PDA

View Full Version : Treasury Letter from 1984



David Merrill
12-09-14, 11:49 PM
I do not recall sharing this letter (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZTc4MGNlZjMtMGRmMy00ZmJhLThlY WItZTVhZjA0MzczODM4) here.






Update: The comic book from the NY Fed bank is not the attached pamphlet mentioned at the end of the 1981 Letter. I added that for explanation. - Just so you know...

mikecz
12-11-14, 07:11 PM
I do not recall sharing this letter (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZTc4MGNlZjMtMGRmMy00ZmJhLThlY WItZTVhZjA0MzczODM4) here.

Referring to bank notes..

"There was nothing illegal about using them, but on the other hand no law required anyone to accept them. Therefore they were not considered "lawful money." The term "lawful money" was reserved for money which the law did require people to accept, i.e., legal tender money."

"In 1933, Federal Reserve notes were made legal tender. See 31 USC 392, which was adopted in 1965 to replace 31 USC 462, enacted in 1933. Since that time Federal Reserve notes, as well as all other United States currency and coins, have been "lawful money".



So after reading this, I've come to the conclusion 12 USC 411 was really only applicable until 1933, when Federal reserve notes became legal tender. After that time, the FRNs became lawful money (legal tender which had to be accepted as payment). This doesn't take away the fact that they aren't money, they are credit. Notes to which excise and duties can be attached, the letter just brings a few things to light. At least if I'm reading it correctly.

Keyser Soze
12-11-14, 09:46 PM
Notice the use of "lawful money" vs. lawful money

Brian
12-11-14, 09:53 PM
The local bank is my agent.
The Federal Reserve is the government's agent.
I ask for "money" issued directly by the government (coin or USN's)
I demand it on my paycheck
My agent gets together with the governments agent, The Fed delivers coin to my bank. The bank gives me coin, the check is debited from the account holders (employer) account via the clearing house system.
The Fed now has a deficiency in coin.
The Fed forwards credit to the Treasury, The mint delivers more coin to the Fed and the loop is closed.

The mint creates dollar coins for approx 30cents a piece. The Fed pays for them Dollar for Dollar.
The mint gets approx 70 cents of seignorage (profit) for each coin it delivers to the Fed.
This profit can then pay down the debt (extinguish bonds) or be used for more gov spending.

Keith Alan
12-11-14, 11:22 PM
The local bank is my agent.
The Federal Reserve is the government's agent.
I ask for "money" issued directly by the government (coin or USN's)
I demand it on my paycheck
My agent gets together with the governments agent, The Fed delivers coin to my bank. The bank gives me coin, the check is debited from the account holders (employer) account via the clearing house system.
The Fed now has a deficiency in coin.
The Fed forwards credit to the Treasury, The mint delivers more coin to the Fed and the loop is closed.

The mint creates dollar coins for approx 30cents a piece. The Fed pays for them Dollar for Dollar.
The mint gets approx 70 cents of seignorage (profit) for each coin it delivers to the Fed.
This profit can then pay down the debt (extinguish bonds) or be used for more gov spending.

How simple is that? I like it.

David Merrill
12-11-14, 11:37 PM
Interestingly both documents (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) are from 1984!

Brian
12-12-14, 01:29 AM
How simple is that? I like it.

Thank you, I have been racking my head for years trying to boil all of this stuff down to something a lay person can understand. The beauty of this is we win and the gov wins. They get the seignorage for their purposes. I get my property right in my own labor back for my use, and if you choose coin the bank can still fractionally lend on it. Everyone gets a piece of the action. It will reconnect the grounding wire to the system. With nothing but bank credit in circulation the interest creates an impossible situation. It can't ever be paid back. With an effective way to generate and distribute debt free money now that impossible system becomes possible again.

Sovereignty
12-12-14, 03:56 AM
The local bank is my agent.
The Federal Reserve is the government's agent.
I ask for "money" issued directly by the government (coin or USN's)
I demand it on my paycheck
My agent gets together with the governments agent, The Fed delivers coin to my bank. The bank gives me coin, the check is debited from the account holders (employer) account via the clearing house system.
The Fed now has a deficiency in coin.
The Fed forwards credit to the Treasury, The mint delivers more coin to the Fed and the loop is closed.

The mint creates dollar coins for approx 30cents a piece. The Fed pays for them Dollar for Dollar.
The mint gets approx 70 cents of seignorage (profit) for each coin it delivers to the Fed.
This profit can then pay down the debt (extinguish bonds) or be used for more gov spending.

Is this because 'public debt' (US notes and coin) carries no income tax fee for the privilege of using it?

Brian
12-12-14, 05:08 AM
Is this because 'public debt' (US notes and coin) carries no income tax fee for the privilege of using it?

It is deeper than just that. One of the primary reasons for an income tax is to limit the expansion of the circulating money supply. The Fed and the banks can create credit. This credit circulates as though it is money. Congress does not directly control this new "money" issuance. In order to control the total money supply they created the income tax to pull in some of this credit from circulation. Think about it. Congress spends whatever it wants and issues more bonds to cover the difference. They really don't need the tax revenue, they have the power to create money. States and localities need taxes as they cannot create money (except gold and silver).

The key court decision that solidified my knowledge of this is Veazie Bank v. Fenno 1869.
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/75/75.US.533.html

Read it again and again until you see it. Especially pay attention towards the end just before the dissenting opinion.

They use the Springer Case (1880) to justify their income tax on us. Springer is confusing, ambiguous, and a two part decision. The Springer decision dealing with wages was backed up by Veazie that came before it (Mr. Springer must have been paid with bank credit but I have not found where this is specifically called out in the court decision, I need what was presented to the court to figure that one out). However the Springer decision on dividends and profits was later challenged in Pollock and deemed unconstitutional. This was reversed with the 16th amendment.

Enter the Federal Reserve and we are all getting paid in bank credit......until you figure out the deception.

Michael Joseph
12-12-14, 05:13 AM
Notice the use of "lawful money" vs. lawful money

lawful to use as a legal tender would therefore be lawful money where lawful is an adjective.

Otherwise FRN's may be redeemed into Lawful Money on demand shows Lawful Money to be a compound noun. Any slick will try to twist the framework of the argument - like this: "It's lawful to use federal reserve notes today in our economy".

Finding 12 USC 411 is still on the books - then FRN's can be redeemed. End of story. And if they can be redeemed into something else, then they are not that special "something else". And no amount of obfuscation by the nachash can close the eyes of the wise.


A demand for "Lawful Money" is a claim for fair balances. An attempt to restore equity. Since the debtor is slave to the lender what of law and equity of a slave. Therefore the slave - serf is always 12(b)(6) - ed

allodial
12-13-14, 01:38 AM
I'm not sure how more well it can be hidden in plain site. The drawee on most any payroll check is the address. If you comprehend how checks (sic drafts) are laid out from a commercial law or customary perspective the "to" or "on" or "against" position is where the address usually is on a paycheck. The drawer/drawers is/are usually at the top. The drawee is usually a bank. And if in the district.....

http://www.rdsbiz.net/payrolliMages/sample%20payroll%20check.jpg

An enticing invitation to endorse private credit or...to accept it as the drawee? Remember, with a payroll check every two weeks or so some kind of report goes out to the IRS and the SSA to make sure the instrument will be a perfect match to the bi-weekly reports to the IRS and the SSA.

http://www.alumni.ucr.edu/view.image?Id=460


...lawful money


What is lawful or legal in a Federal Reserve district might be neither lawful nor legal elsewhere. The jurisdictional game is probably more sneakily hiding in the details.

djlamb
12-13-14, 08:36 AM
Wow. This thread is awesome. Allodial, what you just shared is something I am dealing with, right now. Everything is direct deposit where I "work". Since the EMPLOYER (university) is FEDERALLY funded (in some kind of capacity), I just assumed the school has its contracts with the govt.

Now, I just have to figure out exactly how to lawfully refuse THEIR invitation. I am still going through all of the info y'all are sharing here (in the forum), while also digesting it fully (I am astounded how you can take apart stuff, like this letter, and point out what certain words/terms REALLY mean - I am actually curious as to where I can learn that language). I have read enough that I will be giving NOTICE AND DEMAND to "my" bank by the end of December and getting a stamp. What I would like to figure out is what I have to do, as far as proper notice to "my" EMPLOYER.

As I had shared in the "Introductions" thread(s), my ignorance has guided me down the wrong path. I neglected to file an income tax return last year, because of the erroneous assumption that my labor was not taxable (yada yada yada) and that the IRS can send me what they think I owe THEM (in invoice / bill). I am correcting that and will not only file the return (unfortunately late, so I will probably get penalized) but also file for 2014. Though I was familiar with lawful money, I was "doing it wrong" (simply writing on the back of checks - REDEEM IN REAL LAWFUL MONEY ONLY. NO FEDERAL RESERVES NOTES - yeah, pretty dumb of me).

Now that I am amongst fellow beings who know what is really factual truth (not misinformation, which I was getting in other groups), I am confident and willing to resolve my dumb mistakes. I appreciate it. ~ DJ Lamb

doug555
12-13-14, 03:38 PM
Wow. This thread is awesome. Allodial, what you just shared is something I am dealing with, right now. Everything is direct deposit where I "work". Since the EMPLOYER (university) is FEDERALLY funded (in some kind of capacity), I just assumed the school has its contracts with the govt.

Now, I just have to figure out exactly how to lawfully refuse THEIR invitation. I am still going through all of the info y'all are sharing here (in the forum), while also digesting it fully (I am astounded how you can take apart stuff, like this letter, and point out what certain words/terms REALLY mean - I am actually curious as to where I can learn that language). I have read enough that I will be giving NOTICE AND DEMAND to "my" bank by the end of December and getting a stamp. What I would like to figure out is what I have to do, as far as proper notice to "my" EMPLOYER.

As I had shared in the "Introductions" thread(s), my ignorance has guided me down the wrong path. I neglected to file an income tax return last year, because of the erroneous assumption that my labor was not taxable (yada yada yada) and that the IRS can send me what they think I owe THEM (in invoice / bill). I am correcting that and will not only file the return (unfortunately late, so I will probably get penalized) but also file for 2014. Though I was familiar with lawful money, I was "doing it wrong" (simply writing on the back of checks - REDEEM IN REAL LAWFUL MONEY ONLY. NO FEDERAL RESERVES NOTES - yeah, pretty dumb of me).

Now that I am amongst fellow beings who know what is really factual truth (not misinformation, which I was getting in other groups), I am confident and willing to resolve my dumb mistakes. I appreciate it. ~ DJ Lamb

Here is what I have done (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html), and it avoids "upsetting" the Banks and Employers. This has worked for 3 years.


“lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)“

Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs (out-going amounts of LAWFUL money excluded). By doing so in good faith reliance thereon, one is provided immunity from liability in any court action, per 12 USC95a(2).


See below example of a Deposit Slip. I also handwrite (more powerful than stamps) this demand under may name and address on all my checks. This creates a "preponderance of evidence". I do not do restrictive endorsements on any of their checks. I believe the back side of all checks are on their private side.... in their realm.

2075


Your job is only to make a substantive record of the demand. That is all 12 USC 411 requires. Do NOT interfere with the banks' or the employers' realm and duties.

IMO, as long as you have NON-HEARSAY EVIDENCE (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) (FRE 803,#6.B), recorded by the bank in their normal course of business, you are all set for proving your demands for lawful money for all transactions.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803)

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
...

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

(E) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

itsmymoney
12-13-14, 04:50 PM
Doug555,

Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

Questions:

1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?


Thank you all for this great site and these Forums.

Sincerely,

IMM

doug555
12-13-14, 05:16 PM
Doug555,

Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

Questions:

1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.


3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.


4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/) approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/) and the 1040 Help (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?844-1040-help&highlight=10099) comprehensive post here on StSC.

However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-global-currency-reset-is-now-100.html (http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-global-currency-reset-is-now-100.html)

Thank you all for this great site and these Forums.

Sincerely,

IMM

See highlighted replies above...

Chex
12-13-14, 07:36 PM
No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

The burden of proof is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

Preponderance of Evidence. A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action. In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of ...

Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is ...

Burden of Proof Vs. Preponderance of Evidence. Civil and criminal litigation use different standards for finding a defendant responsible for the charge. While both ...

Since the IRS are the ones not accepting the law in 12USC411 where is there Preponderance of Evidence. Milam v. U.S. is really starting to smell. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1338-The-word-game-Legal-Tender-v-Lawful-Money&p=15677&viewfull=1#post15677)

itsmymoney
12-13-14, 07:45 PM
My responses and follow-up questions in RED. Thank you...


Doug555,

Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

Questions:

1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?

2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.

3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.

IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.

Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?

4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.

However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html

IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.

I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.

Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.

I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.

doug555
12-13-14, 07:48 PM
No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.


The burden of proof is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

Preponderance of Evidence. A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action. In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of ...

Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is ...

Burden of Proof Vs. Preponderance of Evidence. Civil and criminal litigation use different standards for finding a defendant responsible for the charge. While both ...

Since the IRS are the ones not accepting the law in 12USC411 where is there Preponderance of Evidence. Milam v. U.S. is really starting to smell. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1338-The-word-game-Legal-Tender-v-Lawful-Money&p=15677&viewfull=1#post15677)

Good point and research.

In David's "Diminished Money counterclaim (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?874-Diminished-Money-Counterclaim&p=10422&viewfull=1#post10422)", one is the Plaintiff in that Civil Action.

doug555
12-13-14, 08:59 PM
Doug555,

Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

Questions:

1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

Doug: I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?

Doug: 1040, Line 21 has "See Attached" on it right after its description. The TaxACT Program (http://www.taxact.com/) then create a separate schedule that has Lines 1 & 2 available for your use. See example below. The Line 21 amount will always have a preceding dash to indicate a negative amount of "Other income", and it should always be greater than your Gross Income amount, because of adding in the "withholding" transactions amounts that were legitimately presumed by the employer to be provided in the default FRN currency.

2076


2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

Doug: No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.

3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

Doug: I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.

IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.

Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?

Doug: YES, definitely. See split-year example here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=10366&viewfull=1#post10366).

4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

Doug: I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?844-1040-help&highlight=10099) comprehensive post here on StSC.

However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html

IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.

I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.

Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.

I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.


My responses and follow-up questions in RED. Thank you...


See blue replies above... and thanks for your good questions.

It is great that David provides this forum because I am sure many others will have similar circumstances and questions, and will be able to profit from this exchange here.

And it is also important to avoid any bad precedents from being set by this group when others here have already paved the way successfully.

allodial
12-13-14, 11:40 PM
I am still going through all of the info y'all are sharing here (in the forum), while also digesting it fully (I am astounded how you can take apart stuff, like this letter, and point out what certain words/terms REALLY mean - I am actually curious as to where I can learn that language). I have read enough that I will be giving NOTICE AND DEMAND to "my" bank by the end of December and getting a stamp. What I would like to figure out is what I have to do, as far as proper notice to "my" EMPLOYER.

I would tend to recommend getting hold of a Black's Law Dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a Balllentine's Law Dictionary and an old 1700s/1800s Giles Jacob law dictionary online and consider that there are at least two English languages: 'common speak' and 'official'. Also the mindset of helping servants out or keeping them in line might be more fruitful and healthy than us/me vs them theater of war mindset. To be a good master might take some diligent study and rightly dividing of the word of truth.

A green contract law hornbook is a nice quite helpful start. I'd be sure to cover and the basics of contract formation, remedies and recourse, requirements for parties at the least. IMHO a book like this for only $5.96 (http://www.amazon.com/Contracts-HORNBOOK-John-D-Calamari/dp/B005IFWKUU/)--is like free gold coins like forever. Consider that checks, promissory notes and bonds are types of contracts.

Brian
12-14-14, 12:03 AM
I would tend to recommend getting hold of a Black's Law Dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a Balllentine's Law Dictionary and an old 1800s Jacob Giles law dictionary online and consider that there are at least two English languages: 'common speak' and 'official'. Also the mindset of helping servants out or keeping them in line might be more fruitful and healthy than us/me vs them theater of war mindset. To be a good master might take some diligent study and rightly dividing of the word of truth.

A green contract law hornbook is a nice quite helpful start. I'd be sure to cover and the basics of contract formation, remedies and recourse, requirements for parties at the least. IMHO a book like this for only $5.96 (http://www.amazon.com/Contracts-HORNBOOK-John-D-Calamari/dp/B005IFWKUU/)--is like free gold coins like forever. Consider that checks, promissory notes and bonds are types of contracts.

Thanks allodial! I found this one helpful as well. Negotiable Instruments and Check Collection (http://www.amazon.com/Negotiable-Instruments-Collection-Nutshell-Publishing/dp/0314022945)

itsmymoney
12-14-14, 01:53 AM
Doug555,

Thank you for the 1040 example and all other info! However, I'm a little confused about the 1040 example and the overall 'math'. Are we conceding SS/Med withholding? Just to be sure I'm understanding this, I'd like to present numbers from one of my W-2 Forms and a simple filing, asking if you can confirm I am 'getting it'. PLEASE correct or instruct me where applicable...

"wages": 46,000 Fed 'income' tax withheld: 6200 FICA (SS/Med) withheld: 2600 standard + personal exemption: 10,000

The following is an extra step of calculating AGI just to illustrate (if correct) my understanding of the the logic behind the RILM deduction...
Adjusted Gross Income before RILM deduction: 36,000 (46,000 Gross Income - 10,000 exemptions)
Line 21 "Other income": -42,200 (AGI RILM of 36,000 + 'income' tax withheld RILM of 6200) <- in reality, ALL of the Gross Income (46K) was RILM.
Adjusted Gross Income after RILM deduction: -6200 (36,000 AGI minus -42,200 RILM)
Taxable Income: 0 Overpayment/Refund: 6200

Basically, this would refund all 'income' withholding and concede FICA because FICA can be perceived as a potential Federal privilege and also does not fall under Subtitle A 'income' tax. Again, please correct/instruct where applicable, and thank you for your patience and knowledge sharing!

Respectfully,

IMM



Doug555,

Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

Questions:

1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

Doug: I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?

Doug: 1040, Line 21 has "See Attached" on it right after its description. The TaxACT Program then create a separate schedule that has Lines 1 & 2 available for your use. See example below. The Line 21 amount will always have a preceding dash to indicate a negative amount of "Other income", and it should always be greater than your Gross Income amount, because of adding in the "withholding" transactions amounts that were legitimately presumed by the employer to be provided in the default FRN currency.




2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

Doug: No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.

3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

Doug: I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.

IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.

Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?

Doug: YES, definitely. See split-year example here.

4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

Doug: I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.

However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html

IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.

I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.

Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.

I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.
Originally Posted by itsmymoney
My responses and follow-up questions in RED. Thank you...

See blue replies above... and thanks for your good questions.

It is great that David provides this forum because I am sure many others will have similar circumstances and questions, and will be able to profit from this exchange here.

And it is also important to avoid any bad precedents from being set by this group when others here have already paved the way successfully.

doug555
12-14-14, 03:19 AM
Doug555,

Thank you for the 1040 example and all other info! However, I'm a little confused about the 1040 example and the overall 'math'. Are we conceding SS/Med withholding? Just to be sure I'm understanding this, I'd like to present numbers from one of my W-2 Forms and a simple filing, asking if you can confirm I am 'getting it'. PLEASE correct or instruct me where applicable...

"wages": 46,000 Fed 'income' tax withheld: 6200 FICA (SS/Med) withheld: 2600 standard + personal exemption: 10,000

The following is an extra step of calculating AGI just to illustrate (if correct) my understanding of the the logic behind the RILM deduction...
Adjusted Gross Income before RILM deduction: 36,000 (46,000 Gross Income - 10,000 exemptions)
Line 21 "Other income": -42,200 (AGI RILM of 36,000 + 'income' tax withheld RILM of 6200) <- in reality, ALL of the Gross Income (46K) was RILM.
Adjusted Gross Income after RILM deduction: -6200 (36,000 AGI minus -42,200 RILM)
Taxable Income: 0 Overpayment/Refund: 6200

Basically, this would refund all 'income' withholding and concede FICA because FICA can be perceived as a potential Federal privilege and also does not fall under Subtitle A 'income' tax. Again, please correct/instruct where applicable, and thank you for your patience and knowledge sharing!

Respectfully,

IMM

I cannot follow your calculations... sorry. Just do 1040 as you normally would. Just use Line 21 to include "Other Income" which is the total amount from its attached Schedule.

See post10366 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=10366&viewfull=1#post10366) for an example of this Schedule.

Note thereon that Regular & Overtime Pay amounts are Gross amounts. You MUST use your payroll register printouts to do this schedule... not the W2 amounts. Otherwise you cannot pro-rate the amounts correctly.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW). All the other withheld amounts are valid amounts you must pay for the services received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

The Online version TaxACT make the 1040 Filing VERY EASY & VERY AFFORDABLE!!! I recommend also getting the Audit Protection package [called: Tax Audit Defense].

itsmymoney
12-14-14, 04:05 AM
I cannot follow your calculations... sorry. Just do 1040 as you normally would. Just use Line 21 to include "Other Income" which is the total amount from its attached Schedule.

See post10366 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=10366&viewfull=1#post10366) for an example of this Schedule.

Note thereon that Regular & Overtime Pay amounts are Gross amounts. You MUST use your payroll register printouts to do this schedule... not the W2 amounts. Otherwise you cannot pro-rate the amounts correctly.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW). All the other withheld amounts are valid amounts you must pay for the services received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

The Online version TaxACT make the 1040 Filing VERY EASY & VERY AFFORDABLE!!! I recommend also getting the Audit Protection package.


Doug555,

No problem. I think my example and comment are basically what you stated above. I will check out the TaxACT software (thanks for initiating me to this tool!).

Just a couple more items, please...

What are the 'payroll register printouts'? Is this something I need to request from company? Only other question I have is, I noticed a couple different versions of the 'Supporting Schedule for the 1040'. One example appeared to be an IRS Form and your 'post10366' link appears to be a 'home-grown' document. If the 'post10366' doc is in fact, 'home-grown' (not an IRS Form), I'm assuming the 'Form' does not matter - i.e. it's the content and reporting that counts. If I am mistaken, please clarify if you would, please. Most grateful for your help.

IMM

doug555
12-14-14, 05:13 AM
doug555,

no problem. I think my example and comment are basically what you stated above. I will check out the taxact software (thanks for initiating me to this tool!).

Just a couple more items, please...

What are the 'payroll register printouts'? Is this something i need to request from company?
yes

only other question i have is, i noticed a couple different versions of the 'supporting schedule for the 1040'. One example appeared to be an irs form and your 'post10366' link appears to be a 'home-grown' document. If the 'post10366' doc is in fact, 'home-grown' (not an irs form), i'm assuming the 'form' does not matter - i.e. It's the content and reporting that counts. If i am mistaken, please clarify if you would, please. Most grateful for your help.

home grown - content counts

imm


see highlighted above

allodial
12-14-14, 06:36 AM
...FICA...

Think of the "S" in GST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax).

itsmymoney
12-15-14, 04:05 PM
I cannot follow your calculations... sorry. Just do 1040 as you normally would. Just use Line 21 to include "Other Income" which is the total amount from its attached Schedule.

See post10366 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=10366&viewfull=1#post10366) for an example of this Schedule.

Note thereon that Regular & Overtime Pay amounts are Gross amounts. You MUST use your payroll register printouts to do this schedule... not the W2 amounts. Otherwise you cannot pro-rate the amounts correctly.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW). All the other withheld amounts are valid amounts you must pay for the services received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

The Online version TaxACT make the 1040 Filing VERY EASY & VERY AFFORDABLE!!! I recommend also getting the Audit Protection package.


Doug555, I contacted TaxACT and they told me they have a "Tax Audit Defense" package which is a 3rd-party tool. Is this synonymous with 'the Audit Protection package' you referred to?

IMM

JohnnyCash
12-15-14, 04:26 PM
I found this one helpful as well. Lawful Income Tax Avoidance for the Qualified Wages and Salaries of Natural Persons (http://www.amazon.com/Avoidance-Qualified-Salaries-Natural-Persons/dp/1453570187) by Richard C. DiMare

Chex
12-15-14, 06:39 PM
I found this one helpful as well. Lawful Income Tax Avoidance for the Qualified Wages and Salaries of Natural Persons (http://www.amazon.com/Avoidance-Qualified-Salaries-Natural-Persons/dp/1453570187) by Richard C. DiMare

Wow! David's name does get around now doesn't it?

You read this JC?

JohnnyCash
12-15-14, 08:26 PM
Yes, I've read the book.
"The current income tax .. is an avoidable .. regulatory excise tax on the incoming transfer of Federal Reserve notes and workers are not informed that they have an alternative right to have their labor taxed as property under the Constitution's two Direct Tax Clauses. (http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg)"

and since there are no direct taxes in effect, this worker owes no income tax.

doug555
12-15-14, 09:38 PM
Doug555, I contacted TaxACT and they told me they have a "Tax Audit Defense" package which is a 3rd-party tool. Is this synonymous with 'the Audit Protection package' you referred to?

IMM

Yes, that's it!

ag maniac
12-15-14, 10:57 PM
I found this one helpful as well. Lawful Income Tax Avoidance for the Qualified Wages and Salaries of Natural Persons (http://www.amazon.com/Avoidance-Qualified-Salaries-Natural-Persons/dp/1453570187) by Richard C. DiMare

Hmmmm....I suspect JC wrote that review, Chex !!

shikamaru
12-19-14, 09:48 PM
I would tend to recommend getting hold of a Black's Law Dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a Balllentine's Law Dictionary and an old 1800s Jacob Giles law dictionary online and consider that there are at least two English languages: 'common speak' and 'official'. Also the mindset of helping servants out or keeping them in line might be more fruitful and healthy than us/me vs them theater of war mindset. To be a good master might take some diligent study and rightly dividing of the word of truth.

A green contract law hornbook is a nice quite helpful start. I'd be sure to cover and the basics of contract formation, remedies and recourse, requirements for parties at the least. IMHO a book like this for only $5.96 (http://www.amazon.com/Contracts-HORNBOOK-John-D-Calamari/dp/B005IFWKUU/)--is like free gold coins like forever. Consider that checks, promissory notes and bonds are types of contracts.

Good look on that Jacob Giles :).

I typically call the two English languages: the vulgar tongue and the King's (Queen's) English.

shikamaru
12-19-14, 09:50 PM
Yes, I've read the book.
"The current income tax .. is an avoidable .. regulatory excise tax on the incoming transfer of Federal Reserve notes and workers are not informed that they have an alternative right to have their labor taxed as property under the Constitution's two Direct Tax Clauses. (http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg)"

and since there are no direct taxes in effect, this worker owes no income tax.

Direct taxes at the federal level has only been assessed on two objects: real estate and slaves.

Springer v. United States (1880) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=102&invol=586).

allodial
12-20-14, 03:26 AM
Good look on that Jacob Giles :).

I typically call the two English languages: the vulgar tongue and the King's (Queen's) English.

I must correct that: Giles Jacob. He was associated with one of the best law dictionaries evarr (https://archive.org/details/newlawdictionar00jacouoft).

Related: A new law-dictionary: containing, the interpretation and definition of words and terms used in the law: and also the whole law, and the practice thereof, under all the heads and titles of the same (1739) (https://archive.org/details/newlawdictionar00jacouoft)

JohnnyCash
12-20-14, 09:13 PM
Direct taxes at the federal level has only been assessed on two objects: real estate and slaves.

I don't think so. Here's a direct tax from 1798. http://ctcwarrior.com/lawfuldirecttax.pdf

shikamaru
12-21-14, 02:26 PM
I don't think so. Here's a direct tax from 1798. http://ctcwarrior.com/lawfuldirecttax.pdf



It will thus be seen that whenever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves.

SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=102&invol=586)

allodial
12-22-14, 10:27 PM
It will thus be seen that whenever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves.

Re: slave - perhaps see also employee, servant (https://books.google.com/books?id=A7oDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false).

2086

itsmymoney
12-23-14, 03:01 AM
Doug: 1040, Line 21 has "See Attached" on it right after its description. The TaxACT Program then create a separate schedule that has Lines 1 & 2 available for your use. See example below. The Line 21 amount will always have a preceding dash to indicate a negative amount of "Other income", and it should always be greater than your Gross Income amount, because of adding in the "withholding" transactions amounts that were legitimately presumed by the employer to be provided in the default FRN currency.

Doug, I'm starting to create my supporting schedule based on one of the example templates, but I'm confused. My schedule lays out every entry on the year-end payroll register (see below w/o amounts), with a corresponding column for any Lawful Money reduction as applicable to each (not shown below). If I may ask some questions to clear this up for me, please:

1) One Lawful Money reduction would be the total amount of all the deposits made in Lawful Money, correct? In my case this is virtually the same amount as the Net Pay (I missed literally one check - long story).

2) The Fed Withholding is your Gross Pay withheld towards a tax. However, if you redeemed all or virtually all of the Net Pay then the Fed Withholding is not applicable in that sense (a tax). So can some/all of Fed Withholding be added as an offset? See 3 below relative to this...

3) Regarding the text I bolded in your quote above, I believe you are saying that "Other Income" (in this simple example) would be (Net Pay + Fed Withholding). I believe you are saying that "Other Income" should be greater than 'Gross Pay'; or 'Adjusted Gross Income'? How can that be, with all the other non-redeemable deductions in play? Just not seeing it clearly yet.

Sorry for my confusion. This is my first-time RILM and I'm trying to comprehend it overall and relative to filling out the 1040. Any help or clarification is most appreciated.

Sincerely,

IMM

Payroll Register entries...
Gross Pay Regular
Gross Pay OT
Gross Pay Bonus
Net Pay
Fed Withholding Tax
SS Withholding Tax
Medicare Tax
State Withholding Tax

doug555
12-23-14, 03:16 PM
Doug, I'm starting to create my supporting schedule based on one of the example templates, but I'm confused. My schedule lays out every entry on the year-end payroll register (see below w/o amounts), with a corresponding column for any Lawful Money reduction as applicable to each (not shown below). If I may ask some questions to clear this up for me, please:

1) One Lawful Money reduction would be the total amount of all the deposits made in Lawful Money, correct? In my case this is virtually the same amount as the Net Pay (I missed literally one check - long story).

NO. All deposits are presumed to be in FRNs - the default currency. The main and primary LM reduction amount is all Gross pay received AFTER your first LM demand was made on the record.

2) The Fed Withholding is your Gross Pay withheld towards a tax. However, if you redeemed all or virtually all of the Net Pay then the Fed Withholding is not applicable in that sense (a tax). So can some/all of Fed Withholding be added as an offset? See 3 below relative to this...

NO. IMO, Net Pay is NOT a transaction to be counted, since Gross Pay to you already includes this amount. However, FITW is a transaction. As are the other withholdings.

3) Regarding the text I bolded in your quote above, I believe you are saying that "Other Income" (in this simple example) would be (Net Pay + Fed Withholding). I believe you are saying that "Other Income" should be greater than 'Gross Pay'; or 'Adjusted Gross Income'? How can that be, with all the other non-redeemable deductions in play? Just not seeing it clearly yet.

NO. Gross pay transaction + ALL withholding transactions... IF you made your LM demand as I instructed (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html), which makes it (LM Demand) TRANSACTION-based.

Sorry for my confusion. This is my first-time RILM and I'm trying to comprehend it overall and relative to filling out the 1040. Any help or clarification is most appreciated.

I am sure others are confused too. Let's ALL get this right!

Sincerely,

IMM

Payroll Register entries...
Gross Pay Regular
Gross Pay OT
Gross Pay Bonus
Net Pay
Fed Withholding Tax
SS Withholding Tax
Medicare Tax
State Withholding Tax

2087

See above comments.

There are no NET amounts in above Schedule.

All amounts are from Payroll Register in YTD amounts.

Column 1 minus column 2 = column 3, since the LM demand started about mid-September in this example.

itsmymoney
12-24-14, 01:43 AM
Doug, I'm starting to create my supporting schedule based on one of the example templates, but I'm confused. My schedule lays out every entry on the year-end payroll register (see below w/o amounts), with a corresponding column for any Lawful Money reduction as applicable to each (not shown below). If I may ask some questions to clear this up for me, please:

1) One Lawful Money reduction would be the total amount of all the deposits made in Lawful Money, correct? In my case this is virtually the same amount as the Net Pay (I missed literally one check - long story).

NO. All deposits are presumed to be in FRNs - the default currency. The main and primary LM reduction amount is all Gross pay received AFTER your first LM demand was made on the record.

IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

2) The Fed Withholding is your Gross Pay withheld towards a tax. However, if you redeemed all or virtually all of the Net Pay then the Fed Withholding is not applicable in that sense (a tax). So can some/all of Fed Withholding be added as an offset? See 3 below relative to this...

NO. IMO, Net Pay is NOT a transaction to be counted, since Gross Pay to you already includes this amount. However, FITW is a transaction. As are the other withholdings.

IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

3) Regarding the text I bolded in your quote above, I believe you are saying that "Other Income" (in this simple example) would be (Net Pay + Fed Withholding). I believe you are saying that "Other Income" should be greater than 'Gross Pay'; or 'Adjusted Gross Income'? How can that be, with all the other non-redeemable deductions in play? Just not seeing it clearly yet.

NO. Gross pay transaction + ALL withholding transactions... IF you made your LM demand as I instructed, which makes it (LM Demand) TRANSACTION-based.

IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

Sorry for my confusion. This is my first-time RILM and I'm trying to comprehend it overall and relative to filling out the 1040. Any help or clarification is most appreciated.

I am sure others are confused too. Let's ALL get this right!

Sincerely,

IMM

Payroll Register entries...
Gross Pay Regular
Gross Pay OT
Gross Pay Bonus
Net Pay
Fed Withholding Tax
SS Withholding Tax
Medicare Tax
State Withholding Tax

Doug, my replies are above in RED. Hopefully this round of replies will get me there. I want to get this right the first time. I get the overall concept and have been novating for almost 2 years now. It's the 1040 application of it that I'm wrestling with. I'm actually late-filing for 2013 in Lawful Money and then will do so for the upcoming TY 2014. Also wanted to say that your/the '1040reliefblogspot' content is excellent! Thanks for providing that. The education here is priceless. I want to get this right, understand it and then pass the knowledge on. Thank you, DM and all Suitors.

Most grateful,

IMM

doug555
12-24-14, 04:10 AM
IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

IMO, a "letter" does not fit the Hearsay Rule Exception (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) (6)(B).

IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

Nothing from the Corporations is "paid in Lawful Money". They all offer only FRNs. We must always redeem all of that after those transactions occur. IMO, that is what the annual 1040 "accounting" is for. Gross Pay must be demanded in lawful money -- NOT Net Pay. Do NOT also include Net Pay in your total... to me that would be "double-dipping" IMO.


IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

YES. IMO, those Employment Taxes amounts were rightly presumed to be FRNs and should be redeemed. Don't you agree?

But you cannot expect a refund of that because you are contracting to get its benefit, aren't you?

If I am wrong on this, please, everyone on this blog, raise your objections.

Listen, if you do not understand this, you will be easy picking for anyone to come along and trap you into admitting you committed a "crime" when you actually didn't.

Just read George Orwell's 1984 (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four)... 2+2=5. Right?

itsmymoney
12-25-14, 01:02 AM
IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

IMO, a "letter" does not fit the Hearsay Rule Exception (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) (6)(B).

IMM: That Hearsay Rule 803 (the 'not logic' behind it) is really confusing. Gee, go figure. Regardless, after re-reading my letter to the Treasury, there is no mention of 'All transactions' or 'All payments' made to me. It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money'. So that appears to be my first mistake of which I believe I can modify with another Demand letter stating the proper Demand language (whatever that may be - need to research examples to get it right - if you have links from other posts handy I'm all ears/eyes). So given this conundrum that it may be a slippery slope to ask for ALL FITW to be refunded w/o originally demanding ALL Gross Pay be RILM, I'm thinking I still may be able to claim a RILM reduction on the NET deposits. Do you agree? Bottom line: I don't want to ask for something that I can't feel comfortable backing up with almost empirical evidence. I've already been torched big-time by 'them'.


IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

Nothing from the Corporations is "paid in Lawful Money". They all offer only FRNs. We must always redeem all of that after those transactions occur. IMO, that is what the annual 1040 "accounting" is for. Gross Pay must be demanded in lawful money -- NOT Net Pay. Do NOT also include Net Pay in your total... to me that would be "double-dipping" IMO.

IMM: Got it. However, given my answer here in number 1 above i.e. regarding the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter where I basically made a Demand for 'Net Pay only' w/o realizing it, does the Schedule now change to only asking for the 'Net Pay' as a reduction? Not sure of what I can legally claim as a reduction. Like I said, rather play it safe than sorry. So if it's a 'partial reduction' based on 'Net Pay', so be it. Problem is that I have 2 years now of demanding Lawful Money for 'Net Pay only' transactions, if that's how it's being interpreted by 'them' based upon my Treasury Letter.

A secondary question about 'the paychecks/deposit slip amounts': If the proper Demand letter (RILM all transactions, i.e. starting with Gross Pay) was made, is there any calculating of the actual check amounts/deposits to be made regarding the Schedule? Or is that just evidence that ALL transactions were made in Lawful Money? In other words, the 'Net' amounts need not be computed in the actual Line 21 amount because THAT amount is a 'Gross Pay amount' (unless a partial Demand was made like mine, i.e. 'Net amounts' based on my ill-advised Treasury letter).

Thoughts welcome here.

IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

YES. IMO, those Employment Taxes amounts were rightly presumed to be FRNs and should be redeemed. Don't you agree?

IMM: Yes. And because the Employment Tax amounts are ALSO being taxed based on Gross Pay (double-dipping for them), then if demand was made properly on Gross Pay then then the RILM deduction for Employment Tax amounts is valid. However, the 'federal privilege' of someday participating in those Employment benefits makes it an unavoidable tax (regardless of RILM). Do you agree with my explanation as it relates to yours, so to speak?

But you cannot expect a refund of that because you are contracting to get its benefit, aren't you?

IMM: Agree. I alluded to that in number 3 just above (i.e. 'contract', 'federal privilege' for SS/Med).

If I am wrong on this, please, everyone on this blog, raise your objections.

Listen, if you do not understand this, you will be easy picking for anyone to come along and trap you into admitting you committed a "crime" when you actually didn't.

Just read George Orwell's 1984 (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four)... 2+2=5. Right?

IMM: I DO recognize that and I appreciate you reminding me of that fact. I suppose I should feel lucky that I've only had to pay enormous 6702 penalties instead of (like PH), going to jail. That's why I'm trying to get it right even if I have to ask for a partial reduction, given your thoughts and others regarding the answers/questions I posed just above.

Thanks again.






Doug, my replies again in RED above. Thank you for this back-and-forth. I think it's educational for all of us.

David Neil
12-25-14, 04:35 AM
As I will also be applying lawful money demand to this coming tax return, for the first time, I do appreciate the willingness to ask the question and Doug555's gracious offer of his experience and opinions on the proper course to take.

Wishing to all on this site, and our Nation; as we gather in strength to combat the national debt, a prosperous and happy New Year.

David Merrill
12-25-14, 07:18 PM
Thank you David Neil;


This is very exciting indeed, the immanent run on the Fed!

doug555
12-25-14, 09:11 PM
IMM: That Hearsay Rule 803 (the 'not logic' behind it) is really confusing. Gee, go figure. Regardless, after re-reading my letter to the Treasury, there is no mention of 'All transactions' or 'All payments' made to me. It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money'. So that appears to be my first mistake of which I believe I can modify with another Demand letter stating the proper Demand language (whatever that may be - need to research examples to get it right - if you have links from other posts handy I'm all ears/eyes). So given this conundrum that it may be a slippery slope to ask for ALL FITW to be refunded w/o originally demanding ALL Gross Pay be RILM, I'm thinking I still may be able to claim a RILM reduction on the NET deposits. Do you agree? Bottom line: I don't want to ask for something that I can't feel comfortable backing up with almost empirical evidence. I've already been torched big-time by 'them'.

The FRE Hearsay Exception Rule 803(6)(B) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) is critical to record formation for defending one's position. One MUST understand this BEFORE doing anything. IMO, one MUST create admissible evidence to successfully rebut legitimate and often outrageous diabolical presumptions. The Matrix runs on records.



Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 803, Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay:
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;



IMO, any "letter" is NOT evidence. Sorry.

IMO, since the Gross Pay transaction was not in your demand, then that entire amount remains in FRNs, and you owe for that total FRN usage. IMO, the tax is transaction-based, and based on a taxable event - FRN Usage. You may want to share your redacted "Demand Letter" so others do not make this same mistake.

Your comment above raises a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE & LESSON.

IF the above was coming from disinformation agent, would it not be fairly easy to charge one with tax evasion if one commingled funds by claiming "Net Pay" was NOT using FRNs?

Can you see how such a question posed above could easily be a TRAP if anyone espoused such a position?

See Mt 22:18-21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+22:18-21) for the Divine Law against commingling of Caesar's and God's money. This account is the "red line in the sand" that is the enforcement behind 12 USC 411, IMO, at least for His bondservants who keep His Word, and claim its protections in His Name.

BTW, I have already more than once provided you with "examples to get it right".

See again: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html)

Is there a reason this example is not clear?

I realize that I am the only one on this site requiring this exact wording... perhaps you are seeking confirmation from others on this site?



IMM: Got it. However, given my answer here in number 1 above i.e. regarding the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter where I basically made a Demand for 'Net Pay only' w/o realizing it, does the Schedule now change to only asking for the 'Net Pay' as a reduction? Not sure of what I can legally claim as a reduction. Like I said, rather play it safe than sorry. So if it's a 'partial reduction' based on 'Net Pay', so be it. Problem is that I have 2 years now of demanding Lawful Money for 'Net Pay only' transactions, if that's how it's being interpreted by 'them' based upon my Treasury Letter.

A secondary question about 'the paychecks/deposit slip amounts': If the proper Demand letter (RILM all transactions, i.e. starting with Gross Pay) was made, is there any calculating of the actual check amounts/deposits to be made regarding the Schedule? Or is that just evidence that ALL transactions were made in Lawful Money? In other words, the 'Net' amounts need not be computed in the actual Line 21 amount because THAT amount is a 'Gross Pay amount' (unless a partial Demand was made like mine, i.e. 'Net amounts' based on my ill-advised Treasury letter).

Thoughts welcome here.


IMO, the "the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter" is NOT evidence, and can be completely IGNORED.

IMO, you cannot use the Schedule at all. Sorry. That would involve commingled funds given your scenario above.

If I may ask, where did you get that "ill-advised Treasury letter"?

itsmymoney
12-26-14, 03:47 AM
The FRE Hearsay Exception Rule 803(6)(B) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) is critical to record formation for defending one's position. One MUST understand this BEFORE doing anything. IMO, one MUST create admissible evidence to successfully rebut legitimate and often outrageous diabolical presumptions. The Matrix runs on records.

IMO, any "letter" is NOT evidence. Sorry.

IMO, since the Gross Pay transaction was not in your demand, then that entire amount remains in FRNs, and you owe for that total FRN usage. IMO, the tax is transaction-based, and based on a taxable event - FRN Usage. You may want to share your redacted "Demand Letter" so others do not make this same mistake.

Your comment above raises a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE & LESSON.

IF the above was coming from disinformation agent, would it not be fairly easy to charge one with tax evasion if one commingled funds by claiming "Net Pay" was NOT using FRNs?

Can you see how such a question posed above could easily be a TRAP if anyone espoused such a position?

See Mt 22:18-21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+22:18-21) for the Divine Law against commingling of Caesar's and God's money. This account is the "red line in the sand" that is the enforcement behind 12 USC 411, IMO, at least for His bondservants who keep His Word, and claim its protections in His Name.

BTW, I have already more than once provided you with "examples to get it right".

See again: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html)

Is there a reason this example is not clear?

I realize that I am the only one on this site requiring this exact wording... perhaps you are seeking confirmation from others on this site?


IMO, the "the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter" is NOT evidence, and can be completely IGNORED.

IMO, you cannot use the Schedule at all. Sorry. That would involve commingled funds given your scenario above.

If I may ask, where did you get that "ill-advised Treasury letter"?


Doug555,

I understand the Hearsay Exception Rule is important. I just meant that the wording is tricky and can be confusing if not thought out well. FWIW, my 'Treasury letter' was recorded at the County Recorder's office, so it's not like there is no 'on-the-record' evidence of my demand even though now I realize it's an 'empty' demand. I will post it for review however I'm not sure of the method of attaching a Word document here - if someone can give a quick instruction on attaching I'd be happy to post it. Also FWIW, I was paraphrasing 'Net Pay events' when stating: "It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money". I never actually stated 'Net Pay' in my letter as you will see when it's posted. However, it READS that way based on the language I used.

I found an example from the various links you have posted regarding the 'all transactions' Affidavit demand (after my prior post so my apologies for not researching more before posting). I'm surmising that with a new recorded Affidavit I cannot 'retroactively' demand 'all transactions' back to Jan 2013 (when I started restricting my signature) to effectively 'supersede' my original recorded demand letter. So 2 years of 'incomplete/empty' demands for lawful money. If I cannot retroactive the new demand, at least it will be in effect for Jan 1, 2015 as I intend to get it recorded ASAP for start of 2015. If that's the best I can do going forward, then a harsh and disappointing lesson learned.

My question about RILM on 'Net Pay' ('commingling funds') based on my original 'Treasury letter demand' was sincere, if not misguided and ignorant. I now realize the taxable event is on the Gross Pay of which I failed to realize upfront - and you can't RILM the Gross Pay until after the fact with your novated paychecks/deposit slips via the 'Net Pay' of which is what you are given, and, is the evidence of the demand on the Gross Pay based on the 'all transactions' language. If I am misunderstanding this still, PLEASE correct me. I hope this clears any confusion up for you. I most certainly DO NOT want to put misinformation out there. I'm trying to learn and I ask a lot of questions, some of them perhaps 'impatiently' without first more study, of which I apologize for that. I have studied here many times, but I'm feeling quite foolish at the moment for not enough study and better comprehension. But my intentions are sincere about learning and 'doing it right'.

The 'ill-advised Treasury letter' was drafted by myself based on information over 2 years ago from this site (STSC) and another site of which was visited by a well-known Suitor here, where that Suitor provided some information on that other site and directed me and others here at STSC. Obviously I did not study enough back then and thought that the RILM deposits themselves were the only necessary demand to be made (i.e. not recognizing Gross Pay nor the necessary 'all transactions' demand).

I welcome your replies.

IMM

ag maniac
12-26-14, 02:24 PM
IMM

I will post it for review however I'm not sure of the method of attaching a Word document here - if someone can give a quick instruction on attaching I'd be happy to post it.


Click "Reply", under the text box click "Go Advanced", top row of icons click the "paperclip", top right of new pop-up click "add files"


Don't forget to sanitize doc before upload --> you don't want a valentines card from me in 6 weeks :cool:

doug555
12-26-14, 04:05 PM
Doug555,

I understand the Hearsay Exception Rule is important. I just meant that the wording is tricky and can be confusing if not thought out well. FWIW, my 'Treasury letter' was recorded at the County Recorder's office, so it's not like there is no 'on-the-record' evidence of my demand even though now I realize it's an 'empty' demand. I will post it for review however I'm not sure of the method of attaching a Word document here - if someone can give a quick instruction on attaching I'd be happy to post it. Also FWIW, I was paraphrasing 'Net Pay events' when stating: "It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money". I never actually stated 'Net Pay' in my letter as you will see when it's posted. However, it READS that way based on the language I used.

I found an example from the various links you have posted regarding the 'all transactions' Affidavit demand (after my prior post so my apologies for not researching more before posting). I'm surmising that with a new recorded Affidavit I cannot 'retroactively' demand 'all transactions' back to Jan 2013 (when I started restricting my signature) to effectively 'supersede' my original recorded demand letter. So 2 years of 'incomplete/empty' demands for lawful money. If I cannot retroactive the new demand, at least it will be in effect for Jan 1, 2015 as I intend to get it recorded ASAP for start of 2015. If that's the best I can do going forward, then a harsh and disappointing lesson learned.

My question about RILM on 'Net Pay' ('commingling funds') based on my original 'Treasury letter demand' was sincere, if not misguided and ignorant. I now realize the taxable event is on the Gross Pay of which I failed to realize upfront - and you can't RILM the Gross Pay until after the fact with your novated paychecks/deposit slips via the 'Net Pay' of which is what you are given, and, is the evidence of the demand on the Gross Pay based on the 'all transactions' language. If I am misunderstanding this still, PLEASE correct me. I hope this clears any confusion up for you. I most certainly DO NOT want to put misinformation out there. I'm trying to learn and I ask a lot of questions, some of them perhaps 'impatiently' without first more study, of which I apologize for that. I have studied here many times, but I'm feeling quite foolish at the moment for not enough study and better comprehension. But my intentions are sincere about learning and 'doing it right'.

The 'ill-advised Treasury letter' was drafted by myself based on information over 2 years ago from this site (STSC) and another site of which was visited by a well-known Suitor here, where that Suitor provided some information on that other site and directed me and others here at STSC. Obviously I did not study enough back then and thought that the RILM deposits themselves were the only necessary demand to be made (i.e. not recognizing Gross Pay nor the necessary 'all transactions' demand).

I welcome your replies.

IMM

IMO, the first banking record created with the "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" on it is when you have admissible evidence of breaking your contract with the FED through usage of FRNs.

County records I believe are also evidence... however, subsequent inadvertent usage of FRNs re-establishes the FED contract, IMO.

The Affidavit (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SDR91cC8C1cSSUe30oaICCRDLRI8beBhpf0C_t1YwGI/edit?usp=sharing) in the county record memorializes the exact date when you created that first 12 USC 411 demand on record with the bank.

I think you have it now!

Now, just go write yourself a check and deposit it today, Dec 26, 2014, with the above exact demand on both instruments under your name & address on the front, and then go out and celebrate!

You are now free... you have just "broken the bonds (http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/isaiah/passage.aspx?q=isaiah+52:1-3)"!

Thanks for your patience and perseverance!

BTW: I continue to write this exact wording on all my checks and deposit slips, just to establish a "preponderance of evidence (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1351-Treasury-Letter-from-1984&p=15694&viewfull=1#post15694)" in case it is ever needed.

David Merrill
12-26-14, 06:16 PM
Thank you for bringing the Rules of Evidence into the picture.

itsmymoney
12-26-14, 10:43 PM
Click "Reply", under the text box click "Go Advanced", top row of icons click the "paperclip", top right of new pop-up click "add files"


Don't forget to sanitize doc before upload --> you don't want a valentines card from me in 6 weeks :cool:

ag maniac, thank you for the quick lesson for attachments! After sanitizing I will attach the doc in my reply to Doug555's last reply to my post, of which you greciously replied to here.

Most grateful,

imm

itsmymoney
12-26-14, 11:30 PM
IMO, the first banking record created with the "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" on it is when you have admissible evidence of breaking your contract with the FED through usage of FRNs.

County records I believe are also evidence... however, subsequent inadvertent usage of FRNs re-establishes the FED contract, IMO.

The Affidavit (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SDR91cC8C1cSSUe30oaICCRDLRI8beBhpf0C_t1YwGI/edit?usp=sharing) in the county record memorializes the exact date when you created that first 12 USC 411 demand on record with the bank.

I think you have it now!

Now, just go write yourself a check and deposit it today, Dec 26, 2014, with the above exact demand on both instruments under your name & address on the front, and then go out and celebrate!

You are now free... you have just "broken the bonds (http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/isaiah/passage.aspx?q=isaiah+52:1-3)"!

Thanks for your patience and perseverance!

BTW: I continue to write this exact wording on all my checks and deposit slips, just to establish a "preponderance of evidence (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1351-Treasury-Letter-from-1984&p=15694&viewfull=1#post15694)" in case it is ever needed.

Doug555,

My replies, a few last questions, and a pasted sanitized text version of the letter sent to the Treasury and recorded at the County almost 2 years ago. Look forward to your/anyone's review and comments.


Doug555: "County records I believe are also evidence... however, subsequent inadvertent usage of FRNs re-establishes the FED contract, IMO."

IMM: The pasted 'Treasury letter' has no mention of 'all transactions' and implies or otherwise stipulates RILM of 'Net Pay'. Therefore, all prior RILM attempts are null and void until new Affidavit is sent and recorded effective Jan 1, 2015. Agree?


Doug555: Now, just go write yourself a check and deposit it today, Dec 26, 2014, with the above exact demand on both instruments under your name & address on the front, and then go out and celebrate!"

IMM: I recognize handwriting (not stamping) '411 and 95a(2)' on the front of checks/deposit slips. I currently have been stamping the '411' language on deposit slips and BACK of checks (the stamp is my signature and the 'standard USC 411 language' demand). As for the required signature on the BACK of the check, is there harm in continuing to use my stamp (although w/o the 95a(2) language, just USC 411), or since the front of both deposit instruments (check/slip) are in proper accordance with RILM can I simply handwrite my signature as normal on the back?


Doug555: You are now free... you have just "broken the bonds (http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/isaiah/passage.aspx?q=isaiah+52:1-3)"! Thanks for your patience and perseverance!

IMM: Doug555 and everyone on this great Forum, THANK YOU for you patience, guidance and perseverance! ...

I welcome anyone's thoughts on my 'empty RILM demand from the Treasury' letter below (sent/recorded almost 2 years ago) of which I have pasted from the original. As you stated Doug555, perhaps this is a good lesson for what NOT to do, and perhaps you can emphasize that in your reply as a reference to this letter assuming it is completely ineffective as a RILM evidence record, of which I believe has been proven true, unfortunately. I may add a line to the new Demand Affidavit to be recorded at County, that "the new Demand (effective Jan 1, 2015), null and voids any prior demand made by me effective the date of this new Demand, Jan 1, 2015". Or something to that effect.

Thankful,

imm




02/19/2013
Prepared by, and Return to:
‘imm’

Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220*
Attn: Secretary of the Treasury

Re: Lawful Money Demand


Dear Secretary of the Treasury,

THIS IS NOTICE TO ONE AND ALL that I, ‘imm’, a man, hereby make a DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY pursuant to Title 12 USC 411 for redeeming all monies that are deposited into and withdrawn from any bank or depository institution, as performed by me or for me; hereinafter ‘events’.

Events include but are not limited to the following: direct-deposit from any company paying me in such manner; check cashing or deposit; cash deposits; bank cards; ATM; debits or withdrawals or payments; electronic transfers, or any other means relating to all accounts I have at any financial institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act. Said events are subject to a superseding DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY with the express intent to redeem any private credit instrument into lawful money pursuant to, albeit absent any benefit or privilege from, Title 12 Section 411 of the United States Code.

This demand is made pursuant to law binding all parties subject to Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, now codified at Title 12 United States § 411. This demand is made for the express purpose of exercising my remedy under the law and to rebut the false and presumptive notion that I voluntarily endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. I expressly do not endorse private Federal Reserve credit in any form.

This Notice also applies retroactively to any existing accounts I have at any institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act. It was only by fraudulent omission that I was prevented from invoking the remedy available within 12 USC §411 from the start of any relationship I have made with any financial institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act.

Any current or previous contractual obligation I may have made due to the fraudulent omission of the remedy found in Title 12 USC §411 is unequivocally subordinate to this Notice and Demand letter, and, shall not be construed to modify any provision contained within this Notice and Demand letter.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

________________________________
‘imm’ – All rights reserved

doug555
12-27-14, 03:11 PM
Doug555,

My replies, a few last questions, and a pasted sanitized text version of the letter sent to the Treasury and recorded at the County almost 2 years ago. Look forward to your/anyone's review and comments.



IMM: The pasted 'Treasury letter' has no mention of 'all transactions' and implies or otherwise stipulates RILM of 'Net Pay'. Therefore, all prior RILM attempts are null and void until new Affidavit is sent and recorded effective Jan 1, 2015. Agree?

IMO, this Affidavit (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SDR91cC8C1cSSUe30oaICCRDLRI8beBhpf0C_t1YwGI/edit?usp=sharing) is what should be recorded, AFTER you have a copy of your check and deposit with your demand on it showing on your next bank statement, as proof that it is in the bank's records. The date on that is when your demand starts. I do not send a copy of this Affidavit to any government agency or bank since I believe it is unnecessary being redundant, and probably discarded by them. As long as the IRS has been accepting the non-hearsay bank records that I upload to Google Drive for their inspection, that is all that matters to me for now.


IMM: I recognize handwriting (not stamping) '411 and 95a(2)' on the front of checks/deposit slips. I currently have been stamping the '411' language on deposit slips and BACK of checks (the stamp is my signature and the 'standard USC 411 language' demand). As for the required signature on the BACK of the check, is there harm in continuing to use my stamp (although w/o the 95a(2) language, just USC 411), or since the front of both deposit instruments (check/slip) are in proper accordance with RILM can I simply handwrite my signature as normal on the back?

IMO, the Back of the check is Private (belongs to FRS). I believe adding restrictive conditions on the Back is impinging on their domain. I only sign on the Back as I did before. That's all. Remember, there is no CFR regulation for 12 USC 411 specifying HOW & WHEN & WHERE this demand is made. So I put it on the Front, the Public side of the instruments, IMO. Not one bank has ever complained to me about my demand.


IMM: Doug555 and everyone on this great Forum, THANK YOU for you patience, guidance and perseverance! ...

I welcome anyone's thoughts on my 'empty RILM demand from the Treasury' letter below (sent/recorded almost 2 years ago) of which I have pasted from the original. As you stated Doug555, perhaps this is a good lesson for what NOT to do, and perhaps you can emphasize that in your reply as a reference to this letter assuming it is completely ineffective as a RILM evidence record, of which I believe has been proven true, unfortunately. I may add a line to the new Demand Affidavit to be recorded at County, that "the new Demand (effective Jan 1, 2015), null and voids any prior demand made by me effective the date of this new Demand, Jan 1, 2015". Or something to that effect.

IMO, keep it simple to avoid any possible rebuttal by them. Use this Affidavit (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SDR91cC8C1cSSUe30oaICCRDLRI8beBhpf0C_t1YwGI/edit?usp=sharing). Edit its wording as you see fit.


Thankful,

imm



See above in blue...

JohnnyCash
12-27-14, 06:05 PM
Thank you for this major theological discussion - "How many LM angels can dance on the head of a 1040 pin?"
You should consider submitting your work to the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) (http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm).

Here's the bottom line.... the IRS runs away screaming from LAWFUL MONEY tax returns.
I say that based on my 7 yrs as a successful nontaxpayer and eyewitness to 5 LM tax filings with no subsequent CP letters nor friv pens. In fact LAWFUL MONEY isn't on the Friv Pen List... take a look (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf). Here's the glaring omisson: CONTENTION: Lawful money is not income.
It's not there because it's true.

Lawful Money on a tax return is like kryptonite or contagion to the IRS. They run away screaming. They'll give you what you want and hope you won't tell anyone. Been there, done it. Whether you take a 1 cent or 100% earnings LM deduction doesn't seem to matter to the IRS. They won't block it. It makes sense they wouldn't too. Can you imagine an IRS auditor asking:
"about this deduction, exactly what date/amount did you demand lawful money?"
"Why should that matter?"
"Oh, well, it doesn't really. I'm just a... trying to, um, understand your reasoning... nevermind then."

You think a black robe is gonna allow a lawful money discussion in his courtroom? On the record? HA! Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it. Take it from me, the first to determine and announce the LH forum (http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3057) was fully infiltrated & dominated by quatloser agents. Fake users, fake questions, fake discussions.

doug555
12-27-14, 08:33 PM
Thank you for this major theological discussion - "How many LM angels can dance on the head of a 1040 pin?"
You should consider submitting your work to the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) (http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm).

Here's the bottom line.... the IRS runs away screaming from LAWFUL MONEY tax returns.
I say that based on my 7 yrs as a successful nontaxpayer and eyewitness to 5 LM tax filings with no subsequent CP letters nor friv pens. In fact LAWFUL MONEY isn't on the Friv Pen List... take a look (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf). Here's the glaring omisson: CONTENTION: Lawful money is not income.
It's not there because it's true.

Lawful Money on a tax return is like kryptonite or contagion to the IRS. They run away screaming. They'll give you what you want and hope you won't tell anyone. Been there, done it. Whether you take a 1 cent or 100% earnings LM deduction doesn't seem to matter to the IRS. They won't block it. It makes sense they wouldn't too. Can you imagine an IRS auditor asking:
"about this deduction, exactly what date/amount did you demand lawful money?"
"Why should that matter?"
"Oh, well, it doesn't really. I'm just a... trying to, um, understand your reasoning... nevermind then."

You think a black robe is gonna allow a lawful money discussion in his courtroom? On the record? HA! Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it. Take it from me, the first to determine and announce the LH forum (http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3057) was fully infiltrated & dominated by quatloser agents. Fake users, fake questions, fake discussions.

You're welcome... real LH Forum agent... ;)

itsmymoney
12-27-14, 10:47 PM
Doug555,

Some follow-up here if I may.


IMO, this Affidavit is what should be recorded, AFTER you have a copy of your check and deposit with your demand on it showing on your next bank statement, as proof that it is in the bank's records. The date on that is when your demand starts. I do not send a copy of this Affidavit to any government agency or bank since I believe it is unnecessary being redundant, and probably discarded by them. As long as the IRS has been accepting the non-hearsay bank records that I upload to Google Drive for their inspection, that is all that matters to me for now.

I thought the idea was to record the 'intent' to RILM prior to one's actual execution. Where for example, I record with the County Registrar my demand effective Jan 1, 2015. My first 2015 check is RILM on Jan 7. The Demand was made public record a week earlier therefore I'm 'covered' because my RILM occurred after that public-record date (evidenced later by RILM checks/slips/etc). Are you saying the date on the deposit slip (and evidenced on your next bank statement) is THE date the AFFIDAVIT should reference? The AFFIDAVIT (recorded AFTER the actual first Demand date) would therefore reference a 'retro-active' date back to the actual first Demand date (evidenced by RILM checks/slips/etc). Correct? If true, please see my question re. "nunc pro tunc" below. If not, please clarify.


Regarding the example AFFIDAVIT (saw that earlier - thanks!), specifically "nunc pro tunc". It appears this term may only be executed/enforced by a court order. If I'm understanding correctly, wouldn't 'we' (common man, not in a court situation), be prohibited from using this language in an AFFIDAVIT? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding this, but perhaps you or someone could explain this. This goes to my first question above about 'THE' RILM Demand date that should be referenced in the AFFIDAVIT.


Also, after getting my AFFIDAVIT witnessed/stamped by the Notary, is it possible to get the Notary's Certification at the County during the same time as recording the AFFIDAVIT there? I'm guessing that's too much work for them at once. Maybe a 'work order/application/request' for the Notary Certification must be submitted to be mailed to you later. Then the trip back to record THAT. Please clarify if I'm misunderstanding.

Learning a lot here. Much appreciated.

P.S. To JohnnyCash: Thanks for your insights over at CB's and here. :)

itsmymoney
12-28-14, 12:13 AM
Thank you for this major theological discussion - "How many LM angels can dance on the head of a 1040 pin?"
You should consider submitting your work to the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) (http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm).

Here's the bottom line.... the IRS runs away screaming from LAWFUL MONEY tax returns.
I say that based on my 7 yrs as a successful nontaxpayer and eyewitness to 5 LM tax filings with no subsequent CP letters nor friv pens. In fact LAWFUL MONEY isn't on the Friv Pen List... take a look (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf). Here's the glaring omisson: CONTENTION: Lawful money is not income.
It's not there because it's true.

Lawful Money on a tax return is like kryptonite or contagion to the IRS. They run away screaming. They'll give you what you want and hope you won't tell anyone. Been there, done it. Whether you take a 1 cent or 100% earnings LM deduction doesn't seem to matter to the IRS. They won't block it. It makes sense they wouldn't too. Can you imagine an IRS auditor asking:
"about this deduction, exactly what date/amount did you demand lawful money?"
"Why should that matter?"
"Oh, well, it doesn't really. I'm just a... trying to, um, understand your reasoning... nevermind then."

You think a black robe is gonna allow a lawful money discussion in his courtroom? On the record? HA! Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it. Take it from me, the first to determine and announce the LH forum (http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3057) was fully infiltrated & dominated by quatloser agents. Fake users, fake questions, fake discussions.

Johnny, regarding your statement, "Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it." ...

The gracious Doug555 has been sharing knowledge here regarding how I have been 'attempting' (not actually executing) RILM for almost 2 years. My public-record demand AFFIDAVIT I pasted above (see 'Department of the Treasury' addressee') reads as taking only a 'Net Pay' Demand (deposits/withdrawals/etc.). I would agree with Doug555 that the Demand on 'all transactions' - first and foremost being the 'Gross Pay' of which is the actual initial payment/taxable-activity before deductions - is the proper way to evidence the on-the-record demand. I'm somewhat crushed that I have been restricting checks/deposit slips/ATM withdrawals for almost 2 years now, however my public-record AFFIDAVIT seems to be 'incomplete' or 'empty' as it reads like only a 'Net Pay' demand. Based on that, and my penalty history with 'them', I am wary of filing using the RILM deduction for upcoming TY 2014. I already filed 'sheeple' version for 2013.

Would like your thoughts based on your comments above, and Doug's observations. It's a great discussion, regardless. Thanks.

Sincerely,

imm

BLBereans
12-28-14, 12:53 AM
It seems to me that the living are the source of all value and it is that value which is utilized as evidence of security behind the issued notes of the United States. No "goods and services" produced means no collateral property to point to as the value backing such issuance of notes. So the "private credit" of each living man is the value behind the public or "lawful" money in circulation.

If the people acting in offices of the United States (Congress) have the power to issue currency and regulate the value thereof, then FRNs can be deemed "lawful" money - just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411). It's all legal wordplay and the more words used to declare one's right, the greater the chance of error and misinterpretation.

Keep it simple, I find, makes for good results in most every scenario.

"It is my wish to make demand in lawful money, as expressed in Title 12 Sec. 411, for all transactions in [insert Name here]"

David Merrill
12-28-14, 10:22 AM
It seems to me that the living are the source of all value and it is that value which is utilized as evidence of security behind the issued notes of the United States. No "goods and services" produced means no collateral property to point to as the value backing such issuance of notes. So the "private credit" of each living man is the value behind the public or "lawful" money in circulation.

If the people acting in offices of the United States (Congress) have the power to issue currency and regulate the value thereof, then FRNs can be deemed "lawful" money - just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411). It's all legal wordplay and the more words used to declare one's right, the greater the chance of error and misinterpretation.

Keep it simple, I find, makes for good results in most every scenario.

"It is my wish to make demand in lawful money, as expressed in Title 12 Sec. 411, for all transactions in [insert Name here]"


All trust indentures, corporations, are amoral persons capable of suit and being sued. However the rumor that government has declared or defined Federal Reserve notes "lawful money" is greatly exaggerated. All the citations seem to be directed to MILAM, that simply says the same thing you say, That Congress has the power to define money. MILAM does not specifically say that Congress has defined Federal Reserve notes to be lawful money.

BLBereans
12-28-14, 04:36 PM
If one googles, "mobley m milam us asst attorney" one may find some interesting pages to view regarding MILAM's past employment. It seems that it would have been the ultimate incompetent oversight for MILAM to not mention to his attorney that Title 12 USC 152 clearly defined what "lawful money" as it relates to Title 12:

Sec. 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes;
receiving notes of other associations

"Every association organized under section 151 of this title shall
at all times keep on hand not less than 25 per centum of its
outstanding circulation, in gold or silver coin of the United
States; and shall receive at par in the payment of debts the gold
notes of every other such association which at the time of such
payment is redeeming its circulating notes in gold coin of the
United States, and shall be subject to all the provisions of title
62 of the Revised Statutes: Provided, That, in applying the same to
associations organized for issuing gold notes, the terms ''lawful
money'' and ''lawful money of the United States'' shall be
construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States; and the
circulation of such associations shall not be within the limitation
of circulation mentioned in title 62 of the Revised Statutes."

This may have been repealed in 1994 (https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2001/title12/chap2/subchapix/sec151/), however, in 1974 it was still in full force. Why was this citation never brought up in the MILAM case? Apparantly, in 1974, MILAM could redeem his note in gold or silver coin. Was a former US Attorney and his legal team that absent minded to not cite §152 when the section relied upon for bringing the case (§411) exists in the same Title of US Code? Makes one wonder about this case and what exactly the purpose of pursuing it was. Precedent anyone???

If you had read my post, you would have seen this part, "then FRNs can be deemed "lawful" money - just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411)" so your comment in response, "rumor that government has declared or defined Federal Reserve notes "lawful money" is greatly exaggerated" is misguided except as it relates to §411.

'lawful money' can be a single phrase noun or a an adjective describing a noun, it all depends upon the one evoking it and how clearly one articulates one's intent.

Chex
12-28-14, 04:54 PM
BLBereans. Are you wishing/hoping for something by making a demand or are you wishing/hoping that your demand will be done by the law?

Keep it simple [insert Name here] redemption on all transactions Title 12 Sec. 411.

Is Congress who has the power to define money all private credit from the FRB?

Is that what the law of this congress is telling you there is no lawful money there's only private credit?


Great than redeem my lawful money to Sec. 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes; receiving notes of other associations

"Every association organized under section 151 of this title shall at all times keep on hand not less than 25 per centum of its outstanding circulation, in gold or silver coin of the United States; and shall receive at par in the payment of debts the gold notes of every other such association which at the time of such payment is redeeming its circulating notes in gold coin of the United States, and shall be subject to all the provisions of title 62 of the Revised Statutes: Provided, That, in applying the same to associations organized for issuing gold notes, the terms ''lawful money'' and ''lawful money of the United States'' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States; and the circulation of such associations shall not be within the limitation of circulation mentioned in title 62 of the Revised Statutes."

Do what ever you have to do just redeem it. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?558-Lawful-money-per-US-Code&p=7057&viewfull=1#post7057)

Thus, is it possible that the breakdown of law and order plaguing our land originates not in the streets, as the media would have us believe, but in our public offices?


Bronson v Rodes, 74 US 229 defines lawful money: (http://www.rogershermansociety.org/nature_of_money.htm)
"Lawful money of the United States could only be gold and silver coin, or that which by law is made its equivalent, so as to be exchangeable therefore at par on demand, and does not include a currency which, though nominally exchangeable for coin at its face value, is not redeemable on demand."

There are so many citations available that it seems like every citizen is required to go all the way to the Supreme Court before he or she can get a ruling in favor of gold and silver. The citizens would not have to go to this expense if they were not hoodwinked by previous administrations.

BLBereans
12-28-14, 05:37 PM
redeem = to buy back
shall = may, will; in the sense of futurity (prior to Middle English use: ought, must)

Who "will do" the "buying back"?

'wish' and 'hope' are not the same word as they are not spelled the same:

example: "A parent's wishes" is not equivalent to "A parent's hopes". The former must be recognized and the latter is one's own personal aspirations for the future.

Who is the master and who is the servant? A servant must comply with the master's wishes.

No one can interfere with my wish to demand lawful money. The redeeming of lawful money, after my wish to make demand, is up to the ones authorized and obligated to execute redemption. Who are the ones authorized and obligated under the relating law? Is it you?

Chex
12-28-14, 06:41 PM
No one can interfere with my wish to demand lawful money. The redeeming of lawful money, after my wish to make demand, is up to the ones authorized and obligated to execute redemption. Who are the ones authorized and obligated under the relating law? Is it you?

No argument there.

Redeem means "to pay back all the principal and interest on a loan, debt or a mortgage." It means to recover something after paying back any sum due.

Shall definition legal, rules and laws: indicating that something must happen or somebody is obliged to do something because of a rule or law, determination: used especially in formal speech and writing to indicate determination on the part of the speaker that something will happen or somebody will do something

Who used after a noun or pronoun to show which group of people you are talking about

Law of agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency)

Wish See also: conatus, demand, desire, end, intent, market, predisposition, purpose, request, volition, will

Hope verb assume, expect, feel sure, give credence to, have faith in, have no doubt, have no reservations, look forward to, place reliance in, pray for, presume, put ...

Master. An individual who hires employees or servants to perform services and who directs the manner in which such services are performed.A court officer appointed by ...

Servant. n. an employee of an employer, technically one who works for a master. A servant is distinguished from an"independent contractor" who operates his/her own ...

David Merrill
12-29-14, 03:17 PM
If one googles, "mobley m milam us asst attorney" one may find some interesting pages to view regarding MILAM's past employment. It seems that it would have been the ultimate incompetent oversight for MILAM to not mention to his attorney that Title 12 USC 152 clearly defined what "lawful money" as it relates to Title 12:

Sec. 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes;
receiving notes of other associations

"Every association organized under section 151 of this title shall
at all times keep on hand not less than 25 per centum of its
outstanding circulation, in gold or silver coin of the United
States; and shall receive at par in the payment of debts the gold
notes of every other such association which at the time of such
payment is redeeming its circulating notes in gold coin of the
United States, and shall be subject to all the provisions of title
62 of the Revised Statutes: Provided, That, in applying the same to
associations organized for issuing gold notes, the terms ''lawful
money'' and ''lawful money of the United States'' shall be
construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States; and the
circulation of such associations shall not be within the limitation
of circulation mentioned in title 62 of the Revised Statutes."

This may have been repealed in 1994 (https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2001/title12/chap2/subchapix/sec151/), however, in 1974 it was still in full force. Why was this citation never brought up in the MILAM case? Apparantly, in 1974, MILAM could redeem his note in gold or silver coin. Was a former US Attorney and his legal team that absent minded to not cite §152 when the section relied upon for bringing the case (§411) exists in the same Title of US Code? Makes one wonder about this case and what exactly the purpose of pursuing it was. Precedent anyone???

If you had read my post, you would have seen this part, "then FRNs can be deemed "lawful" money - just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411)" so your comment in response, "rumor that government has declared or defined Federal Reserve notes "lawful money" is greatly exaggerated" is misguided except as it relates to §411.

'lawful money' can be a single phrase noun or a an adjective describing a noun, it all depends upon the one evoking it and how clearly one articulates one's intent.

Fascinating!

allodial
12-29-14, 06:23 PM
2105 (https://books.google.com/books?id=jV1AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA371#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Perhaps some might forget the National Banking Act and the Federal Reserve Act are two separate things. Source:Laws of the United States Relating to Loans and the Currency, Coinage and Banking (1886) (https://books.google.com/books?id=jV1AAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover).


2107

Michael Joseph
12-29-14, 07:18 PM
Bronson v Rodes, 74 US 229 defines lawful money: (http://www.rogershermansociety.org/nature_of_money.htm)
"Lawful money of the United States could only be gold and silver coin, or that which by law is made its equivalent, so as to be exchangeable therefore at par on demand, and does not include a currency which, though nominally exchangeable for coin at its face value, is not redeemable on demand."



What about lawful money of "The United States" or "UNITED STATES"? Its own board of directors might decide to use a certain paper currency within its corporate boundary. Craft as it were might prosper thru policy.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnMFpGb-KWg&feature=youtu.be) The whole planet is run as a business. And we no longer see men and women but at the common law but rather we see employees governed by U.C.C. and policies of the corporation.

Eventually little boxes will be bought up and become big boxes. And then the board of directors of the single big box will appoint a president to rule them all.

legal tender is lawful to USE but may not be lawful money. Lawful money is always legal tender.

Shalom,
MJ

David Merrill
12-29-14, 07:28 PM
What about lawful money of "The United States" or "UNITED STATES"? Its own board of directors might decide to use a certain paper currency within its corporate boundary. Craft as it were might prosper thru policy.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnMFpGb-KWg&feature=youtu.be) The whole planet is run as a business. And we no longer see men and women but at the common law but rather we see employees governed by U.C.C. and policies of the corporation.

Eventually little boxes will be bought up and become big boxes. And then the board of directors of the single big box will appoint a president to rule them all.

legal tender is lawful to USE but may not be lawful money. Lawful money is always legal tender.

Shalom,
MJ

The religion of Mammon.


The basic etymology is fear and want:


doubt
debt
death

allodial
12-29-14, 08:21 PM
...The whole planet is run as a business. And we no longer see men and women but at the common law but rather we see employees governed by U.C.C. and policies of the corporation....

Perhaps there is a "world government" that is but the combined Territorial Government of all U.N. Members? A treaty entered into by a low contracting (http://www.law-pedia.com/high-contracting-parties.htm) party would only bind it territorially but not 'organically'. The sovereign members of a confederation would remain unaffected by the treaties of the confederation though those treaties might be binding upon the territories thereof--unless the sovereign members ratified such treaties. For example Agend21 and other UN Treaties to knowledge might only apply within the territories of the United States. In 'international law' parties to treaties are expected to know and be aware of the internal mechanisms of the other parties to a treaty.


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

What if "the land" is the territory of the United States?

P.S. Low contracting party seems to be for some reason resonant with 'legal positivism'.

JohnnyCash
12-30-14, 05:03 AM
Perhaps some might forget the National Banking Act and the Federal Reserve Act are two separate things.
Yes, but remember federal excise tax was due on the amount of national-bank notes issued; payable by the issuer (Veazie Bank v. Fenno). And Congress intended Federal Reserve Notes to supplant National Bank Notes, so that they (FRNs) would become the banking system's exclusive paper currency— (http://jesse2012.com//PO8_819.jpg).
"They shall be issued and redeemed under the same terms and conditions as national-bank notes..." http://www.scribd.com/embeds/204785951/content?start_page=23

Therefore, it follows that federal excise tax is due on the issuance of FRNs - payable by the issuer - the endorser on the backside of the paycheck. Oops! (http://ctcwarrior.com/slavefree.jpg)

allodial
12-30-14, 08:39 AM
Yes, but remember federal excise tax was due on the amount of national-bank notes issued; payable by the issuer (Veazie Bank v. Fenno). And Congress intended Federal Reserve Notes to supplant National Bank Notes, so that they (FRNs) would become the banking system's exclusive paper currency— (http://jesse2012.com//PO8_819.jpg).
"They shall be issued and redeemed under the same terms and conditions as national-bank notes..." http://www.scribd.com/embeds/204785951/content?start_page=23

Therefore, it follows that federal excise tax is due on the issuance of FRNs - payable by the issuer - the endorser on the backside of the paycheck. Oops! (http://ctcwarrior.com/slavefree.jpg)

Perhaps every endorsement is perhaps a 'new issue'? Speculation: And perhaps the national bank notes are now called 'bank drafts' or cashier's checks or are simply intertwined with the FRN? And perhaps the tax has something to do with seigniorage?

P.S. Bank notes are also called 'bills of credit (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bill+of+credit)'.


Bills of credit may be defined to be paper issued and intended to circulate through the community for its ordinary purposes, as money redeemable at a future day. 4 Pet. U. S. R. 410; 1 Kent, Com. 407 4 Dall. R. xxiii.; Story, Const. Sec. 1362 to 1364 1 Scam. R. 87, 526.

Redeemable for what? For lawful money?

Chex
12-30-14, 04:44 PM
Perhaps there is a "world government" that is but the combined Territorial Government of all U.N. Members? A treaty entered into by a low contracting (http://www.law-pedia.com/high-contracting-parties.htm) party would only bind it territorially but not 'organically'. The sovereign members of a confederation would remain unaffected by the treaties of the confederation though those treaties might be binding upon the territories thereof--unless the sovereign members ratified such treaties. For example Agend21 and other UN Treaties to knowledge might only apply within the territories of the United States. In 'international law' parties to treaties are expected to know and be aware of the internal mechanisms of the other parties to a treaty.

I think you might be correct in that statement allodial.

I purchased a book called “Here Come The Black Helicopters” you can get the best of it here (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/here-come-the-black-helicopters-dick-morris/1112324100?ean=9780062240606)from the Dollar Tree (http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/fi-126.1.DLTR.NAS?ocid=INSFIST10)for 1 FRN, the book is written by Dick Morris and his wife Eileen McGann (http://www.dickmorris.com/)

Right from the get go they write about “UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom”.

Everything they write about is about the folks at the United Nations and their globalist allies (http://www.theglobalist.com/two-men-or-two-nations-deep/)in the United States determined to take away our national sovereignty.

The author(s) explains that our existing democratic system is outdated and obsolete (http://www.bing.com/search?q=our+existing+democratic+system+is+outdate d+and+obsolete+&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR02)in this modern globalized world and the players (http://www.bing.com/search?q=karl+marx+communist+manifesto&qs=AS&sk=LS1AS2&pq=karl+marx&sc=8-9&sp=4&cvid=373879872b4843859df5fc51402c3bd8&FORM=QBRE .)

The Road to Serfdom (http://www.bing.com/search?q=The%20road%20to%20serfdom&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=the%20road%20to%20serfdom&sc=8-19&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=8ea5d61bd9324968a6e0239cf6ed7a39)

Wow! Some people are just devastated! (http://first-thoughts.org/on/Hillary+Clinton/United+Nations/)

Michael Joseph
12-30-14, 07:35 PM
What about lawful money of "The United States" or "UNITED STATES"? Its own board of directors might decide to use a certain paper currency within its corporate boundary. Craft as it were might prosper thru policy.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnMFpGb-KWg&feature=youtu.be) The whole planet is run as a business. And we no longer see men and women but at the common law but rather we see employees governed by U.C.C. and policies of the corporation.

Eventually little boxes will be bought up and become big boxes. And then the board of directors of the single big box will appoint a president to rule them all.

legal tender is lawful to USE but may not be lawful money. Lawful money is always legal tender.

Shalom,
MJ

Property placed into trust is a concept that was around into antiquity. For we read at Genesis 25:29-33 that Esau sold his birthright [inheritance] to Jacob. Therefore, this implies a construct for transfer of an estate thru the exchange of consideration. If the trust was made for ourselves and our posterity - then Esau traded his future interest for consideration. This exchange of "future interest" in the Estate not only bound Esau but his heirs as well.

In Adam all fall from Spiritual life into physical death - fleshly existence; in Christ we are quickened. Therefore in Adam our posterity inherit into death; but in Christ we and our children are made alive into Spirit.

Adam/Eve submitted and consented to be governed by a created being. This is analogous to accepting a man-king - one we can perceive with our five senses - death. So we see the "tree marker" - the fig - marking transfer of government - yet there was consideration for the exchange - a future benefit - whether or not it has been received - I leave to you to acknowledge.

Therefore property in its simplest form is RIGHTS. But one must ask - who established those rights? This will lead you to ORIGINS - and you must each stand at the point of Singularity - and determine for yourself - are you created. If you are created then your only possible claim is in the Creator - whereupon said claim is subject to the terms of use established by the Creator. Now then, the only aspect of property that can be exchanged is the FRUITS of the property. For the property belongs to the Creator, but the fruits belong to man.

Jesus understood this principle explicitly - give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's but give unto God what is God's. This goes to rendering fruits. Which is to say the nature of the Estate in Property. Land is property - Corn is fruit.

Therefore we see "Do not muzzle the mouth of the oxen that treadeth out the corn".

Take off the citizen hat and put on the hat of a king and you will see. A trust reposed - is to place all rights inherit in man into a throne. The throne may be setup upon posterity or bloodlines. Therefore we see Adam holding Eve in trust. The two are one. These two form a kingdom. But these two submitted themselves to another. So they no longer had Christ at their head.

There is nothing new under the sun. Many run to and fro and setup this and that - absent asking the King of kings - thru the Administration of the Kingdom of Heaven - is this the will of The King? Meaning the claim is vassal to the Creator. Is man's claim the will of The King or the lusts of greed?

We sell ourselves everyday - Esau Company. Therefore that which we hate rules us. Therefore, the problem is internal but will naturally reveal itself in society - therefore one will eventually stand and rule the all.

The banker naturally desires the first of the fruits as well - fees. But do the sons pay for the sins of their fathers? Not so. Therefore we can overturn all of this in an instance. For one pays tribute to the kingdom in which one undertakes within. One in limited liability will naturally pay tribute [fruit] to the Husbandmen [Ceasar].


The Earth belongs to the Creator - overlays [venue] is established by man and man's inventions. Is the Kingdom created by man subject to the Administration of the Holy Spirit or the greed of man?

Shalom,
MJ

Michael Joseph
12-30-14, 07:54 PM
The legal title might be in one party or group but the use might be in another party or group. So we can see it is convenient to have a Corporation Sole holding Title as Trustee on behalf of another group - a Church - which acts upon the Use. It is not therefore difficult to see a State holding the Legal Title and the beneficiaries enjoying the USE.

Therefore the USE can be in a Church and the Ownership in the State.

Shalom,
MJ

allodial
12-31-14, 01:16 PM
...in the United States determined to take away our national sovereignty.

I don't suspect the United States (singularity) was ever a sovereign nation in the organic sense--it seems to most always have been the creature of sovereign states. If we go back to the Articles of Association, the United States was a creature of colonies. Consider the case for hen's teeth. Many defending it and seeking to protect but it doesn't exist in the first place. The confederacy named "The United States of America" itself was sovereign only relative to the territory afforded her by the sovereignties which comprised her. The United States's sovereignty was never in respect of its creators but only with respect to that over which it was is sovereign. While the United States might have relative sovereignty with respect to its territories, possessions or districts--it has never had more and can lose no more than it has any more than your neighbor can lose your shoes that he doesn't have. The 50 States of the United States are subdivisions of the United States like counties are to a state. The district courts are akin to state circuit courts.

The sovereignty the United States has with respect to its territories/districts/possessions is the only sovereignty that it ever had. The District of Columbia is a territory for all practical purposes which is why Congress has plenary power over it.

During Shay's Rebellion, Geo. Washington sent troops into the district of Pennsylvania. He did not send them into de jure and organic Pennsylvania land.

Chex
12-31-14, 02:08 PM
The sovereignty the United States has with respect to its territories/districts/possessions is the only sovereignty that it ever had. The District of Columbia is a territory for all practical purposes which is why Congress has plenary power over it.

Plenary power - Interesting (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plenary_power)

David Merrill
12-31-14, 02:41 PM
I feel that I should mention:


Update: The comic book from the NY Fed bank is not the attached pamphlet mentioned at the end of the 1981 Letter. I added that for explanation. - Just so you know...

allodial
12-31-14, 03:16 PM
Speaking of NY...



The deeded tracts were called patroonships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patroon)and could span 16 miles in length on one side of a major river, or 8 miles if spanning both sides. In 1640 the charter was revised to cut new plot sizes in half, and to allow any Dutch American in good standing to purchase an estate. The title of patroon came with powerful rights and privileges. A patroon could create civil and criminal courts, appoint local officials and hold land in perpetuity. In return, he was required by the Dutch West India Company to establish a settlement of at least 50 families within four years on the land.[2] As tenants working for the patroon, these first settlers were relieved of the duty of public taxes for ten years, but were required to pay rent to the patroon. A patroonship sometimes had its own village and other infrastructure, including churches.

I believe this could be explained in the sense of patroonships--or rather manors or manrialism generally. The patroon (Dutch manor chief) didn't pay rent (another word for taxes). It was tenants of the patron that paid rent to the patroon. A patroonship could have cities, villages, courts, etc. If you say you live in U.S. patroonship or sub-patroonship or sub-patroonship whatever it might be, then what can the patroon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patroon)expect of ya?


The largest and most successful patroonship in New Netherland was the Manor of Rensselaerswijck, established by Kiliaen van Rensselaer. Rensselaerswijck covered almost all of present-day Albany and Rensselaer counties and parts of present-day Columbia and Greene counties in New York State.

Albany's county seat happens to be the capital of the State of New York. The 50 States might be types of patroonships created by the United States (as contrasted with those which created the United States of America).

Ever notice any new construction projects where the owners are given a tax break for a period as an incentive to purchase property (http://www.vanderburgh.org/auditor/tbill_abate.html)? (*nods*--quite common...even these days)

JohnnyCash
01-03-15, 02:39 PM
My replies, a few last questions, and a pasted sanitized text version of the letter sent to the Treasury and recorded at the County almost 2 years ago.
It's funny you went through the commotion of learning how to ATTACH and then you PASTED.

allodial
01-03-15, 03:12 PM
Adam/Eve submitted and consented to be governed by a created being. This is analogous to accepting a man-king - one we can perceive with our five senses - death. So we see the "tree marker" - the fig - marking transfer of government - yet there was consideration for the exchange - a future benefit - whether or not it has been received - I leave to you to acknowledge.

In private lectures/communications I have shared that it seems rather clear that the 'sin' in the garden of Eden was one of idolatry--that all 'sin' from the Biblical perspective might be idolatry. The statement "That which is not of faith is 'sin'." might translate into -> putting trusting in the carnal = idolatry. Children in Western countries are encouraged to become 'adults'--which is strangely a word reminiscent of 'adultery' which is a word that rhymes with idolatry. The serpent offered exaltation of the creature over the creator--to those who were made in the image of the creator. Jezebel was about exercising authority over men and over the affairs of men--"to be like gods".

It seems that the "meal ticket" offered by the "New Deal" food price fixing system comes with the siren call of submission to the creations of men. It seems that to redeem scrip for lawful money is to insist on the ship being upright (i.e. creator above creature) rather than upside down (i.e. creature above creator). Into view comes two extremes of types of trust consequences or relationships: [1] creator/grantor/creditor subject to the trust (creature); [2] creator/grantor/creditor remains superior to the trust (creature).

itsmymoney
01-03-15, 11:52 PM
It's funny you went through the commotion of learning how to ATTACH and then you PASTED.

Johnny, it certainly wasn't a 'commotion', it was just easier to paste it into the post. I duly noted how to attach a document in my notes, graciously provided by member 'ag maniac'.

Not sure why you made it a point to mention this.

JohnnyCash
01-04-15, 05:54 AM
You're not sure, but I know why you mentioned my mention of it. I notice things; little things; your tokens.


3) I executed RILF for every deposited check in TY 2013 and 2014 to-date.
Since you made your demand for lawful money, the bank cannot fractionally lend on those deposits & you owe no income tax on those deposits. You're all set. Thank you for helping us Run the Fed!

itsmymoney
01-04-15, 03:01 PM
You're not sure, but I know why you mentioned my mention of it. I notice things; little things; your tokens.

Since you made your demand for lawful money, the bank cannot fractionally lend on those deposits & you owe no income tax on those deposits. You're all set. Thank you for helping us Run the Fed!

Johnny, I'm still not sure what you are getting at. What do you mean by, 'I notice things; little things; your tokens'? Are you insinuating something?

Here's what I am getting at, the bottom line if you will:

1) I made a lawful money demand in 2013 (see Treasury Letter Affidavit below, recorded at County) of which references mostly if not all NET pay transactions.

2) I RILM every check for 2013 and 2014 with the standard 12 USC 411 novation on the back only.

3) Filing late for 2013 and current for 2014, I wanted to take the lawful money deduction for both years.

4) After posting to this thread with regards to the Supporting Schedule and how to 'fill it out', Doug555 mentioned that this might not be a wise idea, given my basically 'NET PAY' demand in my Treasury Letter (below). This is because the GROSS Pay is the payment for any taxable event, i.e. being an "employee" and earning "wages" (we're all coerced into that, but whatever). Bottom line: my demand was not for 'ALL transactions'.

5) You made a statement to the effect of (paraphrasing), "take your lawful money demand; the IRS won't want to deal with it". Your statement was posed in general, not in response to anything I posted or to me personally. However, I was curious that your statement was somewhat in conflict with Doug555's warning to me due to my 'empty' Affidavit demand (it does not demand lawful money on ALL transactions - i.e. GROSS and Net pay, withdrawals, etc).

So given my track record with 6702 penalties (i.e. 'tax protestor label'), I was wary in utilizing the lawful money reduction for 2013 and 2014, based on Doug555's warning. I have since filed 'normal' for 2013 (I had to, given other circumstances) and I am planning to do the same for 2014. Going forward, I will record my 'all transactions' Affidavit as soon as I see the recent deposit in my next bank statement. I will feel comfortable taking the deduction for 2015 when I file in 2016 because I am now using the 'all transactions' language on the FRONT of the check/deposit slip.

So my general question to you was, how do you feel about what Doug555 stated (it's 'iffy' to use the deduction relative to my situation) vs. what you stated in general ("go for it, they won't touch it"). I'm not asking for advice. I just thought there was some conflict there, especially from well-respected suitors where I thought comments from you would be beneficial to the discussion in this regard.

Regards,
imm



02/19/2013
Prepared by, and Return to:
‘imm’

Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220*
Attn: Secretary of the Treasury

Re: Lawful Money Demand


Dear Secretary of the Treasury,

THIS IS NOTICE TO ONE AND ALL that I, ‘imm’, a man, hereby make a DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY pursuant to Title 12 USC 411 for redeeming all monies that are deposited into and withdrawn from any bank or depository institution, as performed by me or for me; hereinafter ‘events’.

Events include but are not limited to the following: direct-deposit from any company paying me in such manner; check cashing or deposit; cash deposits; bank cards; ATM; debits or withdrawals or payments; electronic transfers, or any other means relating to all accounts I have at any financial institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act. Said events are subject to a superseding DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY with the express intent to redeem any private credit instrument into lawful money pursuant to, albeit absent any benefit or privilege from, Title 12 Section 411 of the United States Code.

This demand is made pursuant to law binding all parties subject to Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, now codified at Title 12 United States § 411. This demand is made for the express purpose of exercising my remedy under the law and to rebut the false and presumptive notion that I voluntarily endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. I expressly do not endorse private Federal Reserve credit in any form.

This Notice also applies retroactively to any existing accounts I have at any institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act. It was only by fraudulent omission that I was prevented from invoking the remedy available within 12 USC §411 from the start of any relationship I have made with any financial institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act.

Any current or previous contractual obligation I may have made due to the fraudulent omission of the remedy found in Title 12 USC §411 is unequivocally subordinate to this Notice and Demand letter, and, shall not be construed to modify any provision contained within this Notice and Demand letter.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

________________________________
‘imm’ – All rights reserved

JohnnyCash
01-04-15, 09:28 PM
These hip waders need way more room in the crotchal area. Is it me, or are the fish just not biting today?

David Merrill
01-05-15, 08:17 AM
The difference between net and gross is essential because of the deductions and withholdings are of an insurance policy nature. In other words one should not demand premiums back, just because they did not make a claim. If you treat SSI like a tax, just because it is based on the amount of money you earn then you might more easily be presumed to owe that as a tax; rather than treating it like an insurance policy premium.


(Nibble, nibble...)

JohnnyCash
01-05-15, 02:25 PM
I agree.
Someone making $800 a week as a W4 worker would receive a year-end W2 like this: http://jesse2012.com/W2_2011.pdf
And if every paycheck was redeemed in lawful money their tax return might look like this: http://jesse2012.com/jtd1040.pdf
They'd get all of box 2 "Fed inc tax withheld" back as a refund.

Chex
01-05-15, 09:35 PM
So how do we deduct for obamacare (http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/01/05/think-filing-taxes-was-tough-before-obamacare-just-wait/)if its insurance?

doug555
01-05-15, 11:20 PM
I agree.
Someone making $800 a week as a W4 worker would receive a year-end W2 like this: http://jesse2012.com/W2_2011.pdf
And if every paycheck was redeemed in lawful money their tax return might look like this: http://jesse2012.com/jtd1040.pdf
They'd get all of box 2 "Fed inc tax withheld" back as a refund.

Any TRANSACTION amount that is not demanded to be redeemed in lawful money creates a nexus/contract with FED because those amounts USED FRNs... IMO.

That tax return shows one is double-minded, and gives probable cause for being called "frivolous".

Please explain WHY you are NOT demanding lawful money for the GROSS wages amount?

I believe the State was giving a clue about this "GROSS" error in the excerpt below from post15868 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1183-State-Return-Need-Assistance-Lawful-Money&p=15868&viewfull=1#post15868):



Originally Posted by Breneth

So, another update on this issue..

I received a check from the State (Iowa Department of Revenue) for about 10% of the amount on Tuesday. On Wednesday, I got an explanation letter from them. One form shows how they recalculated my taxes and completely disregarded my "Demand for Lawful Money Reduction". On another form, they put this:

Reason for Notice:
The gross income has been adjusted.
The taxpayers trust fund tax credit has been adjusted or denied.
Your refund claim has been partially denied.

I feel like I should send something back to them arguing that they are breaking the law, though as they as disregarded it already, I feel that I should take this elsewhere. A complaint to the State Treasurer, State Senator, Representative? Any suggestions would be most welcomed!

We had better pay attention to their letters... they may actually be trying to help us!

Then, to be consistent, each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS should also be demanded to be in lawful money.

Yes, I know that total amount of lawful money demands will then be greater that the actual GROSS wages amount, making the Adjusted GROSS to be a negative amount.

But isn't that legitimate?

Don't all of those amounts that were presumed to be in FRNs need to be adjusted back out, to reduce the national debt accordingly?

BTW: This 1040 accounting approach has worked for the past 3 years, so it is NOT just theory.

ag maniac
01-06-15, 12:23 AM
Any TRANSACTION amount that is not demanded to be redeemed in lawful money creates a nexus/contract with FED because those amounts USED FRNs... IMO.

That tax return shows one is double-minded, and gives probable cause for being called "frivolous".

Please explain WHY you are NOT demanding lawful money for the GROSS wages amount?

I believe the State was giving a clue about this "GROSS" error in the excerpt below from post15868 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1183-State-Return-Need-Assistance-Lawful-Money&p=15868&viewfull=1#post15868):




We had better pay attention to their letters... they may actually be trying to help us!

Then, to be consistent, each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS should also be demanded to be in lawful money.

Yes, I know that total amount of lawful money demands will then be greater that the actual GROSS wages amount, making the Adjusted GROSS to be a negative amount.

But isn't that legitimate?

Don't all of those amounts that were presumed to be in FRNs need to be adjusted back out, to reduce the national debt accordingly?

BTW: This 1040 accounting approach has worked for the past 3 years, so it is NOT just theory.


So is this what you're saying for "W-4 workers" (using the above example) --> rather than putting 35,662 on line 21.....put 43,950.40 --> the total of 41,600 wages plus SS tax & medicare tax of 2350.40.....making the adjusted gross (2350.40)

If that is the case, why not just put 41,600 on line 21 for the lawful money deduction....doesn't that cover the other with-holdings then?

doug555
01-06-15, 12:31 AM
So is this what you're saying for "W-4 workers" (using the above example) --> rather than putting 35,662 on line 21.....put 43,950.40 --> the total of 41,600 wages plus SS tax & medicare tax of 2350.40.....making the adjusted gross (2350.40)

If that is the case, why not just put 41,600 on line 21 for the lawful money deduction....doesn't that cover the other with-holdings then?

NO.

Please, tell me, Why is TRANSACTION-BASED REDEMPTION so hard to grasp?

ag maniac
01-06-15, 01:03 AM
All right....the redemption for W-2 workers is on the gross weekly pay --> "ALL TRANSACTIONS".....that's not so hard to understand.....so -41,600 on line 21 is the way to account for "each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS"

I was just attempting to reconcile your mention of a negative adjusted gross.


Lawful Money and full discharge is demanded on all transactions 12USC411, 95a(2)

itsmymoney
01-06-15, 01:06 AM
Any TRANSACTION amount that is not demanded to be redeemed in lawful money creates a nexus/contract with FED because those amounts USED FRNs... IMO.

That tax return shows one is double-minded, and gives probable cause for being called "frivolous".

Please explain WHY you are NOT demanding lawful money for the GROSS wages amount?

I believe the State was giving a clue about this "GROSS" error in the excerpt below from post15868 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1183-State-Return-Need-Assistance-Lawful-Money&p=15868&viewfull=1#post15868):




We had better pay attention to their letters... they may actually be trying to help us!

Then, to be consistent, each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS should also be demanded to be in lawful money.

Yes, I know that total amount of lawful money demands will then be greater that the actual GROSS wages amount, making the Adjusted GROSS to be a negative amount.

But isn't that legitimate?

Don't all of those amounts that were presumed to be in FRNs need to be adjusted back out, to reduce the national debt accordingly?

BTW: This 1040 accounting approach has worked for the past 3 years, so it is NOT just theory.


Doug555,

Based on explaining your reasoning earlier in this thread, I thought the same thing regarding the W-2/1040 examples presented by Mr Cash. I believe one can presume that if GROSS PAY (every dollar you were paid) is lawful money given the chance to redeem it as such, then the NET pay and withholding transactions deducted from GROSS PAY must also be lawful money. This is demanded retroactively when you novate your check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. It's the only way to include the withholding transactions in your demand, because they're already deducted by employer.

If I'm reading this correctly, here's another way to look at it...

Suppose your employer pays you in GROSS pay, $500 a week. You take that check to your bank and deposit it into your account, novating the check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. So now you have $500 Lawful Money in that account. But now it's your duty to deduct the withholding transactions from your account and pay them to the Fed and the State. However, those deductions can easily be proven to be sourced from lawful money by that restricted $500 deposit. The only difference between this example and the real-world operation is that we the payee (W-4 employees) are not authorized to handle the deductions. Therefore since we have a statutory right and claim to redeem in lawful money, the only way to do this is by means of your retroactive-to-GROSS-pay 'all transactions' demand on the NET paycheck. Plus, your County-recorded 'on the record' Affidavit enforces your demand with public evidence.

doug555
01-06-15, 01:16 AM
All right....the redemption for W-2 workers is on the gross weekly pay --> "ALL TRANSACTIONS".....that's not so hard to understand.....so -41,600 on line 21 is the way to account for "each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS"

I was just attempting to reconcile your mention of a negative adjusted gross.



41,600 + 3588 + 1747.20 + 603.20 = 47538.40

So line 21 has (47538.40)
and Line 22 has (5938.40)

IMO.

IF, you had this demand on record for the entire tax year:

"Lawful Money and full discharge is demanded on all transactions 12USC411, 95a(2)"


NOTICE, however, you are only asking for and getting a refund of the FITW,,, namely, 3588.

doug555
01-06-15, 01:29 AM
Doug555,

Based on explaining your reasoning earlier in this thread, I thought the same thing regarding the W-2/1040 examples presented by Mr Cash. I believe one can presume that if GROSS PAY (every dollar you were paid) is lawful money given the chance to redeem it as such, then the NET pay and withholding transactions deducted from GROSS PAY must also be lawful money. This is demanded retroactively when you novate your check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. It's the only way to include the withholding transactions in your demand, because they're already deducted by employer.

If I'm reading this correctly, here's another way to look at it...

Suppose your employer pays you in GROSS pay, $500 a week. You take that check to your bank and deposit it into your account, novating the check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. So now you have $500 Lawful Money in that account. But now it's your duty to deduct the withholding transactions from your account and pay them to the Fed and the State. However, those deductions can easily be proven to be sourced from lawful money by that restricted $500 deposit. The only difference between this example and the real-world operation is that we the payee (W-4 employees) are not authorized to handle the deductions. Therefore since we have a statutory right and claim to redeem in lawful money, the only way to do this is by means of your retroactive-to-GROSS-pay 'all transactions' demand on the NET paycheck. Plus, your County-recorded 'on the record' Affidavit enforces your demand with public evidence.

I don't follow your scenario... it's getting too late tonite.

Here's the thing, as "Monk" would say...

The TRANSACTIONS on the W-2 were all in FRNS, by default. You don't have a chance to demand lawful money redemption BEFORE those TRANSACTIONS occurred. Those TRANSACTIONS are on the books no matter what you did with the bank afterwards.

Those past events/TRANSACTIONS must be included on 1040 so THEY can make the accounting adjustments on an annual basis, so lawful money can be "1040 RETURNED" to the people and the national debt reduced.

itsmymoney
01-06-15, 03:04 AM
Originally Posted by ag maniac
All right....the redemption for W-2 workers is on the gross weekly pay --> "ALL TRANSACTIONS".....that's not so hard to understand.....so -41,600 on line 21 is the way to account for "each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS"

I was just attempting to reconcile your mention of a negative adjusted gross.
41,600 + 3588 + 1747.20 + 603.20 = 47538.40

So line 21 has (47538.40)
and Line 22 has (5938.40)

IMO.

IF, you had this demand on record for the entire tax year:

"Lawful Money and full discharge is demanded on all transactions 12USC411, 95a(2)"


NOTICE, however, you are only asking for and getting a refund of the FITW,,, namely, 3588.

ag maniac,

The net result of 'income' is the same in the 1040 PDF example and Doug555's example, however (as I'm understanding it) ALL transactions must be accounted for in the calculation to get there. This is because every one of those transactions is initially presumed to be paid or deducted in FRN's. So, one (i.e. IRS) could argue that in the 1040 PDF example, the NET pay deduction ($35,662) is being claimed as lawful money but the withholding deductions are not. But they both come from the same payment (Gross Pay). Upshot: you can't have one part of the Gross Pay be lawful money and another part not. However, many suitors appear to be using the '1040 PDF example' to much success. I can't argue with the success of that, but Doug555 makes a strong case that it could be interpreted as 'incorrect' to some degree.

Doug555's example appears to mimic a general ledger-type accounting, where all transactions must be accounted for in the overall balancing. The higher-than-Gross but negative Line 21 value is the sum of ALL transactions redeemed in lawful money, as Doug555 has shown. The 'income' is the net result (the withholdings) after subtracting the Gross Pay.

David Merrill
01-06-15, 03:26 PM
I believe that this situation cannot be resolved by debate. As I read and verified the Social Security Act went into place in 1933 as an income tax, simply because it is premium based and those premiums are set by the amount of income we earn. The Supreme Court verified that as stated in the 1984 Article (Opening Posts). My interpretation of the SSI premiums as premiums is set in antiquity (admiralty), that the origins of insurance are bottomry and leaving the premiums based in income percentage does not change the nature of an insurance policy to a tax.

allodial
01-06-15, 08:10 PM
I believe that this situation cannot be resolved by debate. As I read and verified the Social Security Act went into place in 1933 as an income tax, simply because it is premium based and those premiums are set by the amount of income we earn. The Supreme Court verified that as stated in the 1984 Article (Opening Posts). My interpretation of the SSI premiums as premiums is set in antiquity (admiralty), that the origins of insurance are bottomry and leaving the premiums based in income percentage does not change the nature of an insurance policy to a tax.

The word "contribution (http://www.irmi.com/online/insurance-glossary/terms/c/contribution.aspx)" (in FICA) says it all--thusly, not an 'income tax'. Although, it seems and "smells like" VAT (for services) on the Federal level. The SSA was designed to be failure proof, is solvent (or should be) and is one of the most significant creditors to the United States.

doug555
01-06-15, 09:52 PM
I believe that this situation cannot be resolved by debate. As I read and verified the Social Security Act went into place in 1933 as an income tax, simply because it is premium based and those premiums are set by the amount of income we earn. The Supreme Court verified that as stated in the 1984 Article (Opening Posts). My interpretation of the SSI premiums as premiums is set in antiquity (admiralty), that the origins of insurance are bottomry and leaving the premiums based in income percentage does not change the nature of an insurance policy to a tax.

What the funds are used for is irrelevant.

What the funds are is what matters.

FRNs incur a usage fee no matter where the funds go.

David Merrill
01-07-15, 01:29 AM
The word "contribution (http://www.irmi.com/online/insurance-glossary/terms/c/contribution.aspx)" (in FICA) says it all--thusly, not an 'income tax'. Although, it seems and "smells like" VAT (for services) on the Federal level. The SSA was designed to be failure proof, is solvent (or should be) and is one of the most significant creditors to the United States.




I was inspired to find the photos I took from American Jurisprudence 2d. I cannot find them but did find some interesting documents.

allodial
01-07-15, 02:14 AM
Even in circumstances I've seen were a payroll check was cut and 000-00-0000 was the SSN for someone who didn't have an SSN but provided a US Passport or some other ID, FICA was still deducted though withholding for income tax wasn't. The W-4 from what I recall was filled out in a way to assert exemption lawfully.

It is IMHO worth noting that the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Social Security Administration are totally separate. However, one common factor is that they both rely on the Bureau of the Fiscal Service or Financial Management Service of the Department of the Treasury for banking and financial services.

JohnnyCash
01-07-15, 09:14 PM
[banjo]
People lemme tell ya 'bout a con named Jay
poor tax attorney couldn't get the time o day.
Then one day he was auditing the bank
when he stumbled on the truth, the source o that stank
Banker pulls him over say: 'It's the worlds best scam (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-17/hidden-secrets-money-part-4-biggest-scam-history-mankind-7-easy-steps).
Now you work for us Jay, stop your runnin' on the lam'

Next thing you know ol' Jay's a millionaire,
His kinfolk say, 'Jay, move away from there!'
Mimic patriots on the 'net, This is what ya oughta do'
so he started up the webstie, called it quatloo (http://www.ctcwarrior.com/scammer.jpg)
loos, that is, fictional money (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=quatloo), private credit.

Well now it's time to say goodbye to Jay and all his kin.
They would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin' in.
You're all invited back next week to this locality
To have a heapin' helpin' of their disinfo-tality

Agents that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.

Y'all come back now, y'hear?

itsmymoney
01-07-15, 11:04 PM
[banjo]
People lemme tell ya 'bout a con named Jay
poor tax lawyer couldn't get the time o day.
Then one day he was auditing the bank
when he came across the truth, the source o that stank
Banker pulls him over: 'It's the worlds best scam (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-17/hidden-secrets-money-part-4-biggest-scam-history-mankind-7-easy-steps).
Now you work for us Jay, stop your runnin' on the lam'

Next thing you know ol' Jay's a millionaire,
His kinfolk said, 'Jay, move away from there!'
Be a mimic on the net, This is what ya outta do'
so he started up the webstie, called it quatloo (http://www.ctcwarrior.com/scammer.jpg)
loos, that is, fictional money (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=quatloo), private credit.

Well now it's time to say goodbye to Jay and all his kin.
They would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin' in.
You're all invited back next week to this locality
To have a heapin' helpin' of their disinfo-itality

Agents that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.

Y'all come back now, y'hear?


Johnny, VERY creative! Kudos to you!

JohnnyCash
01-10-15, 07:19 PM
Taking a Line 21 Lawful Money deduction for more than your earnings? Must be Famspear's new math. I believe they call that driving the train past the station. I don't think such a filing would end well for the filer. I'd venture to say you're likely to get a civil penalty for that. For filing what Ms. Weaver calls clearly unallowable deductions (http://losthorizons.com/Documents/FrivLimitNotice.pdf). I am witness to several lawful money IRS filings but none claimed more than earnings. All of them successful, none penalized and no CP letters afterward. Here's one of them:

Primary filer with $47xxx. in reported W2 income.
Secondary filer with about $48k in reported 1099 income http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg yet none of it entered on the 1040.

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

doug555
01-10-15, 08:09 PM
Taking a Line 21 Lawful Money deduction for more than your earnings? Must be Famspear's new math. I believe they call that driving the train past the station. I don't think such a filing would end well for the filer. I'd venture to say you're likely to get a civil penalty for that. For filing what Ms. Weaver calls clearly unallowable deductions (http://losthorizons.com/Documents/FrivLimitNotice.pdf). I am witness to several lawful money IRS filings but none claimed more than earnings. All of them successful, none penalized and no CP letters afterward. Here's one of them:

Primary filer with $47xxx. in reported W2 income.
Secondary filer with about $48k in reported 1099 income http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg yet none of it entered on the 1040.

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

Clearly, you do not understand fractional reserve banking (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm), whereby new money is created by the additional derivative transactions...

You still did not answer my question: Why don't you demand lawful money for GROSS income?

Perhaps the fear you are projecting stems from your mistake of not demanding lawful money for GROSS income on your returns, making yours frivolous?


BTW: personal attacks are a classic tactic of dis-info agents, avoiding the issue at hand. You really should stop obsessing about other websites' faults... and what about your position that the IRS would never touch ANY return demanding lawful money?

NOTE: Lawful money demands are NOT "deductions". Beware of using that FRN term, or it will be frivolous. LMDs are a reduction.

NOTE: The "OPERATION OF LAW" is also TRANSACTION-BASED! (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=15713&viewfull=1#post15713)

itsmymoney
01-11-15, 12:53 AM
Clearly, you do not understand fractional reserve banking (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm), whereby new money is created by the additional derivative transactions...

You still did not answer my question: Why don't you demand lawful money for GROSS income?

Perhaps the fear you are projecting stems from your mistake of not demanding lawful money for GROSS income on your returns, making yours frivolous?


BTW: personal attacks are a classic tactic of dis-info agents, avoiding the issue at hand. You really should stop obsessing about other websites' faults... and what about your position that the IRS would never touch ANY return demanding lawful money?

NOTE: Lawful money demands are NOT "deductions". Beware of using that FRN term, or it will be frivolous. LMDs are a reduction.

NOTE: The "OPERATION OF LAW" is also TRANSACTION-BASED! (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=15713&viewfull=1#post15713)




JohnnyCash and Doug555,

This is quite the debate. I believe I tried to understand Doug555's explanation with my own response to member 'ag maniac' (see bottom, quoted), of which Doug555 did not dispute. Therefore if true, perhaps I am understanding his theory/explanation of RILM as the IRS accounting would have it. However, JohnnyCash claims 7+ years success with his interpretation/method (taking a NET pay 'deduction' which satisfies the difference from Gross). I do find it odd to come up with a number greater than the starting Gross Pay, however it makes accounting sense if this is in fact a valid accounting method. I'm not well-versed enough in accounting overall, but I know that you DO have negative sides of a ledger to balance the other side. It would be nice if the IRS would specifically tell us but that will never happen.

I tend to believe you must account for the GROSS PAY in this (all transactions) because of this simple logic: if your employer paid you but did not make ANY deductions from your pay, but YOU had to make the deductions yourself and send them in, then the 'taxable event' is emphatically upon the GROSS PAY that you were paid. You would 1) RILM the GROSS PAY, and then 2) send the deductions in. I just don't see it happening on the NET pay alone. But there is 'NET pay success' out there, or as claimed, so go figure; but, does the 'NET pay success' make it technically correct? I tend to think not. Though I do believe Doug555 and his math relative to Gross Pay and the 1040, I'd like to verify the 'greater than gross pay' number from an accountant in a general accounting sense.

Johnny, I too wondered why you are so obsessed with others and their 'dis-info'. You made it a point on another website after many weeks of not posting, to ONLY point out another's 'dis-info' and not really addressing the topic at hand on that site. And I asked you previously in this thread (as Doug555 has above), to respond to my question as to why you thought the IRS would NEVER touch ANY return demanding lawful money. By your silence, you deferred. What is the basis for that view? Your own success (if valid)? You won't answer the questions, is my point. And I think Doug555 is asking this as well.


imm


The net result of 'income' is the same in the 1040 PDF example and Doug555's example, however (as I'm understanding it) ALL transactions must be accounted for in the calculation to get there. This is because every one of those transactions is initially presumed to be paid or deducted in FRN's. So, one (i.e. IRS) could argue that in the 1040 PDF example, the NET pay deduction ($35,662) is being claimed as lawful money but the withholding deductions are not. But they both come from the same payment (Gross Pay). Upshot: you can't have one part of the Gross Pay be lawful money and another part not. However, many suitors appear to be using the '1040 PDF example' to much success. I can't argue with the success of that, but Doug555 makes a strong case that it could be interpreted as 'incorrect' to some degree.

Doug555's example appears to mimic a general ledger-type accounting, where all transactions must be accounted for in the overall balancing. The higher-than-Gross but negative Line 21 value is the sum of ALL transactions redeemed in lawful money, as Doug555 has shown. The 'income' is the net result (the withholdings) after subtracting the Gross Pay.

Chex
01-11-15, 03:31 PM
So the law doesnt lie.....Social Security (Employment and/or self-employment) means "gross income".
So the earnings from participation of Social Security are in essence "gross income" as computed under subtitle A?
So if you dont participate in Social Security then the earnings are not derived from "employment" or "self-employment" (aka Social Security) and therefore do not fall under subtitle A's "gross income"...........NOT TAXABLE INCOME!
They are not considered "income" for the purpose of Title 26.
But I already knew this! http://www.community.defendindependence.us/viewtopic.php?f=155&t=605&start=10

a job that is statutorily exempt from Social Security (http://www.bing.com/search?q=a+job+that+is+statutorily+exempt+from+Soc ial+Security+&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR02)

A Section 218 Agreement is a written voluntary agreement between a State and the Social Security Administration to provide Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) or Medicare coverage only for employees of State and local governments. This agreement is authorized under Section 218 of the Social Security Act. Employees covered under a Section 218 Agreement have the same coverage and benefit rights as employees in the private sector. All States have a Section 218 Agreement, but the extent of coverage varies. http://www.ssa.gov/slge/faqs.htm#a0=0

http://stormthunder.com/#axzz3OWkvRkMZ

Case Law & Public Documents. http://www.codebusters.org/case-law-public-documents-f4.html

Complaint Review: Jay Adkisson. http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/jay-adkisson/newport-beach-california-92660/jay-adkisson-attorney-riser-adkisson-llp-jay-adkisson-sets-up-bogus-fraudulent-trusts-t-356944

David Merrill
01-11-15, 06:58 PM
So the law doesnt lie.....Social Security (Employment and/or self-employment) means "gross income".
So the earnings from participation of Social Security are in essence "gross income" as computed under subtitle A?
So if you dont participate in Social Security then the earnings are not derived from "employment" or "self-employment" (aka Social Security) and therefore do not fall under subtitle A's "gross income"...........NOT TAXABLE INCOME!
They are not considered "income" for the purpose of Title 26.
But I already knew this! http://www.community.defendindependence.us/viewtopic.php?f=155&t=605&start=10

a job that is statutorily exempt from Social Security (http://www.bing.com/search?q=a+job+that+is+statutorily+exempt+from+Soc ial+Security+&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR02)

A Section 218 Agreement is a written voluntary agreement between a State and the Social Security Administration to provide Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) or Medicare coverage only for employees of State and local governments. This agreement is authorized under Section 218 of the Social Security Act. Employees covered under a Section 218 Agreement have the same coverage and benefit rights as employees in the private sector. All States have a Section 218 Agreement, but the extent of coverage varies. http://www.ssa.gov/slge/faqs.htm#a0=0

http://stormthunder.com/#axzz3OWkvRkMZ

Case Law & Public Documents. http://www.codebusters.org/case-law-public-documents-f4.html

Complaint Review: Jay Adkisson. http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/jay-adkisson/newport-beach-california-92660/jay-adkisson-attorney-riser-adkisson-llp-jay-adkisson-sets-up-bogus-fraudulent-trusts-t-356944



I like StSC to be where people can find practical and theoretical merged into prosperity. Especially in the application process it does not go over well to say, I do not participate in Social Security.

Chex
01-12-15, 03:54 PM
I like StSC to be where people can find practical and theoretical merged into prosperity. Especially in the application process it does not go over well to say, I do not participate in Social Security.

I agree but it is a dammed if you do and a dam if you don't.

WHEN ADAM SENT ME THESE VICTORIES THE OTHER DAY FOR SHARING WITH YOU ALL, he included this note:

"I made a rookie error on my initial submission of the federal return by excluding Social Security and Medicare tax.
I corrected this with an amended form and received the remainder as a separate refund.
I figured this will be helpful for anyone who needs to address a similar mistake." (http://www.losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm#1)

JohnnyCash
01-12-15, 05:22 PM
Anonymous commented · January 11, 2015 12:09 ·

Looks like Chex from STSC chimed in about Social Security....hes copied and pasted our conversation johnny.....hes pasted one of my posts...not yours.
Looks like maybe hes seeing the light. http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526--cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson

It's possible that Famspear/Jay/jessejames/quatloser is telling us he's behind the Chex/doug555/itsmymoney logins. I suspect he is quite bothered by these real-world examples of IRS wins. In this example a family with about $109,000 in annual income for 2013 [47k+48k+14k] should have paid a minimum $16,000 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/01/15/irs-announces-2013-tax-rates-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more/) in federal taxes (including Medicare & SS) had they been endorsing private credit. But thanks to redeeming lawful money ended up paying only $2100. [Deducted of (3200+3200+700) minus refund (5000) = $2100]. And it could have been even less with more lawful money redeemed! http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

All warfare involves deception. And this appears to be a replay attempt of what I've seen at other forums. The fake users will try to manufacture a debate, a controversy. I guess their hope is to somehow damage the targeted user (suitor), make it out like he is the source of the whole problem.

David Merrill
01-12-15, 06:05 PM
I agree but it is a dammed if you do and a dam if you don't.

WHEN ADAM SENT ME THESE VICTORIES THE OTHER DAY FOR SHARING WITH YOU ALL, he included this note:

"I made a rookie error on my initial submission of the federal return by excluding Social Security and Medicare tax.
I corrected this with an amended form and received the remainder as a separate refund.
I figured this will be helpful for anyone who needs to address a similar mistake." (http://www.losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm#1)


Definitely noteworthy! Thanks for sharing that.

Johnny;

My perception of the Internet is that it is much larger than you think it is. However it would be flattering if Jay was so distressed by boredom as to troll around here. If you want to PM where you believe Jay is, and a Member moniker I can try to find out if they match up.

Chex
01-12-15, 06:13 PM
Is Anonymous Jayloser? Well Anonymous Jayloser I take the USC over your propaganda any day.

itsmymoney
01-12-15, 10:53 PM
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526--cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson

It's possible that Famspear/Jay/jessejames/quatloser is telling us he's behind the Chex/doug555/itsmymoney logins. I suspect he is quite bothered by these real-world examples of IRS wins. In this example a family with about $109,000 in annual income for 2013 [47k+48k+14k] should have paid a minimum $16,000 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/01/15/irs-announces-2013-tax-rates-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more/) in federal taxes (including Medicare & SS) had they been endorsing private credit. But thanks to redeeming lawful money ended up paying only $2100. [Deducted of (3200+3200+700) minus refund (5000) = $2100]. And it could have been even less with more lawful money redeemed! http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

All warfare involves deception. And this appears to be a replay attempt of what I've seen at other forums. The fake users will try to manufacture a debate, a controversy. I guess their hope is to somehow damage the targeted user (suitor), make it out like he is the source of the whole problem.

Dude, you are f-ing comical. Seriously. Is EVERYONE who has a question about something or raises rational and practical questions, a dis-info quatloser? You were the person who originally referred me to STSC from another site. So why after some research, does Doug555 make more sense than you in explaining this? You are continually paranoid and obsessed with 'trolls'. I'm just trying to learn.

Why am I losing faith in what you say? You may be sincere, but your witch-hunt makes you look 'crazy' when many of us are sincere suitors trying to learn and overcome the BS that has been exacted upon us. You STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS posed by myself and Doug555. If your way is working for you, then I applaud you. But for you to dismiss GROSS PAY as the starting point of RILM (and the delineation of the withholding transactions that come from that) just because you have been successful doing it your way, is ignorant and irresponsible to others trying to educate themselves. I'm trying to look at everything, including the methods and insights that you have provided, along with Doug555's, David's, etc. Simple as that.

It is what it is, dude.

imm

David Merrill
01-12-15, 11:12 PM
You are continually paranoid and obsessed with 'trolls'. I'm just trying to learn.


I have noted that too. I recall Potapaug (I teased him - Pollywog) registered and was getting along fairly well. As things degraded there on the "Q" website, and quite frankly it became so boring I read discussion about bringing me back into the forums, I banished him. He was getting bolder about bashing remedy and I got tired of watching him.

I too wish that Johnny would stop policing so closely for Q-trolls.

JohnnyCash
01-12-15, 11:49 PM
Actually you never answered my questions of December 16th here: http://www.codebusters.org/lawful-money-reconnaissance-t444.html

I love Q-trolls!

itsmymoney
01-13-15, 12:19 AM
Actually you never answered my questions of December 16th here: http://www.codebusters.org/lawful-money-reconnaissance-t444.html

I love Q-trolls!

You just go round in circles with your BS paranoia, running around site to site, gathering 'intel' on people to 'expose them'. You really exposed me above with those gems below. I know, it's SO CONTROVERSIAL that I didn't answer them at that time...


Not sure what you mean by "Since I am withheld at 0," Zero withheld or zero exemptions on the W4? or are you a 1099 worker? Or neither?

Answers: I claim 0 on my W-4 to get the most withheld so I won't be surprised at year end; I'm an employee, not 1099.

I'm sure everyone here couldn't wait for that! You're the evasive one. Answering questions with questions. I posed valid points there and here. You just see it as an opportunity to render your paranoid BS on everyone. Despite your knowledge, you are whimsical and crazy.

If you don't have anything good to add to a discussion except for calling people out, then you are not being helpful. I like when suitors back up theories and methods with facts and law; plus pose questions that perhaps others have not thought of. I won't respond to your posts unless they're instructive. Why don't you come up with another clever Beverly Hillbillies theme?

David Merrill, I apologize for this drivel but I'm insulted by this guy and I had to defend myself.

doug555
01-13-15, 01:39 AM
You just go round in circles with your BS paranoia, running around site to site, gathering 'intel' on people to 'expose them'. You really exposed me above with those gems below. I know, it's SO CONTROVERSIAL that I didn't answer them at that time...



Answers: I claim 0 on my W-4 to get the most withheld so I won't be surprised at year end; I'm an employee, not 1099.

I'm sure everyone here couldn't wait for that! You're the evasive one. Answering questions with questions. I posed valid points there and here. You just see it as an opportunity to render your paranoid BS on everyone. Despite your knowledge, you are whimsical and crazy.

If you don't have anything good to add to a discussion except for calling people out, then you are not being helpful. I like when suitors back up theories and methods with facts and law; plus pose questions that perhaps others have not thought of. I won't respond to your posts unless they're instructive. Why don't you come up with another clever Beverly Hillbillies theme?

David Merrill, I apologize for this drivel but I'm insulted by this guy and I had to defend myself.


David has the original copies of my returns and refunds... for the past 3 years, which I provided in private so he would know that I am NOT a troll.

With that said, I want to post the below scenario AS A WARNING ABOUT A POSSIBLE TRAP FOR StSC MEMBERS.

Let's just take JC for an example, since he is so obsessed with "trolls"... perhaps from spending too much time on those dis-info sites... it rubs off on its readers, getting them sucked into the "control dramas" as the "Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield so aptly describes, and away from substantive on-point discussion of issues.

Suppose JC was a plant from the very beginning, at the worst, or else just a ignorant novice, at the best.

Both types are DANGEROUS, because the IRS would use their examples of temporary successes to TRAP more followers and set precedents in order to muddy the water and eventually, through fear and intimidation, discredit the whole lawful money demand remedy that is in 12 USC 411.

It is VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A FIRM LOGICAL ACCOUNTING FOUNDATION for the WAY we are implementing the Federal Reserve Act Remedy codified at 12 USC 411 so that we can easily rebut any outrageous claims and allegations thrown at us who are using it.

I have tried to present that LOGICAL ACCOUNTING FOUNDATION.

Look at any W-2. Is there any box on that form that says "Net Income"?

Anyone who is taking that approach, or that "0" income approach that Chex cites (and no where shows a demand for lawful money) is headed for big trouble!

Anyone who does not demand lawful money for GROSS pay/wages on a W-2 is in contract with the FED. It is that simple. It is contract law.

Anyone in that position better amend that in-correct 1040 ASAP. IMO.

Anyone avoiding that issue is a dis-info agent in-fact, even if unwittingly.

The HIGHER LAW governing this issue is Mt 22:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/matthew/22-21.html)

Whose side are you on?

You are not going to be allowed to co-mingle those funds, or you will get in big trouble.

Make sure you demand lawful money for ALL transactions - especially the GROSS PAY transaction!

This is CRITICAL!!!

Perhaps this is WHY dis-info agents do NOT want to answer that question!

It is the KEY transaction !

LISTEN - If we at StSC do not make a firm stand on that KEY transaction, it very well could discredit the entire remedy David has discovered.

Wake up!

Most of us are W-2 Wage earners!!!

This is a BIG ISSUE.

Do NOT let anything else take away our focus from this BIG ISSUE.

Just imagine how many struggling families could use a 30% increase in their take home pay RIGHT NOW!

Do we realize how many people the StSC could help if we would get our act together?

And get rid of witting and unwitting dis-info agents, who promote fear, sarcasm, allegations, distractions, etc.

And build a core support group for David's discovery.

David Merrill
01-13-15, 03:45 PM
My teaching on this is do not react, do not defend. When you are on to the truth there is not need for either.

I have requested the same from every Member. Even if you believe there are "Q" trolls, please be respectful of the feelings of others.


P.S. My take on this:


Whose side are you on?


Is that the Emergency activating War and Emergency Powers was lifted in 1976 - but left Trading with the Enemy Act provisions to protect peoples' right to endorse private credit from the Federal Reserve.

itsmymoney
01-13-15, 08:57 PM
David has the original copies of my returns and refunds... for the past 3 years, which I provided in private so he would know that I am NOT a troll.

With that said, I want to post the below scenario AS A WARNING ABOUT A POSSIBLE TRAP FOR StSC MEMBERS.

Let's just take JC for an example, since he is so obsessed with "trolls"... perhaps from spending too much time on those dis-info sites... it rubs off on its readers, getting them sucked into the "control dramas" as the "Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield so aptly describes, and away from substantive on-point discussion of issues.

Suppose JC was a plant from the very beginning, at the worst, or else just a ignorant novice, at the best.

Both types are DANGEROUS, because the IRS would use their examples of temporary successes to TRAP more followers and set precedents in order to muddy the water and eventually, through fear and intimidation, discredit the whole lawful money demand remedy that is in 12 USC 411.

It is VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A FIRM LOGICAL ACCOUNTING FOUNDATION for the WAY we are implementing the Federal Reserve Act Remedy codified at 12 USC 411 so that we can easily rebut any outrageous claims and allegations thrown at us who are using it.

I have tried to present that LOGICAL ACCOUNTING FOUNDATION.

Look at any W-2. Is there any box on that form that says "Net Income"?

Anyone who is taking that approach, or that "0" income approach that Chex cites (and no where shows a demand for lawful money) is headed for big trouble!

Anyone who does not demand lawful money for GROSS pay/wages on a W-2 is in contract with the FED. It is that simple. It is contract law.

Anyone in that position better amend that in-correct 1040 ASAP. IMO.

Anyone avoiding that issue is a dis-info agent in-fact, even if unwittingly.

The HIGHER LAW governing this issue is Mt 22:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/matthew/22-21.html)

Whose side are you on?

You are not going to be allowed to co-mingle those funds, or you will get in big trouble.

Make sure you demand lawful money for ALL transactions - especially the GROSS PAY transaction!

This is CRITICAL!!!

Perhaps this is WHY dis-info agents do NOT want to answer that question!

It is the KEY transaction !

LISTEN - If we at StSC do not make a firm stand on that KEY transaction, it very well could discredit the entire remedy David has discovered.

Wake up!

Most of us are W-2 Wage earners!!!

This is a BIG ISSUE.

Do NOT let anything else take away our focus from this BIG ISSUE.

Just imagine how many struggling families could use a 30% increase in their take home pay RIGHT NOW!

Do we realize how many people the StSC could help if we would get our act together?

And get rid of witting and unwitting dis-info agents, who promote fear, sarcasm, allegations, distractions, etc.

And build a core support group for David's discovery.




Doug555,

I agree with you, as seen below in my prior post (partial, from post #104). Even from the small sample size of your posts that I've seen, you state facts, law, accounting practices - 'stuff' that evidences your theories/methods. Why would anyone not back it up with EVIDENCE? As you stated here, the W-2 has various transactions that must be accounted for in the IRS ledger. Thus, the ALL transactions verbiage when RILM. And, where I believe you cited law to that effect, i.e. 'transactions'. My 'simple logic' example quoted below would seem to corroborate your theory/method. It all starts with GROSS PAY.

Via an addendum here (edit post), think about this: if I was a "troll", why would I do the following?:

Redeem my checks for the past 2 years (2013, 2014) ONLY on NET PAY, based on the pasted-within-this-thread letter sent to the U.S. Treasury I recorded at the County 2 years ago (w/o first doing extensive-enough research on the overall methods, law, and concepts - including the vital GROSS PAY/All-transactions method); THEN, just recently, ask for guidance on STSC on how to 'fill out' the Supporting Schedule to recover that money for those years, THEN, have Doug555 explain to me that a 'NET PAY' RILM was dangerous and educated me about 'all transactions' and RILM on GROSS PAY, THEN, look at what JohnnyCash has done (NET PAY reduction only) and THEN, ULTIMATELY decided from Doug555's explanation and warning that I have missed the GROSS PAY/All-transactions element, therefore deciding NOT to go ahead with a RILM 1040 Return for 2013 and 2014? So basically, 2 years of wasted RILM because of my misguided 'NET PAY' RILM procedure and hasty entry into this new endeavor. I'd rather be safe than sorry. I have over 20K in 6702 penalties including 1/2 of that in a wage levy to prove the hurt I have endured going with the PH CTC 'method'. I will gladly upload all that crap if needed, to prove my words.


I do find it odd to come up with a number greater than the starting Gross Pay, however it makes accounting sense if this is in fact a valid accounting method. I'm not well-versed enough in accounting overall, but I know that you DO have negative sides of a ledger to balance the other side. It would be nice if the IRS would specifically tell us but that will never happen.

I tend to believe you must account for the GROSS PAY in this (all transactions) because of this simple logic: if your employer paid you but did not make ANY deductions from your pay, but YOU had to make the deductions yourself and send them in, then the 'taxable event' is emphatically upon the GROSS PAY that you were paid. You would 1) RILM the GROSS PAY, and then 2) send the deductions in. I just don't see it happening on the NET pay alone. But there is 'NET pay success' out there, or as claimed, so go figure; but, does the 'NET pay success' make it technically correct? I tend to think not. Though I do believe Doug555 and his math relative to Gross Pay and the 1040, I'd like to verify the 'greater than gross pay' number from an accountant in a general accounting sense.

David Merrill
01-14-15, 01:27 AM
You might find it in about any Rules book around Rule 803, Rules of Evidence. There is really no way to prove your words without leading people to your doorstep from anywhere in cyberspace.

You might sanitize up a few images for us instead?

This is something I have been observing for quite some time. People are ready for remedy or not. Some that are not will be after a few more things click into place. I have seen some extraordinary cases where I simply imposed my metaphysics on a suitor and that has held abatement for over a decade, but speaking with the suitor about remedy makes me quite impatient and agitated because they still live in a two-dimensional plane of paranoid delirium and I wonder if them keeping their estate intact was worth the stunted development - the addiction to me to keep applying my metaphysics year after year?

I wonder if you can get why I am inserting this here...

Chex
01-14-15, 10:00 PM
Doug555, I agree with you, Gross Pay (http://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_gross_pay_and_net_pay_mean)everything is gross pay from (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/gross-pay.html)your first home to you last automobile


I'd rather be safe than sorry. I have over 20K in 6702 penalties including 1/2 of that in a wage levy to prove the hurt I have endured going with the PH CTC 'method'. I will gladly upload all that crap if needed, to prove my words.

This what I am talking about making someone responsible:

She also blasted the IRS for failing to put in place measures that hold employees accountable, recommending for example that managers approve tax liens and that IRS employees be required to put their names and contact information on audits.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/irs-service-degraded-taxpayers-to-pay-price-114257.html#ixzz3OpqHg9AM

itsmymoney
01-15-15, 12:15 AM
You might find it in about any Rules book around Rule 803, Rules of Evidence. There is really no way to prove your words without leading people to your doorstep from anywhere in cyberspace.

You might sanitize up a few images for us instead?

This is something I have been observing for quite some time. People are ready for remedy or not. Some that are not will be after a few more things click into place. I have seen some extraordinary cases where I simply imposed my metaphysics on a suitor and that has held abatement for over a decade, but speaking with the suitor about remedy makes me quite impatient and agitated because they still live in a two-dimensional plane of paranoid delirium and I wonder if them keeping their estate intact was worth the stunted development - the addiction to me to keep applying my metaphysics year after year?

I wonder if you can get why I am inserting this here...

David,

From your words I believe you are saying that some people never 'take the leap' to RILM. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. If I am correct, then for myself, and based on Doug555's GROSS PAY explanation of the actual taxable event and WHAT is to be redeemed in lawful money, then I am willing to wait until 2016 to properly RILM on my 2015 earnings based on the just-learned novation method ('all transactions' language on the front of check/slip) and the soon-to-be-County-recorded AFFIDAVIT supporting this method (i.e. 'RILM all transactions').

If I were to proceed with JohnnyCash's 'method' (only stating NET PAY on the 1040), then I believe this to be technically/lawfully incorrect for the reasons stated by Doug555. Despite the claims by JC that he has received his full income tax refund all these years, I believe he may be 'lucky' in the grand scheme. I could be wrong. However, the GROSS PAY is surely the starting point of any discussion when it comes to 'taxable event' and tax deductions. So as Doug555 stated, WHY would I ignore the starting point of any deductions from my GROSS PAY? As I stated before, if legally/lawfully it was up to me (instead of employer) to send in the deductions to the IRS, then why wouldn't I RILM on the GROSS PAY that I was paid? Is only the NET PAY that I've calculated to keep, taxable? NO!!! If the taxable event is on "wages", then THAT event is on the GROSS PAY. Your employer does not take your deductions/taxes from your NET pay, right?

I will gladly upload sanitized versions of whatever you'd like to see (I'm assuming you'd like to see the wage levy at the least). I will also upload RILM checks/slips that I have made over the past 2 years. You already have the copy/pasted 'Letter to the Treasury' of which I feel is 'empty' because it only states 'NET PAY-like' transactions in the demand. However, I'll try to find the County receipt/certification of this and also attach the original file. If my real name is exposed in any of the Properties of the doc, so be it. I'm not well-versed in knowing if that sort of thing will 'show up' in the upload. I'll sanitize as much as possible.

imm

allodial
01-15-15, 12:25 AM
2153

I've explained it many times like this:

[1] The redemption of scrip for lawful money 'sponsors' the instrument into "lawful money land"--it is akin to acceptance (i.e. being the primary creditor on the instrument or at least on your issue);
[2] the tax obligation associated with naked indorsement of private credit is on the perceived gain when the FRB/bank accepts/cancels the instrument for you thusly you gain from private credit and owe the tax --THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UNDERLYING FICA/SSA contribution --you are paying even FICA with lawful money then once the FRB-SSA-Treasury systems get processed.

I'm not sure how more clearly it can be explained. Its to do with checks/notes thusly it to do with bills of exchange, UCC, cancellation/discharge/acceptance/notes/dishonor/honor. It might help to look at the matter from a '1099-C perspective'. If I cancel/sponsor it for your 'use' then you are gaining (from doing nothing) thusly you get taxed on a 1040 schedule--like as in capital gains. Think: getting paid TWICE--once for the labor/principal that improved/passed through the estate that you jointly own, the second time from money the FRB/bank sponsored by cancelling your bill. (Tikkun Anthology?)

The FRB by design can't originate lawful money. You aren't gaining from your own money. HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE EXPLAINED? :) That doesn't affect FICA / insurance contribution requirement except it makes the inclusion LAWFUL MONEY. For those who hate 'the tax man' just maybe ***YOU** are the tax man (filling out IRS forms? collecting tax and paying it in?)! Thinking it affects FICA is like thinking because you won $20M in the lottery that you shouldn't have to pay the wire transfer fee--FICA is perhaps more like a "social credit" systemic maintenance fee.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY CREDITORS TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND HAS BEEN SINCE ITS INCEPTION. ALL OF THE LAWS PERTINENT TO SECURITIES REGULATION ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT YOUR INVESTMENT (SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940)--THOSE LAWS WERE MEANT TO CURB THE TRUSTEES OF THE POOLED ASSETS OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTORS (YOU!).
2149

WHAT ORGANIZATION IS THE CUSTODIAN FOR BOOK ENTRY SECURITIES AND SUCH INVESTMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES? THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM/BANKS

It should be clear how the FRB and the SSA link together --the FRB has the role of custodian for US Government securities, the SSA is investor. HOW MANY TIMES MUST THIS BE STATED? DOES IT HAVE TO BE ON TALKSHOE TO BE BELIEVED?

2150
2151
2152
HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE SAID THAT EACH FRB IS A CLEARINGHOUSE AND THAT CLEARINGHOUSES ISSUE OR HAVE CLEARINGHOUSE CERTIFICATES RATHER THAN LAWFUL MONEY?

Related:

31 CFR Part 357, Subpart B - Treasury/Reserve Automated Debt Entry System (TRADES) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/part-357/subpart-B)
(31 CFR 357.10 - Laws governing a Treasury book-entry security, TRADES, and security interests or entitlements.)
UCC Chapter 8 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/8) (hint: indirectly held securities)
UCC Article 8: Will the Indirect Holding of Securities Survive the Light of Day (2002) (http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2318&context=llr)
Conflict of Laws for Transactions in Securities Held Through Intermediaries (2006) (http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=lsfp)
CHAPTER 33. INSURANCE - ARTICLE 8A. USE OF CLEARING CORPORATIONS AND FEDERAL RESERVE BOOK-ENTRY SYSTEM. (http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODe/Code.cfm?chap=33&art=8A#08A)
SSA's $2+ Trillion Surplus (http://americansforamerica.com/index.php/recent-posts/entry/social-security-not-broke-there-is-a-2-3-trillion-dollar-surplus-america-is-being-duped-must-read)
Government Owes $2.7 Trillion to Social Security (http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/05/23/government-owes-2-7-trillion-to-social-security/)

David Merrill
01-15-15, 11:36 PM
Thank you in advance for sanitizing and sharing examples; here or on a new thread.

My point in that cryptic post is that examples are wasted on people who need examples.

itsmymoney
01-15-15, 11:49 PM
David Merrill/all,

As promised, full disclosure of what I have stated in this thread. If you need more I will provide it within reason.

The Notice of Levy was for over 10k. I had a second set of penalties for over 10k of which I paid off without a wage levy. I did not want my employer involved any further.

You will notice the change in novation starting with the 2014 file (actually 2015 tax year, deposit from 2014 check) - handwritten on the front, and adding 95(a)(2).

Thank you.
imm

Chex
01-16-15, 01:11 AM
I think the only way you can get everything resolved is in the court but it has to the correct court where jurisdiction and relief can be granted and all their other rules and regulations apply.

All your paper work is in order; grabbing all oaths of office and bonds and for the record put the operations manager Kelly Taylor not an IRS lawyer on the stand because she is the one that did this to you; and have the judge ask Taylor why this was done to you when the law states that everyone/anyone can claim lawful money and why I am being subject to punishment for it if it’s the law written in the USC.

You will be setting case law not just for you but for the record; you can’t have someone talk for you because an attorney first duty is to whom?

David/Doug and the others including the law armed you with all the ammunition you need and you should be compensated for all the harassment.

If more people were educated about their own finances and the law you could have a jury trial, and if you can hand pick that jury that knows there is something other what they think is a tax.

allodial
01-16-15, 01:12 AM
I also suspect the language should focus on redemption rather than demand. If demand then subsequent to redemption.

Chex
01-16-15, 01:16 AM
Your being nice about it allodial isn't it the demand for and the redemption of? Demand that the law be followed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Werfel).

itsmymoney
01-16-15, 02:03 AM
I think the only way you can get everything resolved is in the court but it has to the correct court where jurisdiction and relief can be granted and all their other rules and regulations apply.

All your paper work is in order; grabbing all oaths of office and bonds and for the record put the operations manager Kelly Taylor not an IRS lawyer on the stand because she is the one that did this to you; and have the judge ask Taylor why this was done to you when the law states that everyone/anyone can claim lawful money and why I am being subject to punishment for it if it’s the law written in the USC.

You will be setting case law not just for you but for the record; you can’t have someone talk for you because an attorney first duty is to whom?

David/Doug and the others including the law armed you with all the ammunition you need and you should be compensated for all the harassment.

If more people were educated about their own finances and the law you could have a jury trial, and if you can hand pick that jury that knows there is something other what they think is a tax.

Chex,

Thanks for your insight. However, the files I posted were mostly to prove to the suitors that I 'had the goods' behind my words, and to evidence the reasons why I decided not to RILM for 2013 and 2014. The Levy occurred on CTC returns, not lawful money. However, I agree that Kelly Taylor should pay for her evil deeds but I believe the ship has sailed on that one, I'm afraid.

In summary of the past few pages of posts:
1) The Treasury Demand file is demanding RILM only on NET PAY transactions - NOT GROSS.
2) In step with that letter, I demanded lawful money only on the NET PAY checks as you can see by the 2013 files. This may pass muster with IRS, and I believe many suitors employ this method, however after Doug555's explanation on why this could be iffy I decided to wait until 2016 to put-the-ink-to-the-1040-paper, so to speak. BECAUSE I have been greatly punished financially, I am just a bit wary of taking the reduction only on net pay. Can you blame me?
3) As seen in the 2014 file, my first 2015 check/slip demand contains handwritten USC 411 and 95(a)(2) language on the FRONT of both. And, I've included basically the same language on the back of the check. You can see the difference in method from my prior demands.
4) I still need to go down to County and record my notarized new Demand for ALL transactions in lawful money. Covers GROSS PAY, all tax deductions, ATM wd's, whatever. Speaking of which: got a copy of the bank notary's Commission Certification when she signed my new Demand. Q: Can I trust her copy (as evidence) or should I get her recorded copy from the County?

You will notice the difference in tact here. I am forsaking the chance at TWO YEARS worth of RILM (on NET PAY only) because of what I believe to be a correct and more proper interpretation of facts, law and evidence-gathering behind the 'ALL transactions' method. But others want me to 'just jump in' because it worked for them. That's what I did with CTC returns. How'd that work out for me? I'd rather be safe than sorry.

allodial
01-16-15, 02:13 AM
Your being nice about it allodial isn't it the demand for and the redemption of? Demand that the law be followed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Werfel).

The validity of Werfel's office seems highly questionable (i.e. is he a 'firewall'?). I would direct all related correspondence to the Treasurer of the United Staets, to the Secretary of the Treasury and to Christopher J. Meade, Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury and cc: the State AG, the U.S. district attorney or the chief justice of whatever U.S. district court office is nearest you. Regarding demanding that the law be followed -> writ of mandamus (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/writ+of+mandamus). These days when i see "Acting {anything}" I'd tend to look up the organization chart or look for a deputy or departmental counsel to include in case the "Acting {anything}" is a 'firewall' (without bond, proper oath or office).


4) I still need to go down to County and record my notarized new Demand for ALL transactions in lawful money. Covers GROSS PAY, all tax deductions, ATM wd's, whatever. Speaking of which: got a copy of the bank notary's Commission Certification when she signed my new Demand. Q: Can I trust her copy (as evidence) or should I get her recorded copy from the County?

Off the top, usually notaries are prohibited from notarizing something to which they are a party. If you want to make a 'bulletproof package', I'd go to the county clerk or whoever the official is to get a certified copy.

itsmymoney
01-16-15, 03:01 AM
The validity of Werfel's office seems highly questionable (i.e. is he a 'firewall'?). I would direct all related correspondence to the Treasurer of the United Staets, to the Secretary of the Treasury and to Christopher J. Meade, Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury and cc: the State AG, the U.S. district attorney or the chief justice of whatever U.S. district court office is nearest you. Regarding demanding that the law be followed -> writ of mandamus (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/writ+of+mandamus). These days when i see "Acting {anything}" I'd tend to look up the organization chart or look for a deputy or departmental counsel to include in case the "Acting {anything}" is a 'firewall' (without bond, proper oath or office).



Off the top, usually notaries are prohibited from notarizing something to which they are a party. If you want to make a 'bulletproof package', I'd go to the county clerk or whoever the official is to get a certified copy.

allodial,

That was my original thought and instinct, so I will follow-thru with the county-recorded certified copy of her commission. Thanks for confirming.

Chex
01-16-15, 03:14 AM
CTC returns are in the past today is a new day and no ship has sailed because it’s all about the money and the education you/me/us learned which is now the truth of the matter, let them bring up the past, its today’s issues you’re dealing with.

As far as demanding lawful money is on everything as far as I’m concerned, I don’t care if it’s a pack of gum.

County records are good but I think it goes far beyond a record (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902), something else is missing that makes more force and IDK yet what that is.

Sure I see the highly questionable firewalls allodial, but we all know this is the food chain one part of the problem and what a great day in court it would be to hand all of them a subpoena and have them state for the record you can’t follow the law.

I would make friends with a real good reporter (http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/14/lois-lerner-tried-to-block-supervisors-visit-because-she-feared-targeting-would-be-exposed/)and give him a education and take him/her to court with me, the media loves this type of news, there not done with Lerner (http://www.bing.com/search?q=lois%20lerner&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=lois%20lerner&sc=8-11&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=be1fd2749f354c888629252df5a3f013)yet.

OMB (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902)notarized evidence documents of 12USC411 and others.

You can argue with the counter trolls all you want it’s the boss you want.

itsmymoney
01-21-15, 03:50 AM
Ok, novice here with Google Drive and 'cloud' and creating a URL for the documents on Google Drive.

1) I've uploaded some docs to my 'MY DRIVE' on Google Drive. This is probably a stupid question, but until I 'share' MY DRIVE with others then those docs are private to me, correct? Probably should have asked that question prior, but here we are.

2) Doug555 mentioned TINYURL.com so I went there. They give you an example of a long url which is then converted to a small one. So let's say I convert my personal MY DRIVE url to a small one. So I then provide that tiny url on my 1040 for the IRS to view the checks/slips. My question is: So just by providing that tiny url to 'someone' (in this case IRS) they can then view those docs on my personal MY DRIVE? I was under the impression that you need to grant 'share permissions' to others to view your MY DRIVE files, so I'm confused with how this all works.

3) Is that LUMIN PDF viewer 'secure'? It's a 3rd-party viewer, but I'm probably over thinking it here. Main reason is that some of the PDF docs are upside down and I/others need the rotation feature to right-side-them up.

Any help is greatly appreciated for the novice. Thanks.

ag maniac
01-21-15, 03:20 PM
Ok, novice here with Google Drive and 'cloud' and creating a URL for the documents on Google Drive.

1) I've uploaded some docs to my 'MY DRIVE' on Google Drive. This is probably a stupid question, but until I 'share' MY DRIVE with others then those docs are private to me, correct? Probably should have asked that question prior, but here we are.

That is correct


2) Doug555 mentioned TINYURL.com so I went there. They give you an example of a long url which is then converted to a small one. So let's say I convert my personal MY DRIVE url to a small one. So I then provide that tiny url on my 1040 for the IRS to view the checks/slips. My question is: So just by providing that tiny url to 'someone' (in this case IRS) they can then view those docs on my personal MY DRIVE? I was under the impression that you need to grant 'share permissions' to others to view your MY DRIVE files, so I'm confused with how this all works.

I just did the google drive for the 1st time the other day also, but it's pretty simple really. I recall there were three options for sharing:
1 - No share, you view/edit only
2 - Anybody w/ a link you give them (IMPORTANT you check off VIEW ONLY)
3 - Everybody/Anybody which allows the "busy-bodys" to find the docs off a search engine (check VIEW ONLY of course)


3) Is that LUMIN PDF viewer 'secure'? It's a 3rd-party viewer, but I'm probably over thinking it here. Main reason is that some of the PDF docs are upside down and I/others need the rotation feature to right-side-them up.

I noticed this the other day on one of your posts here....stuff was upside down....sounds to me like you might have to rotate your docs 180° before sending them out to the interwebs


Any help is greatly appreciated for the novice. Thanks.


I was able to check all this stuff out about my new Google drive....I use Chrome as my browser of choice, but I also have Internet Explorer 8. So signed in @ Chrome, & I couldn't access the Google drive shared link on IE8 until I set the share correctly.

Hope this helps IMM ;)

JohnnyCash
01-21-15, 03:45 PM
The Treasury letter is dated Nov 1 1982.

allodial
01-22-15, 02:59 AM
the treasury letter is dated nov 1 1982.
2179
Insolence! :D

itsmymoney
01-24-15, 04:03 PM
Originally Posted by itsmymoney
Ok, novice here with Google Drive and 'cloud' and creating a URL for the documents on Google Drive.

1) I've uploaded some docs to my 'MY DRIVE' on Google Drive. This is probably a stupid question, but until I 'share' MY DRIVE with others then those docs are private to me, correct? Probably should have asked that question prior, but here we are.
That is correct

Originally Posted by itsmymoney
2) Doug555 mentioned TINYURL.com so I went there. They give you an example of a long url which is then converted to a small one. So let's say I convert my personal MY DRIVE url to a small one. So I then provide that tiny url on my 1040 for the IRS to view the checks/slips. My question is: So just by providing that tiny url to 'someone' (in this case IRS) they can then view those docs on my personal MY DRIVE? I was under the impression that you need to grant 'share permissions' to others to view your MY DRIVE files, so I'm confused with how this all works.
I just did the google drive for the 1st time the other day also, but it's pretty simple really. I recall there were three options for sharing:
1 - No share, you view/edit only
2 - Anybody w/ a link you give them (IMPORTANT you check off VIEW ONLY)
3 - Everybody/Anybody which allows the "busy-bodys" to find the docs off a search engine (check VIEW ONLY of course)

Originally Posted by itsmymoney
3) Is that LUMIN PDF viewer 'secure'? It's a 3rd-party viewer, but I'm probably over thinking it here. Main reason is that some of the PDF docs are upside down and I/others need the rotation feature to right-side-them up.
I noticed this the other day on one of your posts here....stuff was upside down....sounds to me like you might have to rotate your docs 180° before sending them out to the interwebs

Originally Posted by itsmymoney
Any help is greatly appreciated for the novice. Thanks.

I was able to check all this stuff out about my new Google drive....I use Chrome as my browser of choice, but I also have Internet Explorer 8. So signed in @ Chrome, & I couldn't access the Google drive shared link on IE8 until I set the share correctly.

Hope this helps IMM :D

ag maniac (or anyone else well-versed here),

I uploaded a folder that contains all the lawful money (LM) scans. So should I 'tiny-url' the 'My Drive' url that shows the as-yet unopened LM folder, or open the folder that displays all the documents and 'tiny-url' that url? I'm thinking that sharing the LM folder (check the box next to it) with the 'My Drive' tiny url will allow the tiny url possesor to open the folder and view all the documents within. Does anyone know if this will work? Or do you need to open the folder and share all those files with THAT url (the url of the opened folder)?

Thank you.

ag maniac
01-24-15, 04:46 PM
[/COLOR]

ag maniac (or anyone else well-versed here),

I uploaded a folder that contains all the lawful money (LM) scans. So should I 'tiny-url' the 'My Drive' url that shows the as-yet unopened LM folder, or open the folder that displays all the documents and 'tiny-url' that url? I'm thinking that sharing the LM folder (check the box next to it) with the 'My Drive' tiny url will allow the tiny url possesor to open the folder and view all the documents within. Does anyone know if this will work? Or do you need to open the folder and share all those files with THAT url (the url of the opened folder)?


Indeed, you have provided the correct solution

itsmymoney
01-24-15, 04:59 PM
Indeed, you have provided the correct solution

ag maniac,

I thought the 'folder method' would work but I don't want to chance it. As you noted, I'll open the folder, select all the files within and then share them with the url of the opened folder.

On our way to gaining back our country, one demand at a time :D

ag, thanks for confirming this. I really appreciate the help.

imm