.

Isa 52:3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.


Looking in the mirror I see the guilty party - IT WAS ME - all this time. I stood adversary to my Creator! Now then noticing I did not create the name that I make a USE of within the VALLEY OF DEATH:

The Comforter she gives me Shade: She teaches me WITHIN the tent: She is my Mother and I shall honor her according to the Royal Law:

Psa 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of El Elyon shall abide under the shadow of El Shaddai.

Psa 91:2 I will say of Yehovah, He is my refuge and my fortress: my Judge; in him will I trust.

For I notice that the Law came to Moses by Yehovah but the Promise came to Abraham by El Shaddai: She is my Mother and I am RE-Created in her Womb [spiritual] : She is WISDOM: She is beautiful:

Honoring my Mother [Lamb], I set about to Honor my Father [Lion] as I sought balance in the Sanctuary between my Intellect and my Spirit: And I found balance by DOING the Law of my Judge: Yehovah is my Judge: and I now can Express my Word because I have Implied my Trust:

What can Rabshekah say to me?

Will he taunt me? to say how can you now say you trust in God - we have you on record in blasphemy against the God you say you trust: So which is it - we are confused: We have you trusting in your god [government] and now you claim you trust in Yehovah?: Thou art double minded for if you Trust in Yehovah you would obey Yehovah:

Isa 36:4 And Rabshakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?

Isa 36:5 I say, sayest thou, (but they are but vain words) I have counsel and strength for war: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?

Isa 36:6 Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him.

Isa 36:7 But if thou say to me, We trust in the LORD our God: is it not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?

I say ye worship before the alter of you man-king! And now you who Vote - now you, who worship under our Shade, now you wish to make a claim in God - BECAUSE IT SUITS YOU? Not gonna cut it friend:

For Yehovah desires not lip service: Yehovah is from the SHOW ME state! Are you listening to Wisdom? Have you been lulled to sleep in Religion? Have they got you "doped with Religion, and sex and T.V.? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lKwXwU5iWs)"

Listen to it all of it: Especially the line about PEASANTS - SERFS - VILLEINS - SLAVES by consent : steaks on the table MEAT for destruction by REBELLION against the King of kings [1st] and then their king [2nd] in perpetual Rebellion:

And then I learned, I am Micha'el ben Ha Elohim: A Son of the King : I am Free as long as I remain in the Vine: I don't take my Great Gift lightly for it can be taken away IF I choose not to finish the race:

So in regard to those who occupy in the VALLEY OF THE DRY BONES : I speak the Words of Life : The Word of Life: : I AM the Way, the Truth, the Life: and I watch as those dead bones come to life: "Can these bones live?, thou knowest, Yehovah" :

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Michael Joseph
04-11-14, 02:40 AM
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE


Let us return to our Mother's House and be instructed in Wisdom: For She is a TREE OF LIFE:

Son 8:1 O that thou wert as my brother, that sucked the breasts of my mother! when I should find thee without, I would kiss thee; yea, I should not be despised.

Son 8:2 I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother's house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate.

Drink of the good wine: The Doctrine which leads to Shalom: So that we might rise as Melchizedok's of that Order: The Israel of El Elyon.

Finding it IMPROPER protocol to argue with the Serpent - CLICK HERE - the Devil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devilling)

I follow my Ensign who shows me the Way, my guide on : my King who sayeth to the tempter "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to Yehovah; but a just weight is his delight.

Proverbs 20:23 Divers weights are an abomination unto Yehovah; and a false balance is not good.

Deuteronomy 25:13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.

Deuteronomy 25:14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.

Deuteronomy 25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which Yehovah thy Judge giveth thee.

Deuteronomy 25:16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto Yehovah thy Judge.

Zec 4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

Zec 4:7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.

Zec 4:8 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Zec 4:9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you.

Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of El Elyon, and Yehoshuah also maketh intercession for us.

My Sign Expresses my Nature:

In capacity as private beneficiary under Yehoshuah the risen Messiah, my Redeemer and my Savior and in whom I trust, and absent status as a customer, and absent any liability assumed in or for any U.S. Person(s), artificial or otherwise, included but not limited to, [the] UNITED NATIONS, and/or [the] UNITED STATES and/or [the] STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, and/or [the] COUNTY OF WAKE and/or [the] FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM and their persons (artificial or otherwise), absent any express or implied warranties; and, without recourse, and absent surety(ship) and absent accommodation or affiliation in or for [the] INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and [the] FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM; and, absent claim for or to any benefit received via this writing, and without prejudice, and I claim assurance in Yehoshuah, the Word of El Elyon the original organic depository trust number incun.1454.b5 and I claim assurance under said original organic trust agreement in the name of Yehoshuah, in and unto [the[ MICHAEL J SURNAME, paid in advance by the United States Treasury, and I claim the precious blood of Yehoshuah, my Redeemer in the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I am michael joseph a redeemed Son of Yehovah in Yehoshuah of the Tribes of Yisrael (Jacob) and I now set my hand to this expression by my free will act with full liability concerning my dominions under my Redeemer, Yehoshuah and absent intent to trespass, but to live in peace with my neighbors:


Say good night Gracie. For the King said STUDY TO SHOW THYSELF APPROVED UNTO EL ELYON.

The battle is not mine to fight - I am a mere witness to the Glory of my Great King and as a witness I shall proclaim His wonderful works: for even if Nebuchadnezzar would have me thrown into the fire - my King can deliver me! For my Trust is SOLID on The Rock - unmoveable, unshakeable, reliable and He will NEVER let me down! And I thus learned to walk on water as Admiral in the King's service! Let the wise understand.

Deu 31:30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song, until they were ended.

See the Attached Song for those who wish to OVERCOME. For those who can see the Estate: and comprehend the complexity of the Corporation Persons:

Luk 16:11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

Luk 16:12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?



Are you Trust Worthy? Look in the mirror and ask yourself : Only you and God know for sure! Your money huh? if you think so, then start from the beginning and re-read! Study the account of Cyrus and Ezra and ye will understand the Treasury!

Pro 8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
Pro 8:2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
Pro 8:3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.
Pro 8:4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.


Shalom and Blessings,
Michael Joseph


Can you understand this Parable - Trees don't talk friend: A Tree is a symbol for a Man:

Jdg 9:8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.

Jdg 9:9 But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

Jdg 9:10 And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.

Jdg 9:11 But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?

Jdg 9:12 Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.

Jdg 9:13 And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

Jdg 9:14 Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.

Jdg 9:15 And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

froze25
04-11-14, 01:37 PM
I have been away for a bit working 16 hour days now for about a month is taxing to say the least. Not to mention the spiritual warfare which seems to increase about one when one is about the King's work.

If one reads PADELFORD carefully one will realize that the State Corporation cannot tax one who is not being taxed by the Federal Corporation. In our experience we usually receive the return first from the agent of the Federal Corporation and then we receive a refund later from the State. This has been the routine now for years.

At first however, when it was claimed that I was an ACCOMMODATION PARTY - I had to rebut and counter claim. If you do not recognize that a common law court is convened in those writings then you are gonna have a big headache later because when you are dragged into Court you are gonna be up the creek. They already have established an obligation in your silence. Now the only question is WHY DID YOU NOT FILE?
....
Michael, I did file both state and federal. I received a State refund In full, I posted that in an previous page on this thread (Picture of the Check). After the State check arrived I received the Friv Pen letter from the FED IRS. I replied to that Friv Pen letter and posted my response also on a previous page on this thread. I have not gotten a response to my response as to the time of writing this post. Were you aware of that or are you speaking to something else? You can see a complete record of what I have done (sent) and received from the IRS in this thread if you read through it.

LearnTheLaw
04-11-14, 03:42 PM
Ok, I got the letter from the IRS, Here it is suggested replies?
1596
Temporarily Deleted
1598



I read this: 'We 'MAY' assess a $5000.00 frivolous penalty against STEVEN'

What I see is this: We 'WILL' prosecute STEVEN if we can trick Steven into being Surety for STEVEN.


Never argue the terms of a contract, only argue the validity of whether a contract even exists

Michael Joseph
04-11-14, 05:42 PM
Michael, I did file both state and federal. I received a State refund In full, I posted that in an previous page on this thread (Picture of the Check). After the State check arrived I received the Friv Pen letter from the FED IRS. I replied to that Friv Pen letter and posted my response also on a previous page on this thread. I have not gotten a response to my response as to the time of writing this post. Were you aware of that or are you speaking to something else? You can see a complete record of what I have done (sent) and received from the IRS in this thread if you read through it.

Hey froze25:

I did not realize that you had received your State refund - in fact this makes zero sense. See here is the thing folks if you SOLEY rely upon Law then you might get upset - I equate that as leaning on the shaky reed of Egypt. Fact is we have to deal with men and women and when that happens we have to deal with the ignorance and egos. So we must bear the burden of proof - as we are acting like Trustees making a return is the deed of a Trustee. The beneficiary wants an accounting!

So we need to show the one who created the Use that we are indeed entitled [interesting word, yes] to receive the with-holdings. In other words, I must show the man or woman ACTING in capacity as Agent that he or she has permission and is able to grant the return - by Law. Consider yourself when you were on the job training. Were you not sometimes very cautious so that you might keep your job? What if you boss told you to blatantly disobey the law - what would you do IF YOU NEEDED THE JOB?

As trustee you willingly undertook to obey all of the Laws within the Trust Boundary in which you operate! Every single one! So why are you not a taxpayer, when the one reviewing your return pays tax? Said another way, if you come for judgment, then you must show the judge you are worthy to receive judgment!

A Court is in Session. A verdict is in - no appeal on the docket today - just MY OWN sin.

I have the duty and the obligation as it is my OFFICE to issue a return upon the Beneficiary. But the CQT is subject to a larger Trust structure that created the Use. I cannot practice Law within this Trust Boundary as I am not with a license to handle the Property - all I have access to is the Estate, as Trustee for the CQT. Enter the Attorner - stage left.

There are many laws on the books - but can a law make anybody do anything? HARDLY - we are with choice - and bacon is tasty says the one who would TORT the Creator. No law has the power to enforce its observance. Therefore keeping one's court of record is a key. Identity is another key.

Addressing the Person you, the anonymous living soul created, herein called "froze25" I find that it, "froze25" is subject to the Law Boundary that I helped to create - Saving to Suitors Club. Therefore you as a living soul undertaking in "froze25" by your free will deed and act submitted to the Laws governing this Trust. See how that works? The Superusers here could delete your account at any time subject to their Will - not yours. Are you understanding now? You are a mere user - subject to Laws, Norms, Customs, Rules, that others established. And your mere use, indicates that you are subject.

This is not a threat - so don't take it personally - this is a lesson in Trust Law. Hopefully you can make the connections.

The Law Giver is Sovereign. See how Adam and Eve became an Out-Law in regard to the Creator and served instead the Created. So what is new under the Sun?

Have the Kings and Queens of this age blinded you? If you say I don't believe what you are laying down - well you make my point for me in such a statement. If all there is for you is the Kings and Queens, then SERVE them if you make a use of their Claims. What exactly do you believe? Said another way - WHERE EXACTLY IS YOUR TRUST?

Is the foregoing practical - you had better believe it is!

Lets say my mother in law gives my eight year old son $800. And my son tells me he want to buy a shot gun. Do you think I will let him use it now? He would need to show me that he is competent first before I would allow him to make such a purchase. See now a higher power?

ALL SOULS are subject to the higher power!


Eze 18:1 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Come let us plead together - REMIND ME - of my Promises [Law Duties] so that you might be Justified! A promise unclaimed is one not fulfilled.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

JohnnyCash
04-15-14, 03:01 AM
Regarding this Redeeming Lawful Money success: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_Success.pdf
The refund check just arrived: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040refund.jpg
And the state refund arrived before the Federal.

froze25
04-15-14, 06:35 PM
Sweet, Johnny. I am still waiting for a response to my response. I have still not gotten my green card back for the return receipt attached with it.

froze25
04-16-14, 03:11 PM
Sweet, Johnny. I am still waiting for a response to my response. I have still not gotten my green card back for the return receipt attached with it. Guess what was in the Post office Box when I got home the return receipt card stamped, not signed "received April 8, 2014" I will post it scanned later tonight when I get a chance.

JohnnyCash
04-20-14, 12:25 AM
Nevermind me, I don't think froze25 is fooling anyone here.

froze25
04-21-14, 08:58 PM
Nevermind me, I don't think froze25 is fooling anyone here.

Johnny, are you back to the I am not really doing what I say I am doing thing?

JohnnyCash
04-22-14, 04:45 AM
Thank you Famspear. Your comments are a constant source of validation and motivation.
http://www.ctcwarrior.com/LAWFULMONEY4DUMMIES.pdf

froze25
05-20-14, 02:20 PM
Update - Still no response since they received my reply on April 8th, 2014

Robert Henry
05-20-14, 05:48 PM
Thanks for the update. Please continue to keep us apprised of the developments in this case, I am watching this with interest.


Update - Still no response since they received my reply on April 8th, 2014

mikecz
06-05-14, 05:27 PM
Any news? Just looking for a followup, as this is the first clearly documented case I've personally followed from beginning to end...

David Merrill
06-05-14, 07:12 PM
80 Members have read about this, and that does not include surfers and other readers. This thread has also caught the attention of a malicious website that has a way of prodding the IRS to harass suitors too.

I got a call yesterday afternoon from a fellow who liquidated a $200K IRA. He told me his tax accountant was going to give $93K of it to the IRS but he showed the accountant his demand for lawful money (in US Notes and Coins). He saved himself the $93K and has the entire $200K available in cash!

I would apologize for the lack of proof over the Internet but my assumption is that with a few extra thousand in $$$$ Froze is happy not to go bragging...

Then again, occasionally there are IRS agents who do not understand and it would seem, IRS attorneys who are hoping to discourage people before this actually becomes the inevitable run on the Fed.

Chex
06-06-14, 12:06 PM
The irs thinks the executive branch is for executing citizens, not laws passed by congress.


Is the irs is doing away with the Legislative Branches of Congress?

1780

Michael Joseph
06-06-14, 12:29 PM
The irs thinks the executive branch is for executing citizens, not laws passed by congress.

Is the irs is doing away with the Legislative Branches of Congress?


I think the people are consenting to private corporate law. Therefore law is in the contract by consent or undertaking.

David Merrill
06-06-14, 01:02 PM
The US is Fed.


Now that is a punny play on words!!

froze25
07-03-14, 04:23 PM
As of today, I have still not had any response. I will be sending a letter to my congressman and the Treasury Secretary showing the record of communication with the green card showing that the IRS received my letter. I will be requesting that they look into the matter on my behalf and obtain a response to my questions or ask that the tax return be processed as filed. Funny how the State processed it with no issue, fast even.

David Merrill
07-03-14, 06:50 PM
As of today, I have still not had any response. I will be sending a letter to my congressman and the Treasury Secretary showing the record of communication with the green card showing that the IRS received my letter. I will be requesting that they look into the matter on my behalf and obtain a response to my questions or ask that the tax return be processed as filed. Funny how the State processed it with no issue, fast even.


Please let us see your Letter? And any response too?

froze25
07-09-14, 07:15 PM
Naturally the day after I posted 7/3/2014 low and behold there was a letter from the IRS. Here are the pic for there response or lack there of. They totally ignored my questions even the simple ones like "was this form I enclosed the correct one?". Well here you go.
First is the Green return upon receipt card we all know.
18151816
Then we have the letter basically saying they preformed a correction to my tax return and show how they got to there "corrected" amount and want me to sign off on it.

froze25
07-09-14, 07:17 PM
182018211822

froze25
07-09-14, 07:19 PM
and continued here
18231824

froze25
07-09-14, 07:21 PM
I also received publication 3498-A
1825182618271828

froze25
07-09-14, 07:21 PM
Continued here
1829183018311832

JohnnyCash
07-10-14, 03:49 AM
I appreciate that you gave us the heads up (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526--cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson?page=2&per_page=20) this was coming


jesse james commented · July 07, 2014 23:16 ·

Hey homie....why is it a real bore over at STSC?
I mean nobodies really posting over there.

Chex
07-10-14, 01:01 PM
80 Members have read about this, and that does not include surfers and other readers. This thread has also caught the attention of a malicious website that has a way of prodding the IRS to harass suitors too. Then again, occasionally there are IRS agents who do not understand and it would seem, IRS attorneys who are hoping to discourage people before this actually becomes the inevitable run on the Fed.

jesse james commented • July 8, 2014 6:26 PM.

How times did you think going to LH under a different name would change their minds about lawful money?

Well look at this...............

3401(a)(2) agricultural labor.
This agricultural labor is excluded from 3401(a) "wages" as long as it remains as defined as 3121(g) agricultural labor....however, if this agricultural labor is defined as 3121(a) "wages" then it is considered 3401(a) "wages" and subject to withholding and deduction for the Section 1 imposition. I just want you to see how Social Security is dictating what is and what is not 3401(a) "wages". Reason being is 3121(g) agricultural labor is also excluded from 3121(a) "wages". Over all whats excluded from the definition to 3121(a) "wages" and 3121(b) "employment" is also excluded from 3401(a) "wages" I'm trying to show you the correlation between SS and 3401(a) "wages".

Trust Fund Recovery Penalty, Say What?
26 USC §6672 is a Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP) and as I have never been the "person responsible" for collecting, accounting for and paying over the trust fund tax, that kind of tax does not apply to me. http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3168

Steven M. Beresford, Ph.D. (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Steven+M.+Beresford%2C+Ph.D.&b=&fr=ie8) at http://yannone.blogspot.com/2005/10/steven-beresford-v-irs.html .

To the Governor Christine Gregoire (https://www.facebook.com/govgregoire) (can she answer the question on lawful money Facebook fans?) from http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/taximages/BeresfordLetter.htm


How times did you think going to LH under a different name would change their minds about lawful money?

You are one down from God. Understand that there is God, and then there is you. Does commerce, corporations or statutes come between you and God? No. So, there are no rules that can govern you in your “Man/Woman” capacity.

froze25
07-10-14, 08:56 PM
OK so this is what I am thinking to write to my congressman (first Draft).

Dear Mr. Bishop,

Greetings my name is Steven Edward I live at 123 Somewhere Lane, Smithville New York.
I am writing you because back in March I filed my 1040 tax return with the IRS. I have attached that return and all other material it is labeled appendix (A). In May I received a letter from the IRS that referred to the return that I filed and to some documentation that was not included in their letter, I felt their communication at this point was somewhat threatening, I have included this and labeled it appendix (B). I sent a response letter asking for some clarification regarding the communication that they sent me, I have included it with this letter and it is labeled appendix (C). I have now received another letter and a couple of forms from them that have totally ignored my questions in my response letter to them and took it upon themselves to evaluate my tax liability and want me sign off that it is True and correct (appendix D). The problem that I have is that until they answer my questions I cannot determine if that is the case. I thought my 1040 that I originally filed was true and correct.

What I need you to do as my representative to the Federal Government is inquire with the US Treasury Secretary's office on:
Why were my questions where not answered?
Why have they not treated my "income" as "Lawful Money" as per my demand made on my paycheck's endorsements (part of appendix A) and outlined in USC Title 12 § 411 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm ) and provided me with a return as filed?
The Supreme Court has adjudicated on this and has determined that Federal Reserve Notes can act as Lawful Money if such a demand has been made. My demand has been made (shown on each paycheck's endorsements that I included with the 1040) to be given Lawful money so my return should reflect that I have only received Lawful Money for those paychecks that show that a restricted endorsement was made and should not be treated as Private credit extended by the Federal Reserve Banking System known as Federal Reserve Notes.
To be clear I am NOT asking for gold or any other metal considered to be precious.
I am asking that my income be treated as if it were US Treasury Notes (Lawful Money) and have the Tax Liability applied to my earnings as if I received US Treasury notes and/or Lawful money as I have indicated on my IRS 1040 that I submitted. It has always been my intention to use Lawful Money.
If you look at Title 12 USC 417 found here http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm In section 7 of the webpage, it is clear that there is a distinction between Federal Reserve Notes and Lawful money.

Please include me in any correspondence that you have with the US Treasury Department on my behalf.
I wish only to have the Tax Liability, if any applied to me that is Lawfully required for receiving Lawful money in exchange for my labor and would like my original questions answered, not ignored and my demand under 12 USC 411 honored.

Truly Yours,

Steven Edward

Chex
07-11-14, 05:08 AM
OK so this is what I am thinking to write to my congressman (first Draft).

Dear Mr. Bishop,

Greetings my name is Steven Edward I live at 123 Somewhere Lane, Smithville New York.
I am writing you because back in March I filed my 1040 tax return with the IRS. I have attached that return and all other material it is labeled appendix (A). In May I received a letter from the IRS that referred to the return that I filed and to some documentation that was not included in their letter, I felt their communication at this point was somewhat threatening, I have included this and labeled it appendix (B). I sent a response letter asking for some clarification regarding the communication that they sent me, I have included it with this letter and it is labeled appendix (C). I have now received another letter and a couple of forms from them that have totally ignored my questions in my response letter to them and took it upon themselves to evaluate my tax liability and want me sign off that it is True and correct (appendix D). The problem that I have is that until they answer my questions I cannot determine if that is the case. I thought my 1040 that I originally filed was true and correct.

What I need you to do as my representative to the Federal Government is inquire with the US Treasury Secretary's office on:
Why were my questions where not answered?
Why have they not treated my "income" as "Lawful Money" as per my demand made on my paycheck's endorsements (part of appendix A) and outlined in USC Title 12 § 411 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm ) and provided me with a return as filed?
The Supreme Court has adjudicated on this and has determined that Federal Reserve Notes can act as Lawful Money if such a demand has been made. My demand has been made (shown on each paycheck's endorsements that I included with the 1040) to be given Lawful money so my return should reflect that I have only received Lawful Money for those paychecks that show that a restricted endorsement was made and should not be treated as Private credit extended by the Federal Reserve Banking System known as Federal Reserve Notes.
To be clear I am NOT asking for gold or any other metal considered to be precious.
I am asking that my income be treated as if it were US Treasury Notes (Lawful Money) and have the Tax Liability applied to my earnings as if I received US Treasury notes and/or Lawful money as I have indicated on my IRS 1040 that I submitted. It has always been my intention to use Lawful Money.
If you look at Title 12 USC 417 found here http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm In section 7 of the webpage, it is clear that there is a distinction between Federal Reserve Notes and Lawful money.

Please include me in any correspondence that you have with the US Treasury Department on my behalf.
I wish only to have the Tax Liability, if any applied to me that is Lawfully required for receiving Lawful money in exchange for my labor and would like my original questions answered, not ignored and my demand under 12 USC 411 honored.

Truly Yours,

Steven Edward

Dear Mr. Bishop,

Why have they not treated my "income" as "Lawful Money" as per my demand made on my paycheck's endorsements?

Truly Yours,

Steven Edward

froze25
07-11-14, 05:48 PM
Dear Mr. Bishop,

Why have they not treated my "income" as "Lawful Money" as per my demand made on my paycheck's endorsements?

Truly Yours,

Steven Edward

Simple and to the point

walter
07-14-14, 10:49 PM
Dear Mr. Bishop,

Why have they not treated my "income" as "Lawful Money" as per my demand made on my paycheck's endorsements?

Truly Yours,

Steven Edward

Love it.
keep it simple.

Michael Joseph
07-15-14, 12:48 AM
Love it.
keep it simple.

I had a similar story this year we were amazed that the State responded so quickly but the IRS is still dragging their feet. So be it. We already have the victory the rest is just us witnessing the proceedings. A couple of letters should remedy the situation. However, years back we had a situation that actually went to collections but when it made it to collections we wrote a letter to the local agent and the account was zeroed.

We don't argue that we do not have any income -that would be untrue. However we received fundage absent certain obligations. We will let the trustees perform their obligations upon the fundage issued on the bonds of the United States. So we possess the fundage absent surety, liability, joinder, etc. Therefore we benefit but lack the legal title.

Shalom,
MJ

EZrhythm
07-15-14, 01:37 AM
We don't argue that we do not have any income -that would be untrue. However we received fundage absent certain obligations. We will let the trustees perform their obligations upon the fundage issued on the bonds of the United States. So we possess the fundage absent surety, liability, joinder, etc. Therefore we benefit but lack the legal title.

GENIUS AND CONGRATULATIONS in expressing this position! :D

David Merrill
07-15-14, 03:31 AM
Yes, thank you Michael Joseph;


I heard from an otherwise quiet suitor today. As you might expect I am getting a lot of success stories this time of year. I only take special note of the demonstrations that portray contemplation.

This is a couple with the husband receiving full refunds for some time now. His wife started redeeming lawful money with direct deposit about May, 2013 on her Signature Card and for whatever reason, when filing they just filed for a full refund of all her withholdings. I imagine this is because the 1040 Form does not really accommodate special conditions. The IRS has recalculated her Refund accordingly - that is to say to Refund only for two-thirds the tax year!

They are giving her some time before sending the Refund Check for her to contest their reevaluation of her liability but the suitor is sanitizing a file for me to share and will let me know if there are any snags in getting the Treasury Check.


Regards,

David Merrill.

walter
07-15-14, 05:12 PM
We don't argue that we do not have any income -that would be untrue.

I was wondering the use of that word 'income" but after looking it up you are absolutely right.

Michael Joseph
07-15-14, 06:44 PM
I was wondering the use of that word 'income" but after looking it up you are absolutely right.

Would anyone argue that a house can be constructed absent a foundation?

Usufruct is based in Rights. But what is Right? Right is Property. But Property begs a legal relationship and that begs a TRUST.

So one cannot contemplate Usufruct without first contemplating the Trust.

INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.

OF denotes progeny. A child is OF [its/his] parents. Therefore a child can be even an incorporeal concept [legal identity] established by a settlor.

Just as YHVH desires worship and love [homage and service] so too does the State/Kings of their persons. The terms blind a man because said man cannot see CAPACITY. He acts in and for an established business entity OF some government.

Consider Law to be a Thing for a moment. Then to make a Use of a Thing that belongs to another would subject the user to the Terms of Use established by the one who created the Thing. So then to make a use of Law is to gain a benefit. Sort of like sitting under a shade tree in the desert is to gain a benefit.

The end user by his own deed implies his/her trust as one uses a thing/law established by another. If one does not take shade under a particular tree, then one might be an OUTLAW in my foregoing analogy.

Jdg 9:8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.

Jdg 9:14 Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.

Jdg 9:15 And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

Comment: Clearly in the foregoing analogy Trees are Men. The bramble is the Thorn Bush - which is The Satan. The shadow is the governments established by the "Prince of this World". This is clearly one trust. Reference Jeremiah 17:5

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

Comment: However another trust exists that is just outside the door of most peoples comprehension. I find it amazing that the Bible is the most readily available book on the face of this planet and yet, most never get around to truly studying it. It holds the keys. And for those who will seek the Righteousness of The Way - they will find them. And now the 2nd trust: Ref Jeremiah 17:7

Jer 17:7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.

Psa 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the MOST HIGH Shall abide under the shadow of THE ALMIGHTY.

Psa 91:2 I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress: My God; in Him will I trust.

Comment: Have you been Re-Venue-ed? For the great fisherman put everything in perspective - in the Great book of Acts: The apostles who in and of themselves are a Parable within a Parable - Peter being a symbol of the Church in the latter two days [2k years]:

Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said,It is necessary to obey God rather than men.

Comment: And replacing the 450 Baal priests that Elijah withstood with 450 lawyers - one begins to gain perspective. For just as their was TWO Enochs, there are TWO Simons, and one understanding will see TWO Jesus'. One lawless anti-Christ [Jesus] and one Righteous Jesus.

Now then, is their any need of gold? The princes of this age trade in the trust of their subjects. Said subjects establish themselves in their estate in their DEEDS. Said deeds are registered to keep an accurate accounting. So that judgment can be issued.

Now do not misunderstand me - government is good! But the debtor is slave to the lender. So then what of government that has to pledge its citizenry as surety for the mortgage? Look around what do you see?

I see a people that willingly enslave themselves for absolutely NOTHING in exchange! Yep that too reminds me of this:

Isa 52:3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed not with silver

Isa 52:4 For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them for nothing.

Isa 52:5 Now therefore, what do I here, saith the LORD, that My People hath been taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and My name continually every day is blasphemed.

Isa 52:6 Therefore My People shall know My name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am He That doth speak: behold, it is I.

Isa 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Comment: There is nothing new under the Sun. Look around you are in Egypt. But El Elyon is on the Throne and Yehoshuah is the Prime Minister [High Priest] working in the Government of Elohim which rules the Universe. So we are left with CHOICE whom we shall serve [worship/love].

Paul understood....

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves servants for obedience, ye are servants to him whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Comment: Stretch the tent chords of the mind a bit to understand Romans 6:16. What was the sin in the garden? Ultimately The Man and his wife Loved and took Shadow under another Lawgiver [the Created]. So what is new under the Sun? They served the created instead of the Creator!

Now re-read Romans 6:16 and see the created as the devices of man [sin] and the Creator as the Righteousness of Elohim [The Word] whereupon the Word establishes The Way.

Have your been Re-Venue-ed? Did you do it to yourself?

Hos 6:9 And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent: for they commit lewdness.

Comment: "Murder in the way" - a methodology established by Balaam, the priest, to entrap an ignorant people by placing a choice before them. Therefore in their ignorance they curse themselves.

Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Comment: Enjoy those billion statutes - be sure to read them all. Finding I have no standing in the heavenly court as I am naked in my transgression, I appeal to my Advocate before the Throne [Yehoshuah]. For the D.A. [Satan] is right, I have transgressed the Law and, I am guilty. I am left without recourse, I brought this on my own head.

Consider carefully with the hat of a King placed upon your head. Those who transgress the Trust Agreement are now without the camp [Kingdom]. Each office has bylaws that govern its performance - and those undertaking in office are then subject to the Terms of its Use.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.



Shalom,
MJ

doug555
07-15-14, 08:58 PM
I was wondering the use of that word 'income" but after looking it up you are absolutely right.

It does not matter what "income" is... "Income" is only a factor used in calculating the "usage fee (http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/income-tax-usage-fee.html)" (aka "tax") IF one is using FRNs (private credit of FED).

The billions of U.S. codes and statutes are only a smokescreen to divert attention from this truth. And are quite effective.

David Merrill
07-15-14, 09:28 PM
It does not matter what "income" is... "Income" is only a factor used in calculating the "usage fee (http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/income-tax-usage-fee.html)" (aka "tax") IF one is using FRNs (private credit of FED).

The billions of U.S. codes and statutes are only a smokescreen to divert attention from this truth. And are quite effective.



It always matters, the nature and character of anything. Understanding, perceiving things incoherent to their nature is delusion - a world of illusions. Perceiving things according to law, like Michael Joseph points out is knowledge.

That pointed out I can certainly agree with your points about usage fee. As I work with older suitors who were claiming a refund on FICA and Social Security "Tax" your point is amplified Doug. Discussion demanded we ascertain why these obvious insurance policies are considered a "tax" at all? [Federal Insurance Contributions Act and Social Security Insurance.]

Answer: Because the amount you pay by way of Premiums is not set in a standard way but rather in proportion to how much "income" you bring in during the tax year.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Chex
07-15-14, 10:40 PM
Would anyone argue that a house can be constructed absent a foundation? Usufruct is based in Rights.

But what is Right? Right is Property.

But Property begs a legal relationship and that begs a TRUST. So one cannot contemplate Usufruct without first contemplating the Trust.

Now do not misunderstand me - government is good! But the debtor is slave to the lender. So then what of government that has to pledge its citizenry as surety for the mortgage?

Look around what do you see?

I see a people that willingly enslave themselves for absolutely NOTHING in exchange! Have your been Re-Venue-ed? Did you do it to yourself? Shalom, MJ

July 15 2014

Greetings!

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND

TRISTATE CAPITAL BANK *
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor *

v.
*Case No. 20-C-12-008151
WILLIAM G. CORACE *
Defendant/Judgment Debtor *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

SHERIFF'S SALE OF VALUABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY

STATE OF MARYLAND
TALBOT COUNTY, TO WIT:

By virtue of a Writ of Execution issued by the Circuit Court for Talbot County, Maryland, and to me as said Sheriff of Talbot County (the "Sheriff" (http://www.talbotcountymd.gov/index.php?page=sheriff)), directed at the suit of TriState Capital Bank (https://www.tristatecapitalbank.com/our-story.aspx) v. William G. Corace, Case No. 20-C-12-008151, I have seized and taken into execution all the right and title, claim, interest, and estate both at law and in equity of the said Defendant William G. Corace, in, to, and about the following described personal property:

Too much to list...............

The deposit will be placed on the credit card that was used to register for the Auction.

The remaining balance must be paid in U.S. currency or certified check made payable to "Sheriff of Talbot County."

No personal or business checks will be accepted. Everything is sold "As Is" with no warranties of any kind.

The Sheriff reserves the right to reject any bids.

Dallas Pope, Sheriff

Talbot County, Maryland

SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES’ SALE OF VALUABLE Under and by virtue of the power of sale contained in that certain Deed of Trust from William G. Corace (“Corace”) to Linda S. Cheezum and W. Moorhead Vermilye, Trustees, dated September 12, 2001, and recorded among the Land Records of Talbot County, Maryland, at Book 1023, page 902, as modified (collectively, the “Deed of Trust”), the holder of the indebtedness secured by said Deed of Trust (the “Noteholder”), having subsequently appointed Eric S. Schuster and Bradley J. Swallow as Substitute Trustees in the place of the former trustees by instrument duly executed, acknowledged, and recorded among the Land Records of Talbot County, Maryland, default having occurred under the terms of the Deed of Trust and at the request of the parties as secured thereby, the undersigned Substitute Trustees (collectively, the “Trustees”) will offer for sale at public auction on the steps of the Circuit Court for Talbot County, Maryland, 11 North Washington Street, Easton, Maryland 21601 on:

http://realestate.alexcooper.com/files/tos/marengo-legal-ad3.pdf

doug555
07-15-14, 11:05 PM
It always matters, the nature and character of anything. Understanding, perceiving things incoherent to their nature is delusion - a world of illusions. Perceiving things according to law, like Michael Joseph points out is knowledge.

That pointed out I can certainly agree with your points about usage fee. As I work with older suitors who were claiming a refund on FICA and Social Security "Tax" your point is amplified Doug. Discussion demanded we ascertain why these obvious insurance policies are considered a "tax" at all? [Federal Insurance Contributions Act and Social Security Insurance.]

Answer: Because the amount you pay by way of Premiums is not set in a standard way but rather in proportion to how much "income" you bring in during the tax year.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Yes, it does matter, but not in regard to it (income) itself being taxed. It isn't.

I am not getting (nor asking for) a refund of FICA or Social Security. I am only getting a refund of Federal and State "income tax" withheld.

However, I CAN (and SHOULD) include the FICA or Social Security withholding amounts in the total amount of lawful money demanded on line 21, because:
1. those transaction amounts were rightly presumed to be FRNs and occurred as derivatives of the gross income paid BEFORE those amounts could be "redeemed";
and,
2. I have on the record stated my demand (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html) since 9/15/2011 as: "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions".

David Merrill
07-16-14, 03:39 AM
Yes, it does matter, but not in regard to it (income) itself being taxed. It isn't.

I am not getting (nor asking for) a refund of FICA or Social Security. I am only getting a refund of Federal and State "income tax" withheld.

However, I CAN (and SHOULD) include the FICA or Social Security withholding amounts in the total amount of lawful money demanded on line 21, because:
1. those transaction amounts were rightly presumed to be FRNs and occurred as derivatives of the gross income paid BEFORE those amounts could be "redeemed";
and,
2. I have on the record stated my demand (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html) since 9/15/2011 as: "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions".



You treat FICA and SSI as tax. Not insurance.

walter
07-16-14, 05:16 AM
You treat FICA and SSI as tax. Not insurance.


Insurance would be private contract while tax is for public purpose.

David Merrill
07-16-14, 09:29 AM
That is a productive mental model - thank you!

The only thing keeping the Federal Reserve System an instrumentality of government is that Congress has allowed it to issue stock certificates (notes) that are designed to reduce in value over time. Ergo the remedy:


They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

Chex
07-16-14, 11:15 AM
The only thing keeping the Federal Reserve System an instrumentality of government is that Congress has allowed it to issue stock certificates (notes) that are designed to reduce in value over time. Ergo the remedy: They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

That is a productive mental model - thank you!

doug555
07-16-14, 09:41 PM
Insurance would be private contract while tax is for public purpose.

Does not the W-4 establish a private contract?

David Merrill
07-16-14, 10:02 PM
I would like to reconcile perspectives.

Government is an insurance policy. I lay my claim when I pull a car onto the road or even accept police protection (presumption). I think this is demonstrated especially when I enter into the downtown district of the city. I hear that is where police protection originated; a safe place for meeting between commercial vendors and customers.

This (public) kind of insurance premium rate is governed by how much of the Federal Reserve's private credit is changing hands - a sales tax, or an income tax. Like in the mental model I just described though, the Federal Reserve is a private agreement, in at least that one can choose to contract (http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/3750/frbvmetrocentreimprovem.pdf) (endorse private credit) or to redeem lawful money by demand.

Social Security.


26usc 3101


(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance


In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—

doug555
07-17-14, 10:30 PM
I would like to reconcile perspectives.

Government is an insurance policy. I lay my claim when I pull a car onto the road or even accept police protection (presumption). I think this is demonstrated especially when I enter into the downtown district of the city. I hear that is where police protection originated; a safe place for meeting between commercial vendors and customers.

This (public) kind of insurance premium rate is governed by how much of the Federal Reserve's private credit is changing hands - a sales tax, or an income tax. Like in the mental model I just described though, the Federal Reserve is a private agreement, in at least that one can choose to contract (http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/3750/frbvmetrocentreimprovem.pdf) (endorse private credit) or to redeem lawful money by demand.

Social Security.


"I" am using Social Security and Medicare... so "I" am willing to "pay" for those.

However, "I" am NOT using FRNs, so "I" am NOT willing to pay for their "usage" in the form of a "Federal" (private) "income tax".

Chex
07-17-14, 11:47 PM
Social Security and Medicare is it a tax or is it insurance. Which is it?


Trust Fund Taxes

A trust fund tax is money currency (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/federal-reserve-note.asp) withheld from an employee's wages (income tax, social security, and Medicare taxes) by an employer and held in trust until paid to the Treasury.

When you pay your employees, you do not pay them all the money (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp)they earned.

As their employer, you have the added responsibility of withholding taxes from their paychecks.

The income tax and employees' share of FICA (social security and Medicare) that you withhold from your employees' paychecks are part of their wages you pay to the Treasury instead of to your employees.

Your employees trust that you pay the withholding to the Treasury by making Federal Tax Deposits (PDF). That is why they are called trust fund taxes.

Through this withholding, your employees pay their contributions toward retirement benefits (social security and Medicare) and the income taxes reported on their tax returns.

Your employees' trust fund taxes, along with your matching share of FICA, are paid to the Treasury through the Federal Tax Deposit System.

The withheld part of these taxes is your employees' money, and the matching portion is their retirement benefit.

For additional information, refer to Employment Taxes and the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP).

Employment tax deposits are a current expense.

Postponing paying them is not the same as making a late payment on your phone bill or to a supplier.

Congress has established large penalties for delays in turning over your employment taxes to the Treasury.

The longer it takes to pay that money, the more it will cost you.

For more information, refer to Publication 15, Circular E, Employer's Tax Guide.

Rate the Small Business and Self-Employed Website

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-%26-Self-Employed/Trust-Fund-Taxes

LearnTheLaw
07-28-14, 08:19 PM
OK so this is what I am thinking to write to my congressman (first Draft).

Dear Mr. Bishop,

Greetings my name is Steven Edward I live at 123 Somewhere Lane, Smithville New York.
I am writing you because back in March I filed my 1040 tax return with the IRS. I have attached that return and all other material it is labeled appendix (A). In May I received a letter from the IRS that referred to the return that I filed and to some documentation that was not included in their letter, I felt their communication at this point was somewhat threatening, I have included this and labeled it appendix (B). I sent a response letter asking for some clarification regarding the communication that they sent me, I have included it with this letter and it is labeled appendix (C). I have now received another letter and a couple of forms from them that have totally ignored my questions in my response letter to them and took it upon themselves to evaluate my tax liability and want me sign off that it is True and correct (appendix D). The problem that I have is that until they answer my questions I cannot determine if that is the case. I thought my 1040 that I originally filed was true and correct.

What I need you to do as my representative to the Federal Government is inquire with the US Treasury Secretary's office on:
Why were my questions where not answered?
Why have they not treated my "income" as "Lawful Money" as per my demand made on my paycheck's endorsements (part of appendix A) and outlined in USC Title 12 § 411 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm ) and provided me with a return as filed?
The Supreme Court has adjudicated on this and has determined that Federal Reserve Notes can act as Lawful Money if such a demand has been made. My demand has been made (shown on each paycheck's endorsements that I included with the 1040) to be given Lawful money so my return should reflect that I have only received Lawful Money for those paychecks that show that a restricted endorsement was made and should not be treated as Private credit extended by the Federal Reserve Banking System known as Federal Reserve Notes.
To be clear I am NOT asking for gold or any other metal considered to be precious.
I am asking that my income be treated as if it were US Treasury Notes (Lawful Money) and have the Tax Liability applied to my earnings as if I received US Treasury notes and/or Lawful money as I have indicated on my IRS 1040 that I submitted. It has always been my intention to use Lawful Money.
If you look at Title 12 USC 417 found here http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm In section 7 of the webpage, it is clear that there is a distinction between Federal Reserve Notes and Lawful money.

Please include me in any correspondence that you have with the US Treasury Department on my behalf.
I wish only to have the Tax Liability, if any applied to me that is Lawfully required for receiving Lawful money in exchange for my labor and would like my original questions answered, not ignored and my demand under 12 USC 411 honored.

Truly Yours,

Steven Edward


Any updates to this Froze???

Geetika
08-29-14, 08:01 AM
Child custody (cherylsteinesq.com)


I am glad to know more about this website..Very great knowledge on this website about Child custody..Government is an insurance policy. I lay my claim when I pull a car onto the road or even accept police protection (presumption). I think this is demonstrated especially when I enter into the downtown district of the city. I hear that is where police protection originated; a safe place for meeting between commercial vendors and customers. Thanks for sharing all that great information..For more information you can visit on this website:
cherylsteinesq.com

David Merrill
08-29-14, 08:55 PM
Thank you and welcome Geetika!

BigBlueOcean
08-30-14, 02:37 AM
An addition to seal the witness to any mailing is the use of a Firm Mailing Book of Accountable Mail obtained free from the Post Office.
The Form 3877 Accountable Mail book is the Postal Clerk's inspection of who the mail is addressed to and the count of mailpieces and the postal clerk signs it making the clerk signature and the signature on the Return Receipt Two Witnesses !

Here is a case involving the IRS that the court discusses the Form 3877
https://www.casetext.com/case/welch-v-united-states-15#.VAE0JPk7uM4

Also, Title 15 is the way to shift the burden of proof onto the IRS's collection process not assessment process. The IRS can make up any numbers and say/do anything they want for the sheer reason they are just debt collectors and are not responsible to know anything. Not responsible for knowing the law and of course they have no first hand personal knowledge and operate on all assumption and presumption aka Prima Facia nothing-ness.

My approach is to conditionally agree with their offer upon proofs of claims of (a list of hundreds of presumptions are true) and this conditional acceptance is supported by an affidavit written in negative averment stating "( I ) Affiant has not seen nor been presented with any material facts or evidence that ..."
For instance:
Affiant has not seen nor been presented with any material facts or evidence that the nature of each deposit was not Special in nature, and believes none exists.
Affiant has not seen nor been presented with any material facts or evidence that it is not the intent of the endorser to redeem the instrument in lawful money per Title 12 §411, and believes none exists.
Affiant has not seen nor been presented with any material facts or evidence that source of the income is not a Foreign Estate, and believes none exits.
etc

BigBlueOcean
08-30-14, 02:52 AM
Take the return receipt to the post office and have them print out the electronic record showing the name and signature the person wrote down.




Guess what was in the Post office Box when I got home the return receipt card stamped, not signed "received April 8, 2014" I will post it scanned later tonight when I get a chance.

Johnny
09-04-14, 05:28 AM
Thank you for all the help on this site. I have been absent with no computer but now can post.

My circumstances involved selling homes and capital gains liabilities. The state of Colorado and the title company taxed me on the premise that I would owe capital gains to the IRS. One form from the title company asked the question, and stated that I could only answer this question with a yes or no answer. The question was, " Did you only receive Cash or did you receive cash and other considerations? Since the check from escrow was deposited demanding lawful money I wrote that I only received lawful money demanded pursuant to title 12 USC 411. The state of Colorado received the tax return on the 22nd of April and cut a check for me on July 15th. It is interesting that the check did not arrive until July 29th. I really appreciate all the help, thanks, Johnny

Sealhunter31
10-14-14, 01:58 AM
Why are you waiting for next year? Why not demand lawful money "nunc pro tunc" this year and years past and collect those refunds!

What is nunc pro tunc?

David Merrill
10-14-14, 02:48 AM
Done at one time with the same effect as if done at another time.

Francon
11-16-14, 03:39 AM
Hello,

I've been reading through the thread. I started redeeming my paychecks for lawful money in mid year. I'm curious about what happened to your case after the IRS sent you the corrected return. I'm assuming that you never heard back from your congressman. This is my first post. Thanks everyone for your time commitment posting year.

Regards,

Francon

David Merrill
11-16-14, 10:30 AM
Hello,

I've been reading through the thread. I started redeeming my paychecks for lawful money in mid year. I'm curious about what happened to your case after the IRS sent you the corrected return. I'm assuming that you never heard back from your congressman. This is my first post. Thanks everyone for your time commitment posting year.

Regards,

Francon

Hi Francon;


Welcome to 'Saving to Suitors' Club!

It might be helpful for you to PM the member when you make an inquiry. He or she may not be monitoring the thread or even reading the site lately.

Francon
11-18-14, 02:59 AM
I appreciate all the information that you've provided. I'll likely take a shot at filing in 2015 with the 7 month of lawful money deductions. In the mean time, I'll keep up the research.

Francon

David Merrill
11-19-14, 12:48 AM
You are welcome Francon. That will be worth it - 7 months. For less than a quarter or so, it does not seem worth the confusion for filing a partial tax year.

Darkmagus
12-04-15, 05:15 AM
Why are you waiting for next year? Why not demand lawful money "nunc pro tunc" this year and years past and collect those refunds!

Please explain