PDA

View Full Version : I received a 3176C 'frivolous letter' for 2013 1040x Amended return with LM demand



itsmymoney
04-20-15, 10:25 PM
Well folks, all is not well for me in LM land. Probably bit off more than I could chew, but regardless. Let me explain...

Filed a regular (late) 1040 for 2013 in December 2014. I had to file quickly for reasons I won't get into here. Then, since I had redeemed ALL of my checks in lawful money for 2013, I filed an amended 1040x including the lawful money deduction end of February 2015. Probably should have let it go, but there it is. Unfortunately today I received a 3176C letter stating that I have submitted a 'return or purported return claiming one or more frivolous positions'.

So I'm supposed to file a 'corrected return' within 30 days or they will start the collection process. But I've ALREADY filed an original return! And where does it say taking a lawful money deduction is 'frivolous'. And this coming off just receiving my LM REFUND for 2014!!! So surely mentioning the 2014 refund in my defense of 2013 will draw red flags for THAT return, no?

I'm beside myself. I'm considering calling them to explain that I have already filed a return. I can't file again, right? Where is their evidence that taking a LM deduction is 'frivolous'? They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN! At best I'd like to stalemate them into not collecting.

Any suggestions are welcome. I'm also considering contacting Marc Stevens as well, but I know David and others have great ideas here as well.
imm

itsmymoney

Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:34 pm

Michael Joseph
04-20-15, 10:33 PM
Well folks, all is not well for me in LM land. Probably bit off more than I could chew, but regardless. Let me explain...

Filed a regular (late) 1040 for 2013 in December 2014. I had to file quickly for reasons I won't get into here. Then, since I had redeemed ALL of my checks in lawful money for 2013, I filed an amended 1040x including the lawful money deduction end of February 2015. Probably should have let it go, but there it is. Unfortunately today I received a 3176C letter stating that I have submitted a 'return or purported return claiming one or more frivolous positions'.

So I'm supposed to file a 'corrected return' within 30 days or they will start the collection process. But I've ALREADY filed an original return! And where does it say taking a lawful money deduction is 'frivolous'. And this coming off just receiving my LM REFUND for 2014!!! So surely mentioning the 2014 refund in my defense of 2013 will draw red flags for THAT return, no?

I'm beside myself. I'm considering calling them to explain that I have already filed a return. I can't file again, right? Where is their evidence that taking a LM deduction is 'frivolous'? They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN! At best I'd like to stalemate them into not collecting.

Any suggestions are welcome. I'm also considering contacting Marc Stevens as well, but I know David and others have great ideas here as well.
imm

itsmymoney

Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:34 pm

Beard v commissioner Read it. That is the basis most likely of their claim. I think beard argued on exchange theory.

A few phone calls and perhaps a letter or two should clear up the matter.

I have been down this road. Read their arguments regarding zero returns. Most likely they are relying on those Supreme Court rulings. Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing.

Regards
MJ

itsmymoney
04-21-15, 12:20 AM
Beard v commissioner Read it. That is the basis most likely of their claim. I think beard argued on exchange theory.

A few phone calls and perhaps a letter or two should clear up the matter.

I have been down this road. Read their arguments regarding zero returns. Most likely they are relying on those Supreme Court rulings. Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing.

Regards
MJ

Michael,

Thank you for responding so quickly.

I read 'Beard', and have before but it was a good refresher.

The 1040x did not zero-out all tax liability. I simply stated a LM negative offset in column B (Net Change) on Line 1 which is the 'Adjusted Gross Income' line. I was left with a tax liability but much less than the original. Perhaps you can clarify your comment "Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing."

The 1040x does not have a 'Line 21' to enter the LM negative offset, therefore I stated the offset on Line 1. Now there is a Line 7 'credits' and a Line 10 'other taxes' but they do not appear to apply to the LM deduction. I also did not think it prudent to place the offset in Line 2 (itemized deductions or standard deduction).

Frankly, when I decided to send an amended LM return I was hesitant to do so given my history we these criminals. So now I need the proper strategy and responses to avert this.

Michael Joseph
04-21-15, 02:59 AM
Michael,

Thank you for responding so quickly.

I read 'Beard', and have before but it was a good refresher.

The 1040x did not zero-out all tax liability. I simply stated a LM negative offset in column B (Net Change) on Line 1 which is the 'Adjusted Gross Income' line. I was left with a tax liability but much less than the original. Perhaps you can clarify your comment "Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing."

The 1040x does not have a 'Line 21' to enter the LM negative offset, therefore I stated the offset on Line 1. Now there is a Line 7 'credits' and a Line 10 'other taxes' but they do not appear to apply to the LM deduction. I also did not think it prudent to place the offset in Line 2 (itemized deductions or standard deduction).

Frankly, when I decided to send an amended LM return I was hesitant to do so given my history we these criminals. So now I need the proper strategy and responses to avert this.

You are welcome.

I am familiar with the tact. I have never used it but can see it has value for one who understand what he is doing. Also see US v Rifen. Read Beard carefully. Remember at common law I can prosecute from my court - with two "good faith" notices and silence I have my judgement - I only need enforcement. Read between the lines and you will see without me telling you.

Clarification on statement: I know you did not file a zero return...that does not matter one bit to the argument of friv filing. Myself I just called a couple of times got a very nice lady on the phone and talked her thru the agencies mistake. I have posted extensively in these forums concerning the fact that the front line people are mostly ignorant. Treat them nicely and they will return the favor. Remember the call is being recorded - that is a good thing. Especially if a MISTAKE has occurred.

As for my part, I did not wait, I called immediately. Of course I could not accept their notice so I wrote them a letter thanking them for their good faith notice but kindly refusing on the cause of the incorrect presumption of obligation.

The trustee is ALWAYS presumed guilty and must prove his/her innocence. The creator of the use [CQU] is making a demand for return of ledger upon a "presumed trustee".

Again, I don't follow the tact used in this return - i can see its merits but I can't understand it and therefore I don't use what I don't comprehend and can't understand. I keep it very simple. I look forward to the day when i can have a face to face sit down with one of their agents - I was attempting to gain such an audience but alas they wanted to just talk to me on the phone.

1. If you read Beard what was faulty concerning the argument?
2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) – the court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer’s argument that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”

3. Can you point out the flaw in RICKMAN's argument?


Regards,
MJ

itsmymoney
04-22-15, 12:28 AM
You are welcome.

I am familiar with the tact. I have never used it but can see it has value for one who understand what he is doing. Also see US v Rifen. Read Beard carefully. Remember at common law I can prosecute from my court - with two "good faith" notices and silence I have my judgement - I only need enforcement. Read between the lines and you will see without me telling you.

Clarification on statement: I know you did not file a zero return...that does not matter one bit to the argument of friv filing. Myself I just called a couple of times got a very nice lady on the phone and talked her thru the agencies mistake. I have posted extensively in these forums concerning the fact that the front line people are mostly ignorant. Treat them nicely and they will return the favor. Remember the call is being recorded - that is a good thing. Especially if a MISTAKE has occurred.

As for my part, I did not wait, I called immediately. Of course I could not accept their notice so I wrote them a letter thanking them for their good faith notice but kindly refusing on the cause of the incorrect presumption of obligation.

The trustee is ALWAYS presumed guilty and must prove his/her innocence. The creator of the use [CQU] is making a demand for return of ledger upon a "presumed trustee".

Again, I don't follow the tact used in this return - i can see its merits but I can't understand it and therefore I don't use what I don't comprehend and can't understand. I keep it very simple. I look forward to the day when i can have a face to face sit down with one of their agents - I was attempting to gain such an audience but alas they wanted to just talk to me on the phone.

1. If you read Beard what was faulty concerning the argument?
2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) – the court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer’s argument that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”

3. Can you point out the flaw in RICKMAN's argument?


Regards,
MJ


Michael,

Quite the challenge you have posed! I accept. I am particularly interested in the 'prosecute my court' common-law tact. I relish going to the Courthouse or County-Recorder to file the proper documents. I am also considering a deny, deny, deny, 'no contest' response; which, perhaps can be a 'last resort' to what you have proposed here or in conjunction with said tact.

I will read the cited cases (I just mentioned RICKMAN to a suitor yesterday) and get back in a day or two with hopefully some good answers to your questions. If I can't find examples/procedures on that common-law 'prosecution' option perhaps you or someone can point me in the right direction. This battle I'm in is really a battle for everyone who is redeeming lawful money - and for reclaiming our rights.

Grateful for your involvement and for sharing your knowledge.
imm

EZrhythm
04-22-15, 03:03 AM
Well stated Michael!

Frivolous Filing notices are just that, a NOTICE and we all know what to do with a notice, "Refused For Cause".

Since certain clerical workers are not familiar with Refused For Cause it may be best to fashion one's own Notice and adding a bit more verbiage.

"NOTICE - Your notice regarding a frivilous filing penalty is refused for cause without dishonor. No liabiity is assumed and no consent nor acceptance of said notice is given."


Here is an informative read on the commercial aspects but when Section 3 is mentioned that is pertaining to negotiable instruments-
http://freedom-school.com/5-ways-to-handle-a-presentment.pdf
(http://freedom-school.com/5-ways-to-handle-a-presentment.pdf)

Michael Joseph
04-22-15, 05:46 PM
Michael,

Quite the challenge you have posed! I accept. I am particularly interested in the 'prosecute my court' common-law tact. I relish going to the Courthouse or County-Recorder to file the proper documents. I am also considering a deny, deny, deny, 'no contest' response; which, perhaps can be a 'last resort' to what you have proposed here or in conjunction with said tact.

Grateful for your involvement and for sharing your knowledge.
imm

You are welcome. If you will realize it then you will see that the agency is prosecuting from common law. It is a battle field of words and like Carl JUNG said when men have been reduced to statistical units then it matters not where in the ladder of statehood men or women act they are bound by their own fictions. So then we are talking about an account.

The promised land is everywhere - the chief shepherd has defaulted and therefore a resulting trust exists for those who understand and have honor enough to pick it up and go in and TAKE DOMINION. Nevertheless the international corporation exists today in Statehood - but who will understand the State? Will it be insurance? Perhaps the bottom of the keel needs insurance - Bottomry. But who will understand the accounts that understand the insurance accounts? Where is the value that understands the value? Whereof is origins? Think and you will find it.

You can feel free to jump in on the circle anytime you want. When you begin to see you rise above it all and it cannot bind you anymore. For how much insurance is enough? Accidentally kill someone and you will see you can never have enough. Therefore the ship of state has leaks.

Noah go build your ark and find rest. Those looking for some boat are lost - they "miss the boat" literally and figuratively.

I sit on a Board of Trustees managing the operations of a local farm. We created "veggie bucks" in order to trade within our private law boundary - but said bucks are bearer bonds - redeemable in real substance upon demand and exchange - those bucks might even one day be able to buy equity in the avails produced by the farm. Moo.

Nevertheless if you have a valid claim will you prosecute upon your claim or will you allow some numbskull clerk to print some "form letter" and remove you from your birth right? You decide.

For what can one man do? One man can change the world. One man can build a castle IF he gets up every day and goes to work! My word assures my ship of state!

Understand capacity. In one capacity you pledge your faith and credit. In another capacity you are reduced to a mere business man within the confines of corporate boundary. Who made Who? The constituted State is a wonderful fiction as long as the individual is free to express his/her gifts. When the "mean" becomes the norm then the "mass" is nothing but a scientific statical average. A blur of humanity serving a COMPUTER.



With best regards,
MJ

Chex
04-22-15, 06:03 PM
Interesting MJ. Veggie Bucks | Urban Oaks Organic Farm?

itsmymoney
04-24-15, 11:22 PM
You are welcome.

I am familiar with the tact. I have never used it but can see it has value for one who understand what he is doing. Also see US v Rifen. Read Beard carefully. Remember at common law I can prosecute from my court - with two "good faith" notices and silence I have my judgement - I only need enforcement. Read between the lines and you will see without me telling you.

Clarification on statement: I know you did not file a zero return...that does not matter one bit to the argument of friv filing. Myself I just called a couple of times got a very nice lady on the phone and talked her thru the agencies mistake. I have posted extensively in these forums concerning the fact that the front line people are mostly ignorant. Treat them nicely and they will return the favor. Remember the call is being recorded - that is a good thing. Especially if a MISTAKE has occurred.

As for my part, I did not wait, I called immediately. Of course I could not accept their notice so I wrote them a letter thanking them for their good faith notice but kindly refusing on the cause of the incorrect presumption of obligation.

The trustee is ALWAYS presumed guilty and must prove his/her innocence. The creator of the use [CQU] is making a demand for return of ledger upon a "presumed trustee".

Again, I don't follow the tact used in this return - i can see its merits but I can't understand it and therefore I don't use what I don't comprehend and can't understand. I keep it very simple. I look forward to the day when i can have a face to face sit down with one of their agents - I was attempting to gain such an audience but alas they wanted to just talk to me on the phone.

1. If you read Beard what was faulty concerning the argument?
2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) – the court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer’s argument that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”

3. Can you point out the flaw in RICKMAN's argument?


Regards,
MJ


MJ,

I would like to respond in part here, specifically for number 2. ...

2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

The argument...


Rifen testified as to his belief that federal reserve notes are not authorized by the United States Constitution because they are not redeemable in specie, and are therefore not subject to taxation

The law as disclosed by the judge himself...


No such evidence was necessary. Congress has declared federal reserve notes legal tender, 31 U.S.C. § 392, and federal reserve notes are taxable dollars.

So 'federal reserve notes' THEMSELVES are 'taxable dollars'. Did the judge really say that, on the record?!!!!!! In other words, Rifen's "wages" (i.e. pay, though "statutory" in that respect) were in the form of FRN's therefore 'taxable dollars'.

Basically the judge is saying that the tax was/is SOLELY on the use of FRN's..."federal reserve notes are taxable dollars."

Rifen's argument is faulty because he was arguing 'form of payment', not 'redemption of payment'. He did not have the option of specie (gold, silver), but he DID have the option to redeem in lawful money in the form of U.S. Notes - but he mentioned nothing in that respect.

That's how I'm seeing it. Would like your comments, MJ. Thanks.

Michael Joseph
04-25-15, 01:57 AM
MJ,

I would like to respond in part here, specifically for number 2. ...

2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

The argument...



The law as disclosed by the judge himself...



So 'federal reserve notes' THEMSELVES are 'taxable dollars'. Did the judge really say that, on the record?!!!!!! In other words, Rifen's "wages" (i.e. pay, though "statutory" in that respect) were in the form of FRN's therefore 'taxable dollars'.

Basically the judge is saying that the tax was/is SOLELY on the use of FRN's..."federal reserve notes are taxable dollars."

Rifen's argument is faulty because he was arguing 'form of payment', not 'redemption of payment'. He did not have the option of specie (gold, silver), but he DID have the option to redeem in lawful money in the form of U.S. Notes - but he mentioned nothing in that respect.

That's how I'm seeing it. Would like your comments, MJ. Thanks.

Forget about substance. Money is what you trade with as a medium of exchange. Now quit on money and think TRUST. You must comprehend trusts. Who is underwriting the Money. Meaning the use of FRN's reflects a bond deposited with the Federal Reserve. So it is the United States bond which is underwriting the FRN. So in a sense the FRN is a promise to perform backed by US Bonds. And US Bonds are understood in substance internationally and in pledges domestically. Nevertheless there is equity understanding the notes in circulation.

The use of the notes is a benefit subject to an obligation. This is why I have endeavored so much to explore Uses, Trust, CQU and CQT.

Now when you get your mind around that then OF COURSE FRN's are taxable - or said another way - subject to the use fee. To argue against that is to deny the existence of the trust and the benefit of law.

Now the FRN is a dual capacity note. The greater always redeems the lesser. Therefore I don't care what you give me as long as it is legal tender. I fulfill the law when I make my demand for lawful money. Now is the law no more once I make my demand or does it still stand upon a future choice? Can it be said that I am forever without the IRS revenue agents just because I demand lawful money today? Perhaps I will do a deal tomorrow based on fractional reserve lending practices. Therefore there is always a presumption.

And since computers are the front line gate keepers these days, it may be a while before a living soul is reached.

The use bears the title TAXPAYER.

Regards,
MJ

itsmymoney
04-25-15, 09:33 PM
Forget about substance. Money is what you trade with as a medium of exchange. Now quit on money and think TRUST. You must comprehend trusts. Who is underwriting the Money. Meaning the use of FRN's reflects a bond deposited with the Federal Reserve. So it is the United States bond which is underwriting the FRN. So in a sense the FRN is a promise to perform backed by US Bonds. And US Bonds are understood in substance internationally and in pledges domestically. Nevertheless there is equity understanding the notes in circulation.

The use of the notes is a benefit subject to an obligation. This is why I have endeavored so much to explore Uses, Trust, CQU and CQT.

Now when you get your mind around that then OF COURSE FRN's are taxable - or said another way - subject to the use fee. To argue against that is to deny the existence of the trust and the benefit of law.

Now the FRN is a dual capacity note. The greater always redeems the lesser. Therefore I don't care what you give me as long as it is legal tender. I fulfill the law when I make my demand for lawful money. Now is the law no more once I make my demand or does it still stand upon a future choice? Can it be said that I am forever without the IRS revenue agents just because I demand lawful money today? Perhaps I will do a deal tomorrow based on fractional reserve lending practices. Therefore there is always a presumption.

And since computers are the front line gate keepers these days, it may be a while before a living soul is reached.

The use bears the title TAXPAYER.

Regards,
MJ

Yes, the TRUST angle (and associated terms CQU, CQT). Been seeing that throughout other threads here and also by a respected poster on the CB's forum. It appears that the 'obligation' (or not) is very much the topic when it comes to the return of the estate (1040), as it has been referenced. It is true that the money itself is not taxable, but rather the "income" (gain, benefit, profit) as a result of some 'excise-taxable event'.

As I'm interpreting this, exercising a RILM demand ends the obligation of any benefit derived from FRN usage, based on the option of redeeming money solely with the U.S Treasury and not 'contracting' with a 3rd party (the Federal Reserve). If that is true, then it would appear that Govco or the Treasury is 'contracted/obligated' to repay the debt to the Fed from their own coffers and not 'me'.

BLBereans
04-25-15, 11:47 PM
Yes, the TRUST angle (and associated terms CQU, CQT). Been seeing that throughout other threads here and also by a respected poster on the CB's forum. It appears that the 'obligation' (or not) is very much the topic when it comes to the return of the estate (1040), as it has been referenced. It is true that the money itself is not taxable, but rather the "income" (gain, benefit, profit) as a result of some 'excise-taxable event'.

As I'm interpreting this, exercising a RILM demand ends the obligation of any benefit derived from FRN usage, based on the option of redeeming money solely with the U.S Treasury and not 'contracting' with a 3rd party (the Federal Reserve). If that is true, then it would appear that Govco or the Treasury is 'contracted/obligated' to repay the debt to the Fed from their own coffers and not 'me'.

Have you considered that you still derive a benefit from the use of "demanded lawful money"? Are you the creator of these notes, whether "redeemed" or not? Do you own these notes? If not, who does?

Have you considered that said notes are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States"? Where does United States acquire said "full faith and credit"? What backs this "full faith and credit"?

If United States does NOT live and breathe, it must use the energy and property of those who do as collateral, no? Did you pledge? Was it pledged for you? Did you acknowledge, agree with and/or execute completion of said pledge?

itsmymoney?

If it's truly "your money", then why are you concerned with avoiding a tax liability from a foreign entity?

itsmymoney
04-26-15, 02:28 PM
Have you considered that you still derive a benefit from the use of "demanded lawful money"? Are you the creator of these notes, whether "redeemed" or not? Do you own these notes? If not, who does?

Have you considered that said notes are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States"? Where does United States acquire said "full faith and credit"? What backs this "full faith and credit"?

If United States does NOT live and breathe, it must use the energy and property of those who do as collateral, no? Did you pledge? Was it pledged for you? Did you acknowledge, agree with and/or execute completion of said pledge?

itsmymoney?

If it's truly "your money", then why are you concerned with avoiding a tax liability from a foreign entity?

Do I not have a choice to avoid a private contract with the Fed? I admit that Obamacare seems to set a precedent otherwise, but then that 'law' is a farce against the Constitution regardless of what the SC decided (of whom they are becoming more biased for GovCo every day). If the law is to be honored then I DO have a choice to avoid the PRESUMPTION of a tax liability. I MUST be concerned about avoiding it because I am FORCED TO by the coercion of signing those presumptive-indentured-slave W-4 forms. See HJR-192 below for clarity.

https://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/hjr-192/

doug555
04-26-15, 02:49 PM
IMO, all of their contracts rightly presume the use of FRNs.

It is OK for one to sign a W-4, just in case that presumption ever becomes ratified by one's future conduct/actions.

However, I ensure that my conduct always rebuts that presumption by continually writing my disclaimer on my checks and deposits slips in this manner:

2533


This is how I got started (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html), and it has worked successfully for 4 years now.

If it works to rebut a tax-liability contract, why should we think that it does not work for all other contracts that are based on FRN-usage?

itsmymoney
04-26-15, 06:25 PM
IMO, all of their contracts rightly presume the use of FRNs.

It is OK for one to sign a W-4, just in case that presumption ever becomes ratified by one's future conduct/actions.

However, I ensure that my conduct always rebuts that presumption by continually writing my disclaimer on my checks and deposits slips in this manner:

2533


This is how I got started (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html), and it has worked successfully for 4 years now.

If it works to rebut a tax-liability contract, why should we think that it does not work for all other contracts that are based on FRN-usage?


Doug, thanks for the comments and the links again. The '1040blogspot' is a true work of art and a great one-stop-shop for 1040 'stuff' in this regard.

BTW, I filed LM 'net' deduction for 2014 and received the 'net' deduction despite NOT attaching a supporting schedule. The adjacent area to the left of my Line 21 says, "Lawful Money (see http:/tinyurl.com/'the cloud folder of LM evidence')". I know the supporting schedule is necessary for the 'all transactions' method; but is it necessary for the 'net pay' method if I have disclosed the location of the evidence via the url on the 1040 itself? They processed it, but I'm wondering if I ever get a 'notice' for this filing whether the lack of a supporting schedule is significant going forward. I suppose that is opinion, but would like to hear yours.

Regards,
imm

doug555
04-26-15, 07:16 PM
Doug, thanks for the comments and the links again. The '1040blogspot' is a true work of art and a great one-stop-shop for 1040 'stuff' in this regard.

BTW, I filed LM 'net' deduction for 2014 and received the 'net' deduction despite NOT attaching a supporting schedule. The adjacent area to the left of my Line 21 says, "Lawful Money (see http:/tinyurl.com/'the cloud folder of LM evidence')". I know the supporting schedule is necessary for the 'all transactions' method; but is it necessary for the 'net pay' method if I have disclosed the location of the evidence via the url on the 1040 itself? They processed it, but I'm wondering if I ever get a 'notice' for this filing whether the lack of a supporting schedule is significant going forward. I suppose that is opinion, but would like to hear yours.

Regards,
imm

IMO, it would be better to be completely transparent and disclose all "evidence", to be proactive in rebutting all presumptions by creating admissible evidence on the record, and disclosing the same to interested parties in order to provide due notice and due process in exhausting all administrative remedies.

So, yes, I would create and upload a Supporting Schedule.

And thanks for the nice compliment! :)

BTW: I just got an "Insta-watch" Digital and DVD copy of "Battle Los Angeles" from Walmart at this link (http://www.walmart.com/search/?query=battle%20los%20angeles&cat_id=4096&facet=type:DVD) for only $5. Awesome!!! You can watch it immediately, and repeatedly from Walmart's VuDu digital link!

2534

Also, be sure to read my "interpretation" of this movie at: "Battle Los Angeles - A Message for the Firstfruits! (http://pentecostnation.org/Battle-Los-Angeles.html)"

itsmymoney
04-27-15, 12:07 AM
IMO, it would be better to be completely transparent and disclose all "evidence", to be proactive in rebutting all presumptions by creating admissible evidence on the record, and disclosing the same to interested parties in order to provide due notice and due process in exhausting all administrative remedies.

So, yes, I would create and upload a Supporting Schedule.

And thanks for the nice compliment! :)

BTW: I just got an "Insta-watch" Digital and DVD copy of "Battle Los Angeles" from Walmart at this link (http://www.walmart.com/search/?query=battle%20los%20angeles&cat_id=4096&facet=type:DVD) for only $5. Awesome!!! You can watch it immediately, and repeatedly from Walmart's VuDu digital link!

2534

Also, be sure to read my "interpretation" of this movie at: "Battle Los Angeles - A Message for the Firstfruits! (http://pentecostnation.org/Battle-Los-Angeles.html)"


Ok, so the supporting schedule in this instance (TY 2014) is post-filing-and-refund but it shows good faith and accurate accounting. Is that the idea? Frankly, I don't think it wise to send the schedule separately to the IRS just to inform them that 'I missed a document in my cloud folder that you should see'. After all, they supposedly assessed the 1040 by looking at my cloud folder of LM evidence (which includes the original county-recorded demand). So regarding the transactions on the 2014 schedule, do I list all the transactions from the year-end W-2 showing only the net pay as a deduction in the LM deduction column? I think this is the basis for the full disclosure of taking only the net deduction, correct?

doug555
04-27-15, 12:15 AM
Ok, so the supporting schedule in this instance (TY 2014) is post-filing-and-refund but it shows good faith and accurate accounting. Is that the idea?
YES

Frankly, I don't think it wise to send the schedule separately to the IRS just to inform them that 'I missed a document in my cloud folder that you should see'.
I agree

After all, they supposedly assessed the 1040 by looking at my cloud folder of LM evidence (which includes the original county-recorded demand). So regarding the transactions on the 2014 schedule, do I list all the transactions from the year-end W-2 showing only the net pay as a deduction in the LM deduction column? I think this is the basis for the full disclosure of taking only the net deduction, correct?
I agree... I think there is an example of that type on StSC.

See blue comments above...

itsmymoney
04-27-15, 12:22 AM
See blue comments above...

Super. And thanks for the tip on the VUDU!!! Will set that up this week and download 'Battle' to Smart TV for viewing.

Darkmagus
12-04-15, 12:08 AM
Well folks, all is not well for me in LM land. Probably bit off more than I could chew, but regardless. Let me explain...

Filed a regular (late) 1040 for 2013 in December 2014. I had to file quickly for reasons I won't get into here. Then, since I had redeemed ALL of my checks in lawful money for 2013, I filed an amended 1040x including the lawful money deduction end of February 2015. Probably should have let it go, but there it is. Unfortunately today I received a 3176C letter stating that I have submitted a 'return or purported return claiming one or more frivolous positions'.

So I'm supposed to file a 'corrected return' within 30 days or they will start the collection process. But I've ALREADY filed an original return! And where does it say taking a lawful money deduction is 'frivolous'. And this coming off just receiving my LM REFUND for 2014!!! So surely mentioning the 2014 refund in my defense of 2013 will draw red flags for THAT return, no?

I'm beside myself. I'm considering calling them to explain that I have already filed a return. I can't file again, right? Where is their evidence that taking a LM deduction is 'frivolous'? They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN! At best I'd like to stalemate them into not collecting.

Any suggestions are welcome. I'm also considering contacting Marc Stevens as well, but I know David and others have great ideas here as well.
imm

itsmymoney

Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:34 pm

Notice how it doesn't say you "you filed a frivolous return"...there IS a difference. They won't admit to it though.

ADBrooks11
01-27-16, 04:09 AM
Well folks, all is not well for me in LM land. Probably bit off more than I could chew, but regardless. Let me explain...

Filed a regular (late) 1040 for 2013 in December 2014. I had to file quickly for reasons I won't get into here. Then, since I had redeemed ALL of my checks in lawful money for 2013, I filed an amended 1040x including the lawful money deduction end of February 2015. Probably should have let it go, but there it is. Unfortunately today I received a 3176C letter stating that I have submitted a 'return or purported return claiming one or more frivolous positions'.

So I'm supposed to file a 'corrected return' within 30 days or they will start the collection process. But I've ALREADY filed an original return! And where does it say taking a lawful money deduction is 'frivolous'. And this coming off just receiving my LM REFUND for 2014!!! So surely mentioning the 2014 refund in my defense of 2013 will draw red flags for THAT return, no?

I'm beside myself. I'm considering calling them to explain that I have already filed a return. I can't file again, right? Where is their evidence that taking a LM deduction is 'frivolous'? They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN! At best I'd like to stalemate them into not collecting.

Any suggestions are welcome. I'm also considering contacting Marc Stevens as well, but I know David and others have great ideas here as well.
imm

itsmymoney

Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:34 pm

Update on this?

ManOntheLand
02-05-16, 06:21 PM
Well folks, all is not well for me in LM land. Probably bit off more than I could chew, but regardless. Let me explain...

Filed a regular (late) 1040 for 2013 in December 2014. I had to file quickly for reasons I won't get into here. Then, since I had redeemed ALL of my checks in lawful money for 2013, I filed an amended 1040x including the lawful money deduction end of February 2015. Probably should have let it go, but there it is. Unfortunately today I received a 3176C letter stating that I have submitted a 'return or purported return claiming one or more frivolous positions'.

So I'm supposed to file a 'corrected return' within 30 days or they will start the collection process. But I've ALREADY filed an original return! And where does it say taking a lawful money deduction is 'frivolous'. And this coming off just receiving my LM REFUND for 2014!!! So surely mentioning the 2014 refund in my defense of 2013 will draw red flags for THAT return, no?

I'm beside myself. I'm considering calling them to explain that I have already filed a return. I can't file again, right? Where is their evidence that taking a LM deduction is 'frivolous'? They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN! At best I'd like to stalemate them into not collecting.

Any suggestions are welcome. I'm also considering contacting Marc Stevens as well, but I know David and others have great ideas here as well.
imm

itsmymoney

Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:34 pm

Any deduction that is not authorized under the IRC may be considered frivolous, especially if it appears to IRS that you are using it to defeat or impede the correct assessment of tax based on what would properly be "taxable income".

Also be aware that they are not required to accept amended filings.

The fact that you managed to get a refund for 2014 means only that a refund was issued---this often happens without much scrutiny of the claim. As you seem to have experienced with CTC. They often issue refunds during the busy tax season, only to come after the refund later. You are probably aware that they have three years to audit and adjust the assessment, and/or assess a frivolous penalty, which they often do instead of an audit to avoid having to waste further time and energy of the their personnel dealing with uncooperative taxpayers.

I would suggest you no longer file LM return, or any return at all, if you believe you are not liable. If you want to investigate an approach that actually works and that IRS will recognize without risking penalties, contact redacted@harmful.com for information.

David Merrill
02-05-16, 07:10 PM
Any deduction that is not authorized under the IRC may be considered frivolous, especially if it appears to IRS that you are using it to defeat or impede the correct assessment of tax based on what would properly be "taxable income".


Redeeming lawful money is found in Section 16 of the Fed Act.

ManOntheLand
02-05-16, 11:42 PM
I repeat: lawful money deduction is NOT a deduction authorized under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code. Why is that?

David Merrill
02-06-16, 12:47 PM
It is the remedy.

Remedy/redemption/remember. We are redeemed.

Gavilan
02-06-16, 01:22 PM
"Why is that? "

You have to comprehend that there are two systems in place, one is a monetary system, the other a credit system.

The monetary system uses U.S. notes, and coins. The credit system uses what they call "elastic currency", which are represented by Federal Reserve Bank notes.

Now, David can show you I think there is a passage where they state that Federal Reserve Bank notes also represent U.S. notes.

Yeah, it's a total mind fk, but if you comprehend their scam, you can keep the wealth your labor generates.

Gavilan
02-06-16, 01:40 PM
This is an interesting read:

http://www.rapidtrends.com/it-almost-became-money-united-states-notes-versus-federal-reserve-notes/

David Merrill
02-06-16, 07:58 PM
Initially I get suspicious when these links become flawed. But they always show back up...


https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

The last three paragraphs explain things.

I think Man on the Land is coming from how an IRS agent will be compelled by the Memorandum(s) to assign a $5K FrivPen to a lawful money return. And since he is linking an email address about detaxing I assume there is a financial angle to his motives.

Gavilan
02-07-16, 06:06 PM
Here are some pdf that you may find informative as to the payment system and the use of bank credit.

ManOntheLand
02-08-16, 08:15 AM
Initially I get suspicious when these links become flawed. But they always show back up...


https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

The last three paragraphs explain things.

I think Man on the Land is coming from how an IRS agent will be compelled by the Memorandum(s) to assign a $5K FrivPen to a lawful money return. And since he is linking an email address about detaxing I assume there is a financial angle to his motives.

You are right that IRS will be inclined to penalize a lawful money return. Because such a return is indeed frivolous. If you request more info at the email address redacted@harmful.com, you will find out exactly why it's frivolous.

Re financial angle to my motives: Wrong.

Anyone who requests info at redacted@harmful.com will receive a free 32 page PDF report on lawful income tax avoidance and an approach that actually works and is actually recognized by IRS. Including how to deal with W2 and 1099 forms without filing a 1040 return. This means no $5,000 frivolous return penalties. I don't sell information, Mr. "Lawful money tru$$$t" ! What I have to offer is far too important not to share freely! With zero obligation whatsoever.

You are encouraged to share the info in the report with anyone you like, and especially with any tax professional you choose. See if they will assist you in implementing the information so There are no misunderstandings with IRS. Or ask said tax pro to debunk the information if they disagree with it. If you are not an expert on IRS process, please try to find a professional who is willing to help you.

Re lawful money deduction, any competent tax pro will tell you that is not a legitimate deduction. I would agree, but I will go further and tell you that if you learn how income tax really works (explained in the report) there is no need to take any such deduction anyway. If you have no income subject to federal tax in the first place, you have no need for any deductions.

Lawful money redemption is not a legit basis for deduction from "gross income" but rather could be seen as a basis for excluding amounts from "gross income". "Gross income" is the amount of income subject to tax that you start with before subtracting your deductions. If you have redeemed your earnings from being subject to federal tax, The proper process in that case would be to leave the amount that is excluded off the return completely.

If all your earnings are excluded from gross income (or you have $10k or less gross income) voila! No return is required. Sorry for the long post but u guys on this forum are pretty much all clueless about income tax. If you want an approach that works, request the report at redacted@harmful.com

And BTW I understand all of your dogma about money and credit on this forum completely-- it's really not hard to understand. I've been on here 4 years. Ur just way off base re income tax filing. Get the report and u will see income tax has nothing to do with money or federal reserve notes. Nothing!

David Merrill
02-08-16, 08:50 AM
What you call dogma is the remedy that Congress wrote into the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and as amended in 1934. Some of the comments you make dredge up some patriot mythologies that have been proven ineffective over and over again.

That link is working again!



Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of our national currency and both are legal tender. They circulate as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them comes from different statutes. United States Notes were redeemable in gold until 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard. Since then, both currencies have served essentially the same purpose, and have had the same value. Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued, and none have been placed in to circulation since January 21, 1971.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the production and circulation of Federal Reserve notes. Although the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) prints these notes, they move into circulation through the Federal Reserve System. They are obligations of both the Federal Reserve System and the United States Government. On Federal Reserve notes, the seals and serial numbers appear in green.

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.


Please do not mistake my ignoring Man on the Land as any kind of agreement.

Gavilan
02-08-16, 03:58 PM
If you request more info at the email address redacted@harmful.com, you will find out exactly why it's frivolous.


Dude, if your stuff is so good why not share it here?

I know why, you want to profit and capture the email addys. That's all.

See, it's a natural step in the progression of enlightenment, you still want to profit from what you think and believe is a solution. There is nothing wrong with charging for your service or product, but you still have the opportunistic mindset that those running the system believe is how things should work. In other words, you thrive in selling fear, inculcating greed, and teaching dichotomous thinking.

Michael Joseph
02-08-16, 07:23 PM
Dude, if your stuff is so good why not share it here?

I know why, you want to profit and capture the email addys. That's all.

See, it's a natural step in the progression of enlightenment, you still want to profit from what you think and believe is a solution. There is nothing wrong with charging for your service or product, but you still have the opportunistic mindset that those running the system believe is how things should work. In other words, you thrive in selling fear, inculcating greed, and teaching dichotomous thinking.

Gavilan, I don't know what this poster Man on the Land has in mind, but I will only add that when we received a 15k frivolous filing notice it took about two phone calls and two letters and then crickets. In fact if there so called claim was valid then they would lien all income streams - but it is not and as such, full with holdings were received. In fact the State because of the delay in issue of withholdings did so with interest paid for their use of those funds. I presented the matter to the agent that I thought they had made a computer mistake and that perhaps we should all have a sit down conversation to resolve the matter. I asked if the conversation was being recorded and that, if it was to be recorded, to be sure to send it to their lawyers for review. I comprehend that the clerks [wives] can do very little as these obey their "husband" [employer].

Nevertheless, here's the thing about selling. I have found that in experience I used to go out and give long presentations for free to hundreds, even in some cases thousands. Guess what? Since it was free in the minds of the listener there was no value. So what I decided to do was charge a pittance of what others are charging and the result was incredible. Because the buyer had to give Self permission to purchase, the Self has the desire to "get its money's worth". Thusly the student scours the presentation over and over again. And now what used to be in the realm of thought can manifest into the world of action.

For to know the Will is one thing but to do the Will is another. Ultimately once one is taught, he is no longer in need of a teacher. And one may teach another. As always, it is the root of the action that must be analyzed - which is to say - what is my core belief which feeds the tree of thought that led to my taking action. If it is greed, well then it is clear to the observer and the greedy one judges himself. If it is service, it will manifest and the public will reflect upon the server. If it is fear, then the fear reflects upon the many waters and the maker of fear is his own husband.

I have found my greatest happiness is serving others. What a crazy journey life is - but I have also found that my greatest joy is when I become upset. For I am "set up" to resolve a matter within me that has a core root that needs be changed. With all things there is motive which drive the thought into action. Is it fear, greed or love?

Like Stevie Nicks sang "Can the child within my heart rise above?"....

I can only say that I have experienced this frivolous filing stuff now twice and both times, actually three times - and in all circumstances the claim was defeated. So experience throws out the strong man of fear and doubt.

If a police officer pulls one over and places drugs in the car of the pulled over driver, then can we examine law in the face of inequality? There is something yet to be learned within those who are "setup" - but most times they just get "upset". I speak now for myself only and know this is true for all.

May the Light of Christ shine within you!
MJ

ManOntheLand
02-08-16, 08:43 PM
The income tax is voluntary, thus it is avoidable

xparte
02-08-16, 08:45 PM
MJ as lawfully coined frivolous crickets a constituting or containing allegory. MONEY being frivolously sought and returned .can you here that silence oh my common one Ivan Morrison Pwee Ellis.

Michael Joseph
02-08-16, 10:32 PM
MJ as lawfully coined frivolous crickets a constituting or containing allegory. MONEY being frivolously sought and returned .can you here that silence oh my common one Ivan Morrison Pwee Ellis.

And the body both was one - as we sailed into the mystic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0DJ8hWgNes)

Canadian solution
02-08-16, 11:29 PM
Very interesting thread and points of view
makes me think of 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Canadian solution

David Merrill
02-09-16, 02:30 AM
The income tax is voluntary, thus it is avoidable...


It pains me to see the same old worn out arguments being revived. I do not like that here.



Dude, if your stuff is so good why not share it here?

I know why, you want to profit and capture the email addys. That's all.


These arguments will never function and never have. - Even this precept that if invited to show us, that makes validates them.

David Merrill
02-09-16, 02:41 AM
Very interesting thread and points of view
makes me think of 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Canadian solution


Thank you...


1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

xparte
02-17-16, 05:44 AM
I am a member of this so-called "Brain Trust" who works as an income tax avoidance consultant. My question is Membership and Advertisements are subject to a site consultant with so-called administration and site avoidance duties when one needs support its a charity a DR cant billboard a ambulance a lawyer cant billboard a paddy wagon as a charitable thought . I am here to help you poor schleps. See the attached report on lawful tax avoidance but not on this site GREAT Being clever finds you on a IRS site or even waiting in the lobby for agent frivolous you'd get banned and the folks that mammon each other get bilked i don't agree with site embarrassment but imbursement i despise. If your beef is mechanical see the manufactures statement cant find a good mechanic move on. this site allows Public Membership with a PRIVATE TONE if its debated banishment its management.A self exile is going that extra mile .your counting cards in vegas thats all mammon do. banish me before i mannish me .[endorse me] poor schleps

lorne
03-28-16, 01:21 AM
In all my years redeeming lawful money, filing LM tax returns, and helping others do it, I've never seen a frivolous penalty. But even if they did try a friv pen that's just what it would be... an attempt. Doesn't mean the filer really owes it nor would he pay it. It's just an attempt to collect. It's been a beautiful scam for them and they've had success with it before so ... why not another attempt?

The response this lawful money filer received below is typical. Now notice what's missing. And what is revealed by their omission.

http://i.imgur.com/Kv3xN7w.jpg

marcel
11-16-18, 12:02 AM
I give up. What's missing from the IRS letter?

lorne
11-24-18, 04:27 AM
Oh, this is an old thread. As I recall, this was a lawful money redeemer who did contract work and the payer sent a year-end Form 1099 to the filer. Of course the IRS wanted its cut when the computer flagged the return. I believe there where several IRS/filer letters back n forth and the filer would respond saying: no, there was an error, I made lawful money, not private credit (sample deposits included). And the IRS would respond with letters like this one with "the nonemployee compensation is taxable". OK, granted. but who says the filer made "nonemployee compensation?" That's another custom defined term the IRS likes to use.

§ 31.3406(b)(3)-1 Reportable payments of rents, commissions, nonemployee compensation, etc.

(a)Section 6041 and 6041A(a) payments subject to backup withholding. A payment of a kind, and to a payee, that is required to be reported under section 6041 (relating to information reporting of rents, commissions, nonemployee compensation, etc.) or a payment that is required to be reported under section 6041A(a) (relating to information reporting of payments to nonemployees for services) is a reportable payment for purposes of section 3406.

A payment of a kind? sorry not that kind of payment (Federal Reserve notes). The filer respectfully declines to treat his/her lawful money income as taxable and won't be paying the bankers' tax. The IRS responses always avoided the filers argument - nothing about lawful money or the deposits made. Each side just kept refusing the other's offer. Until, finally, the filer won. Zero amount due. May have the final letter here somewhere.

EZrhythm
12-01-18, 01:21 AM
Thank You for the update, Lorne! Congratulations on continued satisfaction.
...Just their prolonged attempts to get one to abandon their position

marcel
12-23-18, 02:19 PM
3. Can you point out the flaw in RICKMAN's argument?

Rickman admitted he was paid Federal Reserve Notes.

As did the OP when filing the original 1040. Or at least consenting to treat his/her lawful money income as taxable income.

David Merrill
12-25-18, 10:30 AM
Usage tax.

Michael Joseph
12-25-18, 05:47 PM
When one inspects the image of the United States Note shown below one will notice there is no Federal Reserve seal upon said note. Now in US v Rifen, it relates that Federal Reserve Notes are taxable and in that assertion we are in accord. However, in the following we can see that Federal Reserve notes are not even money:

US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182: In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in Lawful Money.

US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400: United States notes shall be Lawful Money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

US v Thomas; 319 F.3d 640: Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an obligation of the United States that may be redeemed in Lawful Money on demand. 12 U.S.C.S. § 411. Those bills are not money per se but promissory notes supported by the monetary reserves of the United States.

Remedy in Law can be found at United States Code title 12 section 411 and I am with the Special Particulars of my administrative remedy which have been provided to your office which relate "Demand is made for Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411."


12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.


5235



Please read CAREFULLY the statements from Rickman and Ware. In Rickman do you see the term payment? But what about Ware? So USN's can and do pay the debt! So then WHY when you deal with the IRS stooges do they use circular logic? I mean I actually spoke to a lady once who said you owe the debt because the code says you owe the debt! Now you talk about a pile of horse dung! Circular logic is not logic. But in fact her argument is sound!

So how can circular logic be sound logic? You have to frame her argument. She is not arguing from the perspective of the constitution. But in fact she relies upon it. And truth be known, Susie, the IRS stooge, is dumb as a fucking stump so don't try to educate her. She presumes based on the evidence presented that you are a Trustee. And being a Trustee she has right to compel a yearly accounting of the use of the private bank property by those on whose behalf you hold said private property. Get it? Most people hold it for themselves but that denies the logic of the Trust. So as a Trustee you are bound by the IRS CODE to make a return of the use of the private property of the FRB. Haven't you noticed that there is a BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the FRB but not a Board of Trustees?

So then a FRN is a bank note which is unredeemed - think of it as a private chit passed amongst "member banks" if you prefer that term. But I go back into history and notice that this is the exact image of FEUDALISM. Thru the use of this private property the entire world has been made to bow a knee in Slavery. But here is a universal fact in universal cosmic law - if you prefer God's Law. You cannot curse me and I cannot curse you. I can only lay a stumbling block before you and you must choose. So that would mean remedy must always exist for the intrepid. If you try to curse me, then the curse will return upon your own head x2. For you have borne a false witness.

So now you know why the IRS is always accusing and commanding. In fact, if you are a trustee you are indeed subject to the orders of the IRS. And the code which is no doubt incorporated by reference into the Bylaws of the Trust Agreement which established the Central Banking System does bind all of the trustees. If you enter upon the Trust then you VOLUNTARILY subject yourself to all of its benefits and all of its liabilities and duties. So how do you enter upon the office of Trustee? Simple - you use Federal Reserve Notes. Plain and Simple. This operation of Use does not care one iota where you are or what jurisdiction you are in - and to make this plainer - I will now exchange the term Federal Reserve Notes for Global Central Banking Notes, because that global system is built on the concept of a private Note system. Therefore there are exchange rates from on Current-Sea to another.

So it should be crystal clear that we are not talking about a constitutional tax - but rather a use fee paid as rent to one who lets out private property or use to a public. It is that simple.

So how is Susie [the IRS Stooge] using the constitution? Well at Art 1 Section 10 it says that "No state can interfere with obligations of an existing contract." Did you not voluntarily undertake or make a use of FRB private property? Did you sell yourself for nothing? I refer to the Scripture at Isaiah 52:3.

One will argue fairness and I will respond. If you are a child and you touch an extremely hot stove burner will you get burned? Does the burner care about your ignorance? Does the burner care about your beliefs? Is it fraud that you were burned? Awakening the objective Mind, I will not allow the Serpents of CNN, FOX, CBS, ESPN, etc, etc to plant false seed in my garden. Because if I allow myself harm, then I have harmed you. For God is One.

So by what power can you rely upon to Refuse for Cause the IRS' constant issue of notices, etc? There lies a great presumption based on available testimony of the 1099, W2, etc that you received private property of the Federal Reserve Bank. Well did you? Are you one of their Trustees? If you are, then you have no power but to comply with their orders. And nothing in the constitution can assist you in regard to your obligations, liabilities and duties. Do you see now why I goof at what I consider charlatans on the internet who espouse trite dogma like "there ain't no law" and "it's unconstitutional". Don't you see now how utterly absurd are those arguments?

The State is bankrupt so minting Silver/Gold does not work for a bankrupt. But it does work for internal circulation within the body of a Trust Company. So now, I will proffer a question and will leave its exploration for another day:

Question: If you use USN's to gain a purchase do you own the purchase in allodial title? Hint: Whose private property are USN's? And "title" you say? What's that?

I offer one more question: If all that you can see is within the bounds of government can you admit how utterly manipulated and hijacked is the public mind? Until one can realize he/she knows nothing like he/she should, then ignorance remains. At first I could only make argument from the words I had been taught, but then I realized how great is my slavery. Massa, Izza like somma dat aloadeal title. Canz you gives me some? Please? Wont cha please gives me some good title? Horseshit! No slave like one who thinks he's free.

As far as I can see I see "the home of the FEE and the SLAVE" - just listen for five minutes. Is God at our head or is government? I mean just look at the word government - to pilot the mind. Yes, I think that gets it done quite nicely. Here's a deal if you go for our new guberment polisee, well you get 10% off the yearly rent. You talk about a Plantation of Slaves.

Now do you see why I call government tyranny? The government should be on our individual shoulders in full liability to each other and to God. To remove God is to put everyone in chains. For it justifies classes and tyranny. Said another way it glorifies War and, as such, death! So don't ask me about Trump, Clinton or any other OFF-EYE-SEER of government - my ears are stopped to that foolishness.

If thy eye be Single [not caught in Hegelian Dialectics] thy whole body will fill with Light. Maybe this writing will spark some interesting discourse.

I withdraw with this from the great book of Romans:


Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is hatred against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

So then we can clearly see a political wind seducing mankind [Eve], which is to say the global subconscious mind thru fear, lust, greed, etc. And in her great fear of loss, she falls prey to an overlord class which understands these principles and uses them to take the Kingdom of God by force. For we are the creators of this realm. We, the Woman [mankind] will birth life or death. But as long as we remain objectively unconscious we remain subjects. Can we have the courage to stop feeding the Wolf of our own destruction? Have the courage to be the farmer [husband] of your own garden.


Have a good day,
Michael Joseph

lorne
12-25-18, 07:35 PM
let's see ...

France is in open revolt. The "yellow vests" are protesting the banksters higher tax policies. MACRON the globalist is in trouble. Can the protests spread to other nations?
https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/12/11/can-the-yellow-vests-protests-go-global

Nobody was thinking about the markets on Sunday night until Steve MUNCHIN decided to make a huge deal about them by calling the heads of banks and setting a meeting with the plunge protection team - on Christmas Eve. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-23/steve-mnuchin-tries-avoid-panic-starting-panic

More folks walk away from facebook & Google everyday
https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/how-to-leave-google-gmail/

Number of STSC users temporarily drops to 13 when troll farm loses power (not to worry back online now)
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/chinese%20hackers.jpg

USGovt current borrowing costs exceeds all tax revenue income (indicates Third World status)
https://www.tfmetalsreport.com/podcast/9081/your-holiday-weekend-jackass

USGovt shuts down. https://www.rt.com/usa/447234-shutdown-trump-stays-christmas

More folks demand lawful money everyday saving thousands in taxes now that David's REDEEMING LAWFUL MONEY interpretation of 12 USC 411 is proven correct (as if my 10 years of successful nontaxpayer weren't enough).
5236

Merry Christmas trolls

Michael Joseph
12-25-18, 10:59 PM
CONSTITUTION AND TRUST Part II - by Michael Joseph 26-November-2018

US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182: In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in Lawful Money.

US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400: United States notes shall be Lawful Money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.


1. A legal tender is that issued by a Trustee. For only a Trustee has the Legal Title. In other words the Trustee has possession of or better said holds the use of the private property for a beneficiary. Better said the Board of Trustees of the Federal Reserve System is all those who make a use of said private property - you might call them "member banks" but in reality if you don't see the trust, then you are blind to the obligation.

Once you see the trust then you can see the game of Monopoly is played WITHIN the corporate body of the Trust Company [United States]. And this is a fact Jack. Even USN's cannot be used to pay the interest on the public debt to the International Banker BECUASE, those USN's are fiat promises of the government of the United States [trust] - you could say the Board of Directors [Congress] and the banker is not interested in IOU's. The banker wants their loan to be secured by real property.

2. So banking chits [FRN's] and fiat promises [USN's] are circulated within the United States trust company but don't get it wrong, the underwriter of the Trust Business is not interested in promissory notes. Real property must be pledged. And now you can see why the labor of the men and women who occupy within the trust company bylaw boundary has been pledged. So you can hear now Bob Dylan when he sings in "Tangled up in Blue" -

"Then he started into dealing with slaves
And something inside of him died
She had to sell everything she owned
And froze up inside" - Tangled up in Blue - Bob Dylan

People still can't hear Bob.

3. USN's are fiat. So many have said FRN's are fiat but this is not true. FRN's cannot come into existence until She [United States Trust Company] pledges property as security for this mortgage upon the United States [federal state and her children States]. So FRN's represent a first mortgage upon real and personal property. Whereas, USN's represent a promise to pay by the government.

In History, a USN could not come into existence without the real backing in gold or silver which was Lawful Money, but as the State became bankrupt the need for a Bankruptcy Trustee became evident and the rulers - International Bankers - dictated to the puppet presidents what they would do regarding selling this to the people. A "New Deal" was struck and at once the men and women were "swept off the land" and into the sea. In other words, the United States trust company is the shell where the game is now played WITHIN its body.

So I would want proof, don't you. And you read the proof at the start of this email, but you most likely just read right past it and did not notice.

US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400: United States notes shall be Lawful Money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.


Do you see it now? So interest on the public debt must be paid by real or private property of the United States. And now you know why THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is shown on the face of the dollars. So internally use fees are collected for the use of private property of the FRS which can only be used as a legal tender subject to the existing mortgage. And internally USN's may be used to pay for the right to possess property. But don't get it wrong, the real owner is the Trustees of the United States corporate trust company. The Registered Owner within the body of said trust is just that a registration under color of Law - or you could say subject to the Bylaws of the Trust Company.

The United States [federal State] is bankrupt. The Trust Company must always be expanding in new property else who would invest in a failed business. It is just good business, Jack. So it matters not if you use FRN's or USN's you have not escaped the Trust Company boundary. In fact you have not even touched on the Equity because that is held as security for performance by the Lender. And if the Trust Company defaults, then all the property, including the equity goes to the Lender.

The lender would foreclose the Right of Redemption and if the Trust Company cannot perform, then all the property transfers by operation of Law.

The debtor is slave of the Lender. Or subject to the Lender. This same model has been used to sweep every man and woman off the land and into the sea. So George Bush was right after all. And so too was Rothchild, I believe - give me control of the money and I don't care about the laws. Maybe he said it, maybe he didn't but the principle is sound.

"And when finally the bottom fell out
I became withdrawn
The only thing I knew how to do
Was to keep on keepin' on
Like a bird that flew
Tangled up in blue" - Bob Dylan


Check out that statement "Free as a bird" - I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery!

"But me, I'm still on the road
Headin' for another joint
We always did feel the same
We just saw it from a different point of view
Tangled up in blue" - Bob Dylan

===================



Be in great good health, be in truth and be in goodness and BE STRONG:
Michael Joseph

Michael Joseph
12-25-18, 11:07 PM
The mark of the beast consciousness has been around for a long, long, long time. For you can see Adam and Eve surrendered their individuality before God to another who did government on their behalf to God. That is the lesson. So you can now see correctly that government stands as a priest in the stead of Christ. And I'll bet you were looking for an anti-Christ. For Christ is to be formed in you. And it is said of Christ the government is upon His shoulders. So we can now properly see the Christ Consciousness is to be formed in you and the government is on your shoulders! You are to stand in full liability before God without need of a priest or a governor [religion and government]. And then the proper State which is known as the Kingdom of God can blossom like a Rose in the dry dessert.

So you can see that every man and woman is Adam/Eve. And this His-Story is My-Story and Your-Story. For Lo I come in the Volume of the Book to do thy Will O God.

To have perceptions based on observations is to have listened to the Serpent's Lie. You are good enough and You are strong enough. Go into the inner chambers of your mind and examine yourself - do you believe in you?

Thou shalt have no other God's before Me. I and the Father are One.

And now consider how we, including Me too, have bowed a knee in our ignorance and consider the judgment: but before you do, would you now deny once your eyes have been opened that the locust army has not stripped the field bare?


Rev 9:4 And it was commanded them in order that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but ... those men which have not the seal of God upon their foreheads.
Rev 9:5 And to them it was given in order that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when it striketh a man.
Rev 9:10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. [Comment by MJ - looks like 5 months to me - nothing new under the Sun]


Now have you ever studied a scorpion? It has a very small stomach - virtually nonexistent. So when it stings its victim it inserts its venom which goes into its victim and begins to consume [liquefy] the innards of its victim. Later at its leisure the scorpion inserts its straw like mouth and sucks up its meal. Now consider how a scorpion "stings" a man/woman. See how when the lies [venom] are received as truth do not these lies form the basis of a false belief? And now upon that false belief where can be found even one man with a Spine - which is to say Courage, Honor, Integrity to make a stand against the globally perceived truth which is in fact a lie?

Language is wonderful. One would say show me a man with some balls. In other words, one who has been stung by the scorpion lacks the fortitude to issue TESTI-MONEY in Declaration of Truth. For this one is Spineless. And therefore cannot TESTI-FY.

-fy. Word Origin. a verbal suffix meaning “to make,” “cause to be,” “render” ( simplify; beautify ); “to become,” “be made” ( liquefy ). The suffix was introduced into English in loan words from Old French ( deify ), but is also used in the formation of new words, usually on a Latin root ( reify ).

testi- (Latin: a witness, one who stands by;
It is stated that under Roman law no man was admissible as a witness unless his testicles were present as evidence or “witnesses” of one’s virility because only verified men were allowed to give witness, or to testify, in legal matters. To swear by one’s testicles was an ancient form of oath.
BECAUSE the man held the woman in Coverture as a Femme Covert which is to say she called her husband my Lord. As he covered her in Love and held her in trust as he was the legal head of house.

But I digress back to the this Tree shall we? But before I go there don't you now see the Lower Tree is the man's Penis and this is the dynamic masculine force of creation - the Lower Waters. For without Testi-cles or Stones one could not Testi-Fy. Therefore one could not be a priest before God as that one was unable to issue Declaration or Testa-Ment. Get it now. Testa-Ment is such a great word. Testa as in Testi and Ment as in Mens or Mind. Now is the Lower Water connected to the Higher Water in Testament. One who declares a testament declares that one's own beliefs. Consider the scorpion and truly ask yourself do you parrot rhetoric or do you actually have your own beliefs. Meaning are your beliefs framed within the construct of someone else's creation. Now do you get Testi-Fy? Did you issue your Testi-Money from personal knowledge?

To argue Rights, Legal, Lawful, etc. begs the question, in and of whose Creation? Did you Testi-Fy? Did you issue a Testa-Ment or are you under government? But I digress.

H6086
???
?e?ts
ates
From H6095; a tree (from its firmness); hence wood (plural sticks): - + carpenter, gallows, helve, + pine, plank, staff, stalk, stick, stock, timber, tree, wood.

H6095
?????
?a?tsa?h
aw-tsaw'
A primitive root; properly to fasten (or make firm), that is, to close (the eyes): - shut.


H6096
?????
?a?tseh
aw-tseh'
From H6095; the spine (as giving firmness to the body): - back bone.

Notice each root of Tree begins with Ayin - which are the EYES - which properly understood are the Eyes of Perception. Now consider "If thy eye be single thy whole body will fill with Light." Thank you Father for the knowledge, understanding, wisdom and prudence these wives continue to serve us well.

I withdraw with these two great truths:

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his strength, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Jer 17:6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.

Jer 17:7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
Jer 17:8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.


There is a great lesson being taught in this nursery called State. I believe those treasonous founding fathers, had a vision in God and then upon seeing and declaring in Truth - they acted. They called the Future into the now. And those 55/56 won their individual freedom - Sovereigns absent subjects. Which is to say, they were not granted a Wife. Today ye shall be with me in Paradise.

It has become so clear to me lately by reading and listening and just paying attention that the four horns are

1. Divine Law
2. Natural Law
3. Cognitive Law
4. Positive Law

Each succeeding law needs the proceeding to exist. When I hear folks speaking of Rights, I cringe. And this is because the Positive Law of which a so called "Right" can be known is foundationed upon Cognitive Law. So the questions which must be answered is

1. What is a Right?
2. Within what trust is such Right resident?
3. Who Testi-Fied before God and issued Testi-Money?

I want to spew vomit when I hear folks declaring I want my constitutional rights. If they only knew they don't have any constitutional rights. The trustees hold those rights for the benefit of the trust shareholders and subscribers. Regarding rights, wars, etc - it is all fucked up. And as such, who can say anymore what is true. I certainly don't have trust in the so called annals of history. The past is not allowed to enter into Paradise - only the Future was called into the now.

TESTI-FY = DECLARATION OF TRUST = And God said Light be.....A TestaMent. Oh how wonderfully and wondrously we are made!

Be in great good health, be in truth and be in goodness and BE STRONG:
Michael Joseph

Michael Joseph
12-25-18, 11:14 PM
CONSTITUTION AND TRUST Part III - by Michael Joseph 30-November-2018



If you really stop and think about matters and focus on that thought for some time as I have attempted to do over years now, you will eventually arise at the conclusion to this global conspiracy. Said conclusion is Socialism. Now in Socialism government is as God to the people. Because government takes the tithes and redistributes the wealth as it sees fit. So if you are inventive or you have high initiative, then your creativity can and will be stolen by those with guns. Oh yes, friends that is the reason why there is a huge brainwashing now to remove guns from the people. If you can see that guns are even more valuable than gold, then you can finally begin to see that Socialism is overt Slavery! And without your ability to protect freedom, you will have no ability to resist the "government guns" which will come for your wealth. So then the wealth of the individual is stripped and given to government which will eventually lead to the "shrugging of Atlas' shoulders". Those who create will stop because it is not fair to work hard so that my work might be given to some flunky who has a liberal arts degree and does not help society in the least fashion. In other words, those who do not produce in Society will be rewarded by their God which is the "hollow horn" or the mouth piece of Government.

As such, it is obvious that a mind control program must exist in order to lull the thinking mass into a deep hypnotic trance. And this is done thru the process of dialectics. The eventual success of dialectics is the development of the God man in the vision of the mass. And this God man is called President, or Potentate, Priest, Pope, etc, etc. So you don't talk bad about my God man is on the lips of every being who has been brainwashed. You will notice if you listen to the News Media that it matters not if my God man has done horrible deeds, I will just point the finger at your God man and so we are stuck in lunacy.

In fact, instead of being trapped in the duality of the dialectic, if one raises up a pillar as a testa-ment of self awareness, self governing, self actualization, then one rises up out of the hog slop of politics. No longer can the whispering serpent poison the water will his flood of lies. For the waters which flow forth from the serpents mouth are indeed lies. Think about life for a moment. Does it not seem to you when you open up your eyes in the morning that you are not met with a flood of lies? Men who appear as women, and vice versa; IOU's floating around as money, politicians flooding the airways with untrue rhetoric to favor the support of their masters, etc, etc. So then is it not hard to find another who has an ear to turn off such non-sense? Think about the mass who has believed the lies and continue to do as such. And then in empathy and compassion realize that they are where I once was and that means these have been brainwashed by those who have to keep the mass in a state of confusion in order to retain their great wealth, power and control.

For if the mass ever awoke from their great slumber, then, would they resist this tyranny. I cannot say it any more simply than this: The most dangerous place on earth is a gun free zone! And if you argue against such a statement, then in fact you have already surrendered yourself to another in hope that your master will treat you fairly - don't count on it. Being in full liability means that you as Creator take the surety for your Creation.

Heb 7:22 By so much hath Jesus become a surety of a better covenant.

==============

Regarding the Preamble as a Trust Indenture: And it most certainly is that: The claim is the United States. The claim was not the subjects of England who occupy in those Plantations. Thusly the res of said trust is and was the property Rights established in the Landed Estates called Colonies.

Therefore from the perspective of the illusionist/hynotist, it is imperative that the mind control grow even more pervasive so that they might never to be part and parcel to the hidden oppressive hand of which they are only too glad to point out as some sort of nebulous Illuminati.

Here's a great secret, if you point the finger and blame another, then you resist that one. And in resisting that one, you grant that one power over you. Your resistance acknowledges their power over you. To blame another for your condition is a surrender of your own individuality in God to another. And once you do that, then you have a Sponser, a Re-Presentative, a Priest, a Governor and therefore someone else standing in God on your behalf.

Those who complain about their so called leaders admit in their complaining they are slaves. Those who praise their so called leaders admit in their praise that they are slaves. Because ye would believe a lie, God sent unto them strong delusions that they would not see the truth. Now before you point the finger at the I AM, you might understand the formula of thought which governs your world. If a belief is lodged in your subconscious mind, then every time something triggers that belief, then your subjective mind will deliver up to you recognition and acknowledgment of your belief. BECAUSE the subjective mind will manifest for you the world you believe exists. It will point out to you, every instance of your believed world. I say believed world because that stands in contradistinction to your perceived world. So all the beauty and possibility is lost and unseen because the subconscious mind delivers to your conscious mind the fruit of your belief!

So now you see why the "tight rope walker" needs a mind control program. The mass must be subdued. The mass in their mind is a profane beast which must be tamed, controlled at all times. For in the so called rational of the overlord class - the priestly ruling class - ROFL - the mass is irrational and must be controlled. So how do you handle an irrational child or rather pacify such a child - give the child everything it desires under the illusion that they "earned it." Better said under the illusion that they "own it." When in fact the child merely possesses a use and the ownership remains in the parent - which is to say, the ones doing government on behalf of the children [mass] before God.

Now do you understand the Tithe system? One of you asked privately. Now do you see if you refuse to tithe your thoughts Godward, then you end up by operation of law, tithing your creativity Earthward. And in the latter, you subject yourself to another man. Therefore one in the latter sense, gets strength [his arm] in Flesh.

It has always been I. I and only I can curse Me. And yet, even those who play the role of My adversary are in fact an outward expression of my inward thoughts and emotions. For I only find that which I believe to find. And I polish the diamond of my existence upon the multifaceted beliefs growing as oak trees in the Earth of my sub-conscious Mind. So in fact it is as Adam Curtis related THERE IS A POLICEMAN IN EVERYONE'S HEAD (Century of the Self).

So now consider one who fights for individual rights does this one not therefore fight for everyone's rights? And the only question left to be answered is within what trust is this one struggling. For clearly one struggling for freedom struggles against an oppressive mob. Which is to say an oppressive mind set of beliefs held by an obeying mass. One will gain a tremendous insight when one realizes that Jesus did not open his mouth once to resist the so called State.

But it's alright Ma, I'm only sighing..... "from the fool's gold mouth piece the hollow horn" - Bob Dylan

Make it a great day.

Michael Joseph
12-25-18, 11:16 PM
CONSTITUTION AND TRUST Part III - by Michael Joseph 30-November-2018



If you really stop and think about matters and focus on that thought for some time as I have attempted to do over years now, you will eventually arise at the conclusion to this global conspiracy. Said conclusion is Socialism. Now in Socialism government is as God to the people. Because government takes the tithes and redistributes the wealth as it sees fit. So if you are inventive or you have high initiative, then your creativity can and will be stolen by those with guns. Oh yes, friends that is the reason why there is a huge brainwashing now to remove guns from the people. If you can see that guns are even more valuable than gold, then you can finally begin to see that Socialism is overt Slavery! And without your ability to protect freedom, you will have no ability to resist the "government guns" which will come for your wealth. So then the wealth of the individual is stripped and given to government which will eventually lead to the "shrugging of Atlas' shoulders". Those who create will stop because it is not fair to work hard so that my work might be given to some flunky who has a liberal arts degree and does not help society in the least fashion. In other words, those who do not produce in Society will be rewarded by their God which is the "hollow horn" or the mouth piece of Government.

As such, it is obvious that a mind control program must exist in order to lull the thinking mass into a deep hypnotic trance. And this is done thru the process of dialectics. The eventual success of dialectics is the development of the God man in the vision of the mass. And this God man is called President, or Potentate, Priest, Pope, etc, etc. So you don't talk bad about my God man is on the lips of every being who has been brainwashed. You will notice if you listen to the News Media that it matters not if my God man has done horrible deeds, I will just point the finger at your God man and so we are stuck in lunacy.

In fact, instead of being trapped in the duality of the dialectic, if one raises up a pillar as a testa-ment of self awareness, self governing, self actualization, then one rises up out of the hog slop of politics. No longer can the whispering serpent poison the water will his flood of lies. For the waters which flow forth from the serpents mouth are indeed lies. Think about life for a moment. Does it not seem to you when you open up your eyes in the morning that you are not met with a flood of lies? Men who appear as women, and vice versa; IOU's floating around as money, politicians flooding the airways with untrue rhetoric to favor the support of their masters, etc, etc. So then is it not hard to find another who has an ear to turn off such non-sense? Think about the mass who has believed the lies and continue to do as such. And then in empathy and compassion realize that they are where I once was and that means these have been brainwashed by those who have to keep the mass in a state of confusion in order to retain their great wealth, power and control.

For if the mass ever awoke from their great slumber, then, would they resist this tyranny. I cannot say it any more simply than this: The most dangerous place on earth is a gun free zone! And if you argue against such a statement, then in fact you have already surrendered yourself to another in hope that your master will treat you fairly - don't count on it. Being in full liability means that you as Creator take the surety for your Creation.

Heb 7:22 By so much hath Jesus become a surety of a better covenant.

==============

Regarding the Preamble as a Trust Indenture: And it most certainly is that: The claim is the United States. The claim was not the subjects of England who occupy in those Plantations. Thusly the res of said trust is and was the property Rights established in the Landed Estates called Colonies.

Therefore from the perspective of the illusionist/hynotist, it is imperative that the mind control grow even more pervasive so that they might never to be part and parcel to the hidden oppressive hand of which they are only too glad to point out as some sort of nebulous Illuminati.

Here's a great secret, if you point the finger and blame another, then you resist that one. And in resisting that one, you grant that one power over you. Your resistance acknowledges their power over you. To blame another for your condition is a surrender of your own individuality in God to another. And once you do that, then you have a Sponser, a Re-Presentative, a Priest, a Governor and therefore someone else standing in God on your behalf.

Those who complain about their so called leaders admit in their complaining they are slaves. Those who praise their so called leaders admit in their praise that they are slaves. Because ye would believe a lie, God sent unto them strong delusions that they would not see the truth. Now before you point the finger at the I AM, you might understand the formula of thought which governs your world. If a belief is lodged in your subconscious mind, then every time something triggers that belief, then your subjective mind will deliver up to you recognition and acknowledgment of your belief. BECAUSE the subjective mind will manifest for you the world you believe exists. It will point out to you, every instance of your believed world. I say believed world because that stands in contradistinction to your perceived world. So all the beauty and possibility is lost and unseen because the subconscious mind delivers to your conscious mind the fruit of your belief!

So now you see why the "tight rope walker" needs a mind control program. The mass must be subdued. The mass in their mind is a profane beast which must be tamed, controlled at all times. For in the so called rational of the overlord class - the priestly ruling class - ROFL - the mass is irrational and must be controlled. So how do you handle an irrational child or rather pacify such a child - give the child everything it desires under the illusion that they "earned it." Better said under the illusion that they "own it." When in fact the child merely possesses a use and the ownership remains in the parent - which is to say, the ones doing government on behalf of the children [mass] before God.

Now do you understand the Tithe system? One of you asked privately. Now do you see if you refuse to tithe your thoughts Godward, then you end up by operation of law, tithing your creativity Earthward. And in the latter, you subject yourself to another man. Therefore one in the latter sense, gets strength [his arm] in Flesh.

It has always been I. I and only I can curse Me. And yet, even those who play the role of My adversary are in fact an outward expression of my inward thoughts and emotions. For I only find that which I believe to find. And I polish the diamond of my existence upon the multifaceted beliefs growing as oak trees in the Earth of my sub-conscious Mind. So in fact it is as Adam Curtis related THERE IS A POLICEMAN IN EVERYONE'S HEAD (Century of the Self).

So now consider one who fights for individual rights does this one not therefore fight for everyone's rights? And the only question left to be answered is within what trust is this one struggling. For clearly one struggling for freedom struggles against an oppressive mob. Which is to say an oppressive mind set of beliefs held by an obeying mass. One will gain a tremendous insight when one realizes that Jesus did not open his mouth once to resist the so called State.

But it's alright Ma, I'm only sighing..... "from the fool's gold mouth piece the hollow horn" - Bob Dylan

Make it a great day.

Michael Joseph
12-25-18, 11:20 PM
Subject: RE: Constitution and Trust - Part IV - by Michael Joseph 6-December-2018

I have heard many relate even myself that there is no money but this is an incorrect statement.

Try to imagine a situation where you go and setup a bank as a REpository of, let's say, 1 Million pounds Gold. Now, let's imagine that you were able to setup a contract whereupon you were able to issue chits in the amount of say 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 denomination and these chits would be used as Money of Account WITHIN [I say "Within"] said Trust boundary. You can imagine a large amount of land purchased and that said land might be placed in a Trust and then said economic condition might be setup. So for the sake of this discourse imagine that the contract is established and that you stood as surety upon your own wealth to bring into circulation said chits [errrr Notes

Tangent: The astute reader will immediately recognize Divine Mind, Higher Mind and Carnal Mind. Or better said we each are God's Legal Person. For it is not I that works, but the Father in Me does the Work. Therefore in relation to Divine Consciousness, a vessel Am I in the image of the Original Creator. Therefore God's Person Am I. Better said God's Wife Am I. The two becoming one: I AM - AM I. A Declaration [The Word expressed] of Trust establishes a Landed Estate. I digress.

Now said chits are not exactly Money, per se, as they represent an interest in the 1M pounds of Gold [I chose gold because king Nebuchadnezzar's statue had a Head of gold] of which you established as Surety for all the trade within the Land Trust of which you might have established. What is important is that it was you who put up the Surety and therefore those chits being passed around by others in no way give the others ownership but rather merely a possession upon their use of your chits to gain a purchase.

Now let's say you establish a government to administrate the affairs of the Land Trust. A Board of Directors is established, we will call that BOD a Congress for this example. And also officers are established for this Trust Company and lets call those officers, President, Vice President, Secretary, etc, etc. Of course at the establishment of said Trust, you hired on Trustees who will hold this Trust Company and all that it entails in Trust for you and your heirs. Let's call your heirs your posterity.

So then the Legal aspect of this trust - let's call that Title - is held by your Trustees on the behalf of you and your heirs. Therefore the TRUE OWNERS are you and your heirs. Actually, depending on how the Trust was setup the heirs may only be potential owners as the Earth and all she has is for the Living. And any "potential" heir may or may not exist. And thusly the term heir or posterity is merely an unnamed placeholder contemplating a disposition of the property held in said Trust.

Initially, the government of the Land Trust Company worked on behalf of you and your heirs to protect your creation but your vision was so vast that it contemplated that others might come one day and Subscribe as members to your Trust Company so that they might too be able to Enjoy the property of which your Trustees hold on the behalf of the TRUE OWNERS. This Enjoyment in a sense then contemplates the use of property which belongs to another. And please imagine that use, for the sake of this writing, to be called a possession.

Now it was your intention as the creator in allowing others to subscribe to your trust company that these others might be vested with certain privileges within the [by]Law boundary of your Trust. So a contract was established whereby the people who took shelter under the Shade of your Trust Company might also develop a vested interest in its promotion for the good of all those who Subscribe as members. However, in becoming members of said Trust Company said people would have to abide by certain rules, codes and regulations as you intend to keep the peace in righteousness and in equity. So rolls were setup in order to keep track of who has the legal right to possess certain properties WITHIN your Trust Company.

So now let me ask you, if I were to come and begin to reside upon property held within your Trust Company, and thusly subject to your Trust Company, and I began to make a use of the chits in order to gain a possession of said property, is that property ownership mine or does it belong to your Trustee? What is mine? It is merely the possession, yes? And don't I hold that possession in Trust for you and me too? And by me don't I mean myself and my heirs? So then we have another layer of trust, yes?

And furthermore, let's say that I obtain many chits thru my labor on the property [errr Plantation] of which you setup and I make a use of said chits to "pay" for certain services, is not my "payment" really just a image of the real? What I mean is, it only looks like I paid, but in reality I used your property to gain a legal right to possession and while it appears I have the ownership, in reality, I only have the legal right to possess and enjoy this property subject to the administration of your Trustee, Officers and Board of Directors.

Let's say the BOD determined that said property could be put to a much better use for everyone in the Trust Company, even the Subscribed membership, if the property of which you have obtained legal right to possess was removed from your possession. Doesn't the Owner have a right to do with his property what the Owner wants? Of course, Equity must be considered in Righteousness, so you should be justly compensated for your loss of Use [possession]. And what did you use to obtain said legal right to possession - was it not chits? And therefore you have the equitable right of enjoyment of your possession as long as you remain your legal right of possession. But now I digress.

How would said chits come into circulation, except thru an arm or agency of your benevolence? And perhaps the BOD by and thru its Officers setup banking institutions that issued said chits into circulation so that the chits might be used to gain said possessions upon property held within the Trust Company. And then perhaps the "value of possession of property within your Trust Company" was established upon said chits.

Now then I ask you, is it possible that a Subscribed member to your Trust Company might come to own any property held by your Trustee(s) and managed by your BOD/Officers? Is not their ownership merely a possession of a use for their enjoyment and subject to the bylaws of the government of your Trust Company?

Now let's say a Subscribed member desires to gain a purchase for his enjoyment of a certain property but he does not have enough chits to satisfy the "value of possession of said property". So said Subscribed Member went to another Subscribed Member of your Trust Company and asked for a loan of chits to satisfy the "value". Is this loan legal within your Trust Company? Well, yes of course it is. Did the Lender have ownership of the chits or did the Lender have use of the possession of said chits? The answer is the Lender had merely the use of the possession of said chits! And this use is subject to the bylaws of the Trust Company.

Now did not the Lender "credit" the borrower the use of said chits upon an agreement established between the Lender and the Borrower? Could not the Lender setup a Trust so that the Lender's interest in his "use of the possession of the chits" be secured or preserved if the Borrower cannot or will not keep his promises? Is this not the right thing to do in terms of the preservation of equity for the Lender? Better said: If you were a Lender and you made a loan to another so that they might go and "buy" let's say a car, wouldn't you want to secure your position with a little more than a handshake in case of an accident or in case of default? I know I would.

So that we might keep the narrative in focus, all of these chits were founded upon you setting up a RE-pository of Gold and then issuing chits to be used within your Trust Company. Now let's say the Borrower comes on hard times due to no fault of his own and he cannot pay his creditors the chits he has promised to pay in order for said Borrower to retain the REGISTERED OWNERSHIP of the property of which he was making a use by and thru possession.

Question:
1. Does the Borrower Own the property?
2. Does the Lender Own the property?
3. Who Own's the property and why?

Now then if the government of your Trust Company has setup certain provisions for righteousness in Equity such as bankruptcy so that the Borrower might be able to redeem his right to pay his Lender in righteous equity, is not the Lender by making loan to Borrower subject to said provision? I mean if the Lender is doing business within the law boundary of your Trust Company is not said Lender subject to the bylaws of the government of your Trust Company? Of course the answer is yes!

continuing....

Michael Joseph
12-25-18, 11:20 PM
continued...



Now, try to imagine that you, as Creator of this Trust Company enter into a contract with another Creator of a Trust Company and as security you pledge all the property in your Trust Company in case you default. Now try to imagine that you default. You as the TRUE OWNER of your Trust Company must now assign all the beneficial interest of your Trust Company to the one of whom you defaulted and now your Trust Company is subject to the Will of another. For the true Ownership has changed. The government [BOD and Officers] no longer serve you, but they serve another.
Perhaps the original chits can remain and perhaps another set of chits will issue whereby the new owner desires to "tax" the use of those chits - a rent or a Fee. Now you can restart and reread this entire post with the consideration that you are not the True Owner of the Trust Company. But let's put in another caveat. Let's say that your pledge to your Lender allowed for certain provision if you could not pay such that you might "mortgage" your Trust Company such that you might retain a Right to Redeem your Trust Company if you could perform in the future - or you could retain management if you could pay the rent [fee or tax].

Questions:
4. Are the residents within your Trust Company with the ability to pay your Creditor?
5. Are the original chits that you issued worth anything to your Creditor?
6. Can the residents use the "new chits" issued by the New Owner to pay your Creditor?

I have been a little loose with my language but please try to contemplate the foregoing with the idea of "Assignment of Value" in relation to True Ownership and Equity. Now reread again but imagine that someone else put up the 1 million pounds of gold as surety for your Creation. How would that change the arguments herein?

Imagine a king, who was renting his crown, financed your Trust Company. I trust you have been edified. I look forward to the response. I hope there are some intrepid amongst this group who will engage in this discourse.

Question:
7. Would it be legal to use gold to obtain a possession within your Trust Company?

Now try to IMAGINE..... instead of the home of the Fee and the land of the Slave. God is One - Freedom in I AM. For God owns All. Let those who understand say I AM. For I AM you and you AM I.

With best regards,
Michael Joseph