PDA

View Full Version : Supporting Schedule for the 1040 Form



David Merrill
04-07-13, 08:28 AM
Here is an example of the supporting schedule for the 1040 Form.



http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3932/1040supportingschedules.jpg

realname
04-07-13, 04:09 PM
In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings. Question which arises is:
SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM. Therefore, IRS can assume that those withholding being made in FRN.
For all suitors who just have modified bank signature (or explicitly redeeming pay checks) this feels like a dangerous thing to do for reasons stated above.
For the suitors with Default Judgment in U.S. District Court - I don’t see any contradictions, so all power to you :).
I hope that my conclusions are wrong, since it looks like many of “Non Default Judgment Suitors” may follow this or similar template.
To me it gets down to very simple perspective. Money that one doesn't handle and explicitly redeems in LM are theirs and subject to their fees/taxes etc.

David Merrill
04-07-13, 07:29 PM
In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings. Question which arises is:
SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM. Therefore, IRS can assume that those withholding being made in FRN.
For all suitors who just have modified bank signature (or explicitly redeeming pay checks) this feels like a dangerous thing to do for reasons stated above.
For the suitors with Default Judgment in U.S. District Court - I don’t see any contradictions, so all power to you :).
I hope that my conclusions are wrong, since it looks like many of “Non Default Judgment Suitors” may follow this or similar template.
To me it gets down to very simple perspective. Money that one doesn't handle and explicitly redeems in LM are theirs and subject to their fees/taxes etc.

Thank you for pointing that out TrueName,


If you are not comfortable about doing this then do not. The suitor and I discussed this and he feels that what is going on is at the point of entering the transaction. In other words the Treasury accepts the increment of the national debt as entered from the bank (endorsement of paychecks) and then again (double entry) from the 1040 Form. Therefore to segregate out the smaller transactions is an admission that redeeming lawful money is perfectly legitimate.

Therefore even though the suitor's W-2 did not correspond exactly he got a Refund in 2011 for the three months he was redeeming lawful money. If the Treasury would have bickered that would have been very interesting indeed. The Demand is at the top of the Schedule.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Keith Alan
04-08-13, 01:27 PM
Sometimes I'm amazed that I can be so stupid. I've been discussing making the demand on the "Make Demand At Treasury" thread, and here is a supporting schedule for a 1040 making a demand at Treasury.

Keith Alan
04-10-13, 02:53 PM
At line 21, did the suitor note "Demand For Lawful Money" or words to that effect, but leave the column entry blank?

doug555
04-10-13, 07:58 PM
See this previous post (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?844-1040-help&p=10099&viewfull=1#post10099) for the Example 1040 Form link and the Line 21 notation.

Keith Alan
04-10-13, 09:49 PM
See this previous post (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?844-1040-help&p=10099&viewfull=1#post10099) for the Example 1040 Form link and the Line 21 notation.

Thank you very much! Exactly the answer I was looking for!

David Merrill
04-11-13, 10:17 AM
Thank you for linking to the other example. That may not be the same suitor but once sanitized I have trouble remembering which suitor has provided what example. Often, the suitor supplies me with the example after it has been sanitized.

Another "problem" is that many first and middle names are identical so it is difficult to remember Kenneth Werner from Kenneth Ward for example.

Ares
04-11-13, 01:29 PM
Got all my paperwork completed, do I just attach a copy of the filed notice and demand with the return? Or is there additional documentation that I need to send along?

David Merrill
04-11-13, 10:03 PM
The "filed" notice and demand and at least three examples of Demand for Redemption during the year (if possible). Maybe a copy of the Signature Card at your bank.

If using a Notice and Demand I suggest that you sign the Notice and Demand with a notary and get a Commission Certificate on the Notary from the SoS. The next step is to either "file" with the USDC ($46 Miscellaneous Case or $350 Libel of Review) or serve it on the Fed Bank; do both but in what order is unimportant. When you have all those papers marked up by the court with Return of Service on the Fed Bank then serve it on your bank...

That is thorough process and you might abbreviate somewhat. It is a lot better to get all your withholdings refunded than to get IRS notices of $5K fines and arbitrarily huge tax liabilities.

doug555
04-11-13, 11:18 PM
Got all my paperwork completed, do I just attach a copy of the filed notice and demand with the return? Or is there additional documentation that I need to send along?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/pdf/uscode12/lii_usc_TI_12_CH_3_SC_XII_SE_411.pdf

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

Print these out and highlight to show you know what is important... then add to your return package... for their education as well.


*** Below added on 1/18/2014 ***

OR, If you are doing a 1040 Online Filing (Ex: http://TaxAct.com (http://TaxAct.com) which I recommend), then Upload your 1040 Evidence to any free online storage drive and then use http://tinyurl.com to generate a small URL for it that will fit on the blank Other Income schedule description lines (see lines 1 & 2 below).

See below example:

2171


Explanation of above example:

Line #1 above on your return, would look something like this, with your total amount of lawful money demands inside parentheses to show it as a negative amount:
DEMAND LAWFUL MONEY (99999.99)

Line #2 above on your return, would look something like this, with a unique randomly-generated number at the end:
http://tinyurl.com/kjh12jhf

This link would contain all of the evidence of all of your lawful money demands like checks and deposit slips that you can download from your bank or scan as PDF files.

SUGGESTION: You may copy the files from my online "Authorities" folder to your folder as a subfolder if you wish:
http://tinyurl.com/mwxr9by (http://tinyurl.com/mwxr9by)

Freed Gerdes
04-12-13, 02:57 AM
It seems to me that you guys (David and Doug) are going for some overkill here. The demand must be made at a Federal Reserve bank, as we have agreed that the action begins with the transaction in which the FR tries to get you to endorse their private money. Your refusal to endorse their private credit is the step that takes the transaction out of the purview of Title 26, as it is now conducted in public money, which cannot be taxed by a private corporation. Your endorsement is the adhesion contract, so you must make the demand at (or before) the transaction occurs. I doubt the IRS needs a copy of anything involving Title 12. And since you sign the 1040 under penalty of perjury, it would seem that all you need is to tell them that you used lawful money for some (all) transactions, list or identify those in some clear fashion, and ask for your refund. As Treefarmer reports, the IRS has a tendency to not hear you unless you speak in District Court, so there is obvious value in keeping an evidence repository there, but in keeping with your right to be a court of record yourself, merely letting the IRS know that you have good records should be sufficient. We will see, as I just mailed off my 1040, on which I stated that all transactions with two banks that occurred after I noticed them by certified letter were conducted in lawful money, and are identified for their convenience, but not reported as income on the return. The actual demand, filed and certified by the County Clerk of Deeds, and the letters of notice, and the return receipts for those notice letters, are all still held in my personal files. Citizens should not have to use the District courts to negotiate their business relationship with the IRS.

David Merrill
04-16-13, 09:57 AM
Citizens should not have to use the District courts to negotiate their business relationship with the IRS.

We seek the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US Government through the US clerk of court and PACER.


www.savingtosuitorsclub.net

Bentley
04-16-13, 05:29 PM
Freed,

Here is how and where they entrap the general public.

See this law, mint regs and treasury order.

http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of-treasury/orders-directives/Pages/to150-06.aspx
http://www.usmint.gov/downloads/consumer/Mintreg.pdf
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/333

Please note the treasury order uses the term "entity", not the words 'service', bureau;, 'office' or other 'subdivision'.

I doubt you were aware of this, but now that you are, next year......


Why would you sign the 1040 form under penalty of perjury? Now you aware that the 1040 form is in violation of Title 31 333. It is a fraudulent form before the first drop of ink is even applied to it. The designation, "Internal Revenue Service" was lawfully cancelled in 2005 by Treasury order 150-06. Title 31 333 does not allow any false names, emblems, seals, etc to be used with the name, logo or seal of the "Department of the Treasury".

Regards,
Bentley

Bentley
04-16-13, 05:43 PM
The "filed" notice and demand and at least three examples of Demand for Redemption during the year (if possible). Maybe a copy of the Signature Card at your bank.

If using a Notice and Demand I suggest that you sign the Notice and Demand with a notary and get a Commission Certificate on the Notary from the SoS. The next step is to either "file" with the USDC ($46 Miscellaneous Case or $350 Libel of Review) or serve it on the Fed Bank; do both but in what order is unimportant. When you have all those papers marked up by the court with Return of Service on the Fed Bank then serve it on your bank...

That is thorough process and you might abbreviate somewhat. It is a lot better to get all your withholdings refunded than to get IRS notices of $5K fines and arbitrarily huge tax liabilities.

HI David,

As I am new to this, what is, or should be the logical sequence of the learning thread of posts, forum entries, documents to use, etc. to master this technique of becoming a 'suitor' in quick fashion. The 'entity' nazis are coming after people with both feet, in an attempt to 'share' the wealth... i.e., communism of obozo. How does one best prepare oneself quickly?

Thanks,
Bentley

gdude
04-17-13, 03:30 AM
[QUOTE=Why would you sign the 1040 form under penalty of perjury? QUOTE]

As Far as I know...You do not sign any IRS form under "penalty of perjury", but "PENALTIES (plural) of perjury".

So, who can be charged with more than one count of perjury? Federal employee or agent of public office.
You get charged with penalty of perjury, PLUS you lose your position and pension. A civilian can only be charged once

Signing any IRS form provides the prima facie evidence they need that you, are indeed, a federal employee or a public office.

I, personally, will not provide prima facie that I am a statutory "employee", "employer", and earn statutory "wages".

Freed Gerdes
04-17-13, 05:27 AM
Bentley, what is the significance of the links you provided? Does the Treasury have some greater need for the letters IRS, and now refuses to allow the 'entity' to call itself the Internal Revenue Service? They did not assign a new name, so TO 150-06 looks near meaningless to me. I see the intent of the Mint not wanting fraudsters to misuse the Treasury seal, but it is unlikely that Treasury would punish the IRS for continuing to call themselves that name. So I fail to see how the citations you provide involve entrapping the general public. There are a lot of fraudulent things going on at the IRS, but the use of their form is pretty much mandatory; likewise failing to sign the form constitutes an invalid return. But you were entrapped when you signed a W-4; you authorized the 'voluntary' withholding of taxes {as if they were owed}, and now you have to file a return to get a refund (and the IRS will hound you if they show you having a W-4 and you don't file). So the form, the signature, the perjury, the fraud, all that is immaterial if you don't make your demand for lawful money at the time you cash/deposit your paychecks. If you do make your demand, then you don't owe the income tax, and there is no perjury in making your refund claim. Likewise, gdude, the signature on the form completes the contract, making it enforceable in court, but if you signed a W-4 you have already agreed to be an employee. Then you still need to file a return to get your refund.

David Merrill
04-17-13, 10:51 AM
Bentley, what is the significance of the links you provided? Does the Treasury have some greater need for the letters IRS, and now refuses to allow the 'entity' to call itself the Internal Revenue Service? They did not assign a new name, so TO 150-06 looks near meaningless to me. I see the intent of the Mint not wanting fraudsters to misuse the Treasury seal, but it is unlikely that Treasury would punish the IRS for continuing to call themselves that name. So I fail to see how the citations you provide involve entrapping the general public. There are a lot of fraudulent things going on at the IRS, but the use of their form is pretty much mandatory; likewise failing to sign the form constitutes an invalid return. But you were entrapped when you signed a W-4; you authorized the 'voluntary' withholding of taxes {as if they were owed}, and now you have to file a return to get a refund (and the IRS will hound you if they show you having a W-4 and you don't file). So the form, the signature, the perjury, the fraud, all that is immaterial if you don't make your demand for lawful money at the time you cash/deposit your paychecks. If you do make your demand, then you don't owe the income tax, and there is no perjury in making your refund claim. Likewise, gdude, the signature on the form completes the contract, making it enforceable in court, but if you signed a W-4 you have already agreed to be an employee. Then you still need to file a return to get your refund.

I should add that if you have major clients (comprising an "employer") then the IRS might assess you independently by 1099 Information. Therefore if you are a contractor "self-employed" there is an advantage to filing to avoid the presumption of a tax liability.

Bentley
04-19-13, 07:07 PM
[QUOTE=Why would you sign the 1040 form under penalty of perjury? QUOTE]

As Far as I know...You do not sign any IRS form under "penalty of perjury", but "PENALTIES (plural) of perjury".

So, who can be charged with more than one count of perjury? Federal employee or agent of public office.
You get charged with penalty of perjury, PLUS you lose your position and pension. A civilian can only be charged once

Signing any IRS form provides the prima facie evidence they need that you, are indeed, a federal employee or a public office.

I, personally, will not provide prima facie that I am a statutory "employee", "employer", and earn statutory "wages".

Penalty of perjury - 28 USC § 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1746

Bentley

Bentley
04-19-13, 07:18 PM
And 1040 form says this:

"Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge."

and the form also says:


Form 1040
Department of the Treasury—Internal Revenue Service OMB No. 1545-0074 (99) IRS Use Only—Do not write or staple in this space.
U.S. Individual Income Tax Return

So, it is a fraudulent form before the first drop of ink is even applied to it, because of this Treasury Order:

http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of-treasury/orders-directives/Pages/to150-06.aspx

and violates Title 31 section 333 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/333

Bentley

doug555
12-25-13, 09:33 PM
It seems to me that you guys (David and Doug) are going for some overkill here. The demand must be made at a Federal Reserve bank, as we have agreed that the action begins with the transaction in which the FR tries to get you to endorse their private money. Your refusal to endorse their private credit is the step that takes the transaction out of the purview of Title 26, as it is now conducted in public money, which cannot be taxed by a private corporation. Your endorsement is the adhesion contract, so you must make the demand at (or before) the transaction occurs. I doubt the IRS needs a copy of anything involving Title 12. And since you sign the 1040 under penalty of perjury, it would seem that all you need is to tell them that you used lawful money for some (all) transactions, list or identify those in some clear fashion, and ask for your refund. As Treefarmer reports, the IRS has a tendency to not hear you unless you speak in District Court, so there is obvious value in keeping an evidence repository there, but in keeping with your right to be a court of record yourself, merely letting the IRS know that you have good records should be sufficient. We will see, as I just mailed off my 1040, on which I stated that all transactions with two banks that occurred after I noticed them by certified letter were conducted in lawful money, and are identified for their convenience, but not reported as income on the return. The actual demand, filed and certified by the County Clerk of Deeds, and the letters of notice, and the return receipts for those notice letters, are all still held in my personal files. Citizens should not have to use the District courts to negotiate their business relationship with the IRS.

I just read this again, and I agree with you Freed (see highlighted above) - K.I.S.S.

So this year (BTW: it has worked the last 2 years - Thanks David!), I will upload PDF copies of my checks and deposit slips with "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" handwritten on the FACE of them to a free Google internet folder (https://drive.google.com), and share and put that gDrive URL link on my Support Schedule for 1040 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=10366&viewfull=1#post10366) as proof of my demands. I will include check showing the date I started the demand, and copies of some for current tax year to provide a basis for "preponderance of evidence" rule.

If the IRS wants to check them, they can just click on the link in the Schedule.

I will also upload copies of 12 USC 411 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_MnMwZDBsSzk3dnM/edit?usp=sharing), 95a(2) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_MUdwdUZPa1VKb2s/edit?usp=sharing), with relevant statements underlined, for their edification, and to rebut their "plausible deniability" of their law. Any refusal of the remedy by them would show deliberate intent to deny a right, and would be the basis for a Claim (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/claim/) of Harm (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_Z0g0Q2pNLW4yelU&usp=sharing).

My Rationale (https://drive.google.com/?tab=mo&authuser=0#folders/0B8BdR0w2oZY_QmRjTTVCZjBnWk0) folder contains additional material supporting this remedy, which you may also cite.

salsero
01-20-14, 12:40 AM
I see from this example that there is a 1099-Misc listed and it appears the total amount was redeemed in lawful money and thus, has been taken on line 21 as a reduction on form 1040. USUALLY 1099-Misc requires a Schedule C and Schedule SE for the SS and Medicare taxes. My question is did this suitor simply by-pass the Schedule C and Schedule SE by placing this line 21 [this would not make sense since he would need to show the income in order to receive the deduction] OR, as I am guessing this, he put the income on Schedule C showing income on L12 and did Schedule SE and in the "other taxes" section INCLUDED the SS and Medicare taxes and he paid them? In other words, Did he pay the 15.3% FICA taxes regardless of the LM reduction [presuming he had no tax liability on L46]?

L21 is a reduction of taxes. L56 is after the tax liability and these are additional taxes due and have nothing to do with anything above L46.

I also do not understand how anything but the net pay after all deductions were taken as LM since the employer held the FIT, Med, SC, SS and it is not likely the employer submitted said tax withholdings as LM? I see the next comment brings this matter up. How did this suitor wind up?

Something does not seem correct. If I am missing something, please forgive me and provide an answer. thanks

salsero
01-20-14, 02:07 PM
Here is an example of the supporting schedule for the 1040 Form.



http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3932/1040supportingschedules.jpg

Forgive me I thought I replied to this attaching the supplemental schedule for Line 21. I am still navigating this site.

I see from this example that there is a 1099-Misc listed and it appears the total amount was redeemed in lawful money and thus, has been taken on line 21 as a reduction on form 1040. USUALLY 1099-Misc requires a Schedule C and Schedule SE for the SS and Medicare taxes. My question is did this suitor simply by-pass the Schedule C and Schedule SE by placing this line 21 [this would not make sense since he would need to show the income in order to receive the deduction] OR, as I am guessing this, he put the income on Schedule C showing income on L12 and did Schedule SE and in the "other taxes" section INCLUDED the SS and Medicare taxes and he paid them? In other words, Did he pay the 15.3% FICA taxes regardless of the LM reduction [presuming he had no tax liability on L46]?

L21 is a reduction of taxes. L56 is after the tax liability and these are additional taxes due and have nothing to do with anything above L46.

I also do not understand how anything but the net pay after all deductions were taken as LM since the employer held the FIT, Med, SC, SS and it is not likely the employer submitted said tax withholdings as LM? I see the next comment brings this matter up. How did this suitor wind up?

Something does not seem correct. If I am missing something, please forgive me and provide an answer. thanks

doug555
01-20-14, 03:14 PM
See posts below:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=11358&viewfull=1#post11358
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=11372&viewfull=1#post11372
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12168&viewfull=1#post12168

salsero
01-21-14, 07:20 PM
See posts below:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=11358&viewfull=1#post11358
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=11372&viewfull=1#post11372
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12168&viewfull=1#post12168


Thank you - but I am not sure I understand exactly. In essence, it is transaction based, if I get what you are answering. My question had to with additional tax liability due regardless of L21

I see your response "However, the MAIN point I am trying to make, and which your LM/FRN transaction scenarios above support, is that both the FRN-based Debt and the USN-based Reduction are TRANSACTION-BASED! This is WHY the 1040 Supporting Schedule for Lawful Money Demand Reduction has to include the Withholding transactions - to reverse these corresponding unauthorized and un-bonded debt transactions"

But this does not address the L56. Sorry if I am not understanding.

As far as the W-2, you have answered this in the above. But honestly, even if you do the declaration of life and the 411, 95a - I do see an issue. But this has to do with who is liable to discharge and acquit the "person". If I am doing the 411, then adding 95a to all transactions, I see this as a problem. But that is for another topic of conversation.

Basically, if you can answer directly the Schedule SE issue and L56, I would appreciate it. thanks

doug555
01-21-14, 11:09 PM
Thank you - but I am not sure I understand exactly. In essence, it is transaction based, if I get what you are answering. My question had to with additional tax liability due regardless of L21

I see your response "However, the MAIN point I am trying to make, and which your LM/FRN transaction scenarios above support, is that both the FRN-based Debt and the USN-based Reduction are TRANSACTION-BASED! This is WHY the 1040 Supporting Schedule for Lawful Money Demand Reduction has to include the Withholding transactions - to reverse these corresponding unauthorized and un-bonded debt transactions"

But this does not address the L56. Sorry if I am not understanding.

As far as the W-2, you have answered this in the above. But honestly, even if you do the declaration of life and the 411, 95a - I do see an issue. But this has to do with who is liable to discharge and acquit the "person". If I am doing the 411, then adding 95a to all transactions, I see this as a problem. But that is for another topic of conversation.

Basically, if you can answer directly the Schedule SE issue and L56, I would appreciate it. thanks

Yes, this does need clarification.

There was a Schedule C and its Line 31 tax amount was placed on line 12 of 1040.

And, if there was self-employment income, there would also be a Schedule SE and its Line 5 tax amount would be placed on line 56 of 1040.

Remember, every TRANSACTION in FRN's provides them an opportunity fractionalize/monetize because it is presumed to be debt money, which delays the payment, which is a dishonor and a sin. Said sin allows them to put you in Satan's camp, and therefore "taxable". IMO

But we nullify said presumption of the use of FRN's every year via the 1040. And we must include every transaction (gross, each withholding, and each 1099) in order to properly back out each of these presumed FRN delay of payments.

That ends our responsibility. They must handle all of the accounting, and the reverse journal entries to "de-fractionalization" everything (which I doubt they do). Again, IMO.

Remember, 12 USC 411 is worded to only allow "redemption", not "prevention", of FRN's! This is a very subtle, but an important point of view regarding how we can maintain our peace with their system, in the spirit of Mt 13:30 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Mt+13%3A30&t=nas) and the Creator's "red line" declared in Mt 22:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Mt+22%3A21&t=nas).

salsero
01-22-14, 02:32 PM
Until such time that I am able to have a proper fiduciary administrate the estate, trust, ens legis Person, I USE, I want to remain in honor with the system, as I do not want to "war" against the foreign occupancy of the foreign state under a state of emergency situation that this country now faces due to the bankruptcy.

I am working on the Release of Claim and Interest of that Person, I USE, where the State, as usufructary has the duty and obligation to acquit and discharge all matters relating to the State's property. Since it appears everything has already been "seized or transferred, conveyed, PAID for, delivered property or INTEREST therein, one would think those proper fiduciaries would somehow located in the phone book - LOL.

Anyway, may I ask the group's opinion, based upon your response Doug, "That ends our responsibility. They must handle all of the accounting, and the reverse journal entries to "de-fractionalization" everything (which I doubt they do). Again, IMO", do you think it wise to write our brother Danny [Werfel] directly and ask him how this should handle this OR do you think this will open up a can of worms? As I see it, there can be no assessment of FF penalty and though it is NOT likely there will be a response, it is a matter of making a record of sincere willingness to follow THEIR PRIVATE laws so as NOT to war against the State.

Just a little FYI, I had to re-do the bank signature card and I had put the notation - ALL TRANSACTIONS ... 12 USC 411 ,, NUNC PRO TUNC. I got the actual signature card notarized AND a statement attached -- This has been recorded in their public records. I have been "non-endorsing" FRN for that PERSON, I USE a few years now, but have done nothing per IRS as that ENS LEGIS, I USE did not "earn" enough $$ to pay taxes anyway.

One other comment, SHOULD that proper fiduciary step up to the plate and administrate that estate, I USE, I believe it wise to move past INTERMEDDLING with the estate in any manner without the explicit consent AND instruction of that trustee, this would include "non-endorsing" FRN. This would be up to the trustee to deal with and not just us mere men, as their system has nothing to do with us.

I hope there are some real good comments on this post

createvalue9
01-26-14, 11:05 PM
The supporting schedule says see confirming checks and deposit slips. Do you really send all paycheck copies to the IRS with this form and the 1040. It seems to me that would be a rather large letter to send for taxes.

createvalue9
01-27-14, 01:08 AM
I didn't see my last post from 11:05pm. This post can be removed. Please answer the question above. Do you really send all paycheck copies to the IRS with this form and the 1040?

doug555
01-27-14, 02:44 AM
The supporting schedule says see confirming checks and deposit slips. Do you really send all paycheck copies to the IRS with this form and the 1040. It seems to me that would be a rather large letter to send for taxes.

You may send a significant sample... or just scan and upload them all to a free web drive account, share that folder, and then reference that web folder's URL in the Schedule so that the IRS can view them at their convenience for verification of your substantive evidence.

For example, using TaxACT.com 1040 application, the cite would appear as below:

2077


Another such free web drive is http://hugedrive.com/ (http://hugedrive.com/)

Just search for "free web drive account" to find others.

JohnnyCash
01-27-14, 04:36 AM
The question of how much evidence of "redeeming lawful money" to attach to a Form 1040 filing is an interesting question. Should one attach none, one, some, or all? For TY2008 I attached none; just entered the correct amount of federal income, which was much lower than amounts deposited in the bank, and I've had no issues.

Personally, I think you could succeed with any of those options. Now let's say you redeemed lawful money only part of the year but took a full LM deduction as if you did it all year, and stood your ground on that. Make them prove their claim. What man from the IRS will step forward and bring forth a claim that some deposits were private credit of the Fed and not lawful money? Yeah, that's not gonna happen in public, in open court. That'd mark the beginning of the end for the tax scam. Once they know .. that you know, that you're aware of the scam they're running and likely have copies of redeemed lawful money paychecks in your possession, it seems fairly obvious to me they'll let you go in favor of easier prey.

createvalue9
01-30-14, 01:34 AM
What is the procedure for signing the signature card at a bank or credit union? Do I sign the front or back. Also I don't want to get my employer involved but they only do direct deposit. So is setting up the signature card at the bank where the direct deposit occurs enough?

doug555
01-30-14, 01:49 AM
What is the procedure for signing the signature card at a bank or credit union? Do I sign the front or back. Also I don't want to get my employer involved but they only do direct deposit. So is setting up the signature card at the bank where the direct deposit occurs enough?

See: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12164&viewfull=1#post12164 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12164&viewfull=1#post12164)

Chex
01-30-14, 02:48 PM
See: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12164&viewfull=1#post12164 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12164&viewfull=1#post12164)


As doug555 stated. Make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand. Remember, by making one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, it does not matter what the signature card has on it or not. The account does not matter - BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR DEMAND TRANSACTION-BASED -

I know you want the signature card your way, but why do you want dwell on it createvalue9?

Let someone challenge you on "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)" and they will loose, if not the press would be happy to entertain the idea the laws of congress is frivolous.

Like AJ stated in #72 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1084-What-s-in-a-NAME&p=12840&viewfull=1#post12840)
your claim is without merit until Mr. or Mrs. "state" comes forward and verifies a claim of property by speaking it on the record; are you authorized to speak, and make claims, for "state"?


- harm to a man
- injury to a man's property
- breach of a valid and lawful contract

Good link doug555.

EZrhythm
02-03-14, 04:16 AM
...but if you signed a W-4 you have already agreed to be an employee. Then you still need to file a return to get your refund.

Unless one rebuts/voids the W-4! ;-)

John Howard
02-03-14, 02:32 PM
Void enough? (http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3316/rq8.pdf)

Chex
12-14-14, 03:58 PM
In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings. Question which arises is: ...........

We begin by using the usual tools of statutory construction, the first step of which is to determine whether the language has a plain and unambiguous meaning ("12USC411") with regard to the particular dispute. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997). In doing so, “we examine not only the specific provision at issue, but also the structure of the statute as a whole, including its object and policy.” Children’s Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Belshe, 188 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir. 1999). If the plain language is unambiguous, that meaning is controlling, and our inquiry is at an end. http://www.bing.com/search?q=HAWKINS+V.+FTB&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IETR02&conversationid=

doug555
12-14-14, 05:21 PM
In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings.

Question which arises is:
SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM. Therefore, IRS can assume that those withholding being made in FRN.

For all suitors who just have modified bank signature (or explicitly redeeming pay checks) this feels like a dangerous thing to do for reasons stated above.

For the suitors with Default Judgment in U.S. District Court - I don’t see any contradictions, so all power to you :).
I hope that my conclusions are wrong, since it looks like many of “Non Default Judgment Suitors” may follow this or similar template.

To me it gets down to very simple perspective. Money that one doesn't handle and explicitly redeems in LM are theirs and subject to their fees/taxes etc.

In above, "realname" is referring to this post (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=10366&viewfull=1#post10366) which contains this image below:

2078

The above bold and italic statements by realname regarding the suitor and this Schedule are NOT correct.

The suitor was NOT "attempting to recover" said "other withholding amounts" -- Only the FITW amount was requested to be refunded.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW).

Again: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW)

All the other of withheld amounts are valid amounts that you must pay because of the services being received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

These other amounts, along with FITW, are added to the schedule because these other amounts, which are rightly presumed to be FRNs, must also be REDEEMED -- yet not be REFUNDED!

Only the FITW amount is to be REFUNDED -- because this "tax" is a really an FRN USAGE FEE and you did NOT use FRNs -- you used and demanded by law USNs per 12 USC 411.

This REFUND is easy to misunderstand from just looking at the above Schedule, but I hope it is clear now. If not, please reply.

In rebuttal to realname's statement below, one CAN explicitly redeem ALL transactions, IF that is how you made your demand for same for "ALL TRANSACTIONS", and is ON THE RECORD as such, ie. "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)":


"SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM."

Thanks to Chex for his recent post re: Hawkins v. FTB (http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2014/09/hawkins-v.-ftb.html), excerpted below. One's understanding of this Schedule and WHY you are submitting it is crucial to prove your INTENT to REDEEM FRNs - not to EVADE TAXES.


Hawkins v. FTB

Summarized by: Nicole Morrow

Date Filed: 09-15-2014
Case #: 11-16276
Circuit Judge Thomas for the Court; Circuit Judges Kleinfeld and Rawlinson
Full Text Opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/09/15/11-16276.pdf

Bankruptcy Law: Specific intent is required for a showing of willful attempt to evade or defeat taxes when assessing in bankruptcy whether tax debt is dischargeable.

Trip Hawkins co-founded Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”) in the late 80’s, early 90’s. He created a wholly owned subsidiary called 3DO to develop and market video games. With his second wife Lisa, they purchased their home for $3.5 million and lived a lavish lifestyle. By the advice of his accountant Hawkins sheltered his gains from tax liability in a Foreign Leveraged Investment Portfolio and an Offshore Portfolio Investment Strategy. Over the next years Hawkins claimed large losses on his tax returns and was audited for his 1997-2000 returns. Around the same time, 3DO deteriorated and filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy court in 2003. While insolvent there was no change in lifestyle for the Hawkins’ and they continued to live lavishly. They filed a personal chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2006. The IRS and California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) argued that the Hawkins’ maintenance of their lavish lifestyle while insolvent was a willful attempt to evade taxes and thus unpaid taxes should be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy. The key question for the court here is the meaning of the word “willful”. The bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court, concluded that the Hawkins’ lifestyle immediately prior and during bankruptcy was a willful attempt to evade taxes and held that Mr. Hawkin’s tax debt would not be dischargeable. The panel reviewed the statutory construction, legislative history, and case precedent to conclude that the term willful was to be narrowly construed. Simply spending beyond one’s means would not qualify as a willful attempt to evade tax because the willful attempt requires the specific intent to evade the tax. The government must establish that the debtor took the actions with the specific intent to evade the tax debt. Merely living beyond one’s means does not suffice to meet the specific intent required to evade tax. REVERSED and REMANDED.


Do you see now that YOU must be clear in your INTENT when you submit a 1040 Return with Line 21 as the total amount of FRNs that require REDEMPTION based on your demands for lawful money, to the best of your knowledge and belief (INTENT)?

Does not a substantive non-heasay record exist in your bank with your lawful demands on your checks and deposit slips that constitute admissible evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, your INTENT to comply with 12 USC 411 in redeeming FRNs for lawful money, and NOT to evade taxes?

And if you are using the below wording in your demands, you are also protected from court action by 12 USC 95a(2).


2079


http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-immunity.html (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-immunity.html)

2080



NOW...

"What do you have in YOUR wallet? (http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/one-dollar-two-images.html)"

I have USNs!!! And I can PROVE it! :)

Also see this post (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1351-Treasury-Letter-from-1984&p=15771&viewfull=1#post15771) about the Schedule.

Chex
12-15-14, 12:19 AM
comply with 12 USC 411 in redeeming FRNs for lawful money, and NOT to evade taxes? :)

Here is what Criminal Tax Manual 8.00 (http://www.justice.gov/tax/readingroom/2001ctm/08ctax.htm#8.04[1])-- ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX has to say about Attempt To Evade.

I find it interesting; In Daniel, the defendant argued that there was no tax deficiency since no assessment or demand for payment had been made. The court rejected this reasoning, holding that a tax deficiency arises by operation of law on the date that the return is due if the taxpayer fails to file a tax return and the government can show a tax liability.


Operation of law (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Operation+of+law). The manner in which an individual acquires certain rights or liabilities through no act or cooperation of his or her own, but merely by the application of the established legal rules to the particular transaction.

Also on that same page is this ...........

A certificate of assessments and payments is prima facie evidence (http://www.yourdictionary.com/prima-facie-evidence)of the asserted tax deficiency, which, if unchallenged, may suffice to prove the tax due and owing.

doug555
12-15-14, 02:14 AM
Here is what Criminal Tax Manual 8.00 (http://www.justice.gov/tax/readingroom/2001ctm/08ctax.htm#8.04[1])-- ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX has to say about Attempt To Evade.

I find it interesting; In Daniel, the defendant argued that there was no tax deficiency since no assessment or demand for payment had been made. The court rejected this reasoning, holding that a tax deficiency arises by operation of law on the date that the return is due if the taxpayer fails to file a tax return and the government can show a tax liability.


Operation of law (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Operation+of+law). The manner in which an individual acquires certain rights or liabilities through no act or cooperation of his or her own, but merely by the application of the established legal rules to the particular transaction.

Also on that same page is this ...........

A certificate of assessments and payments is prima facie evidence (http://www.yourdictionary.com/prima-facie-evidence)of the asserted tax deficiency, which, if unchallenged, may suffice to prove the tax due and owing.


Did you notice that?! The "OPERATION OF LAW" is TRANSACTION-BASED!


Remember my post12164 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12164&viewfull=1#post12164) on 12-15-2013?


"Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, to wit:

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

Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a custom-made 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!!

Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? 12 USC 411 does NOT specify any wording requirement or transaction frequency, and there is no corresponding CFR regulation that requires anything.

One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract!

Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper left-hand corner of the document. This then stands nunc pro tunc (now for then), thereafter and forever, as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) governing exceptions to hearsay evidence, and is unrebuttable.

This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!

And David's reply post12168 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12168&viewfull=1#post12168) on 12-16-2013?


Thank you! That is why I did not get your point - I misunderstood. Transaction-based redemption. That sinks in.

Thanks again Chex!

This is WHY this exact wording is used on my demand:
"lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)"

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

salsero
12-27-14, 03:04 AM
In above, "realname" is referring to this post (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=10366&viewfull=1#post10366) which contains this image below:

2078

The above bold and italic statements by realname regarding the suitor and this Schedule are NOT correct.

The suitor was NOT "attempting to recover" said "other withholding amounts" -- Only the FITW amount was requested to be refunded.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW).

Again: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW)

All the other of withheld amounts are valid amounts that you must pay because of the services being received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

These other amounts, along with FITW, are added to the schedule because these other amounts, which are rightly presumed to be FRNs, must also be REDEEMED -- yet not be REFUNDED!

Only the FITW amount is to be REFUNDED -- because this "tax" is a really an FRN USAGE FEE and you did NOT use FRNs -- you used and demanded by law USNs per 12 USC 411.

This REFUND is easy to misunderstand from just looking at the above Schedule, but I hope it is clear now. If not, please reply.

In rebuttal to realname's statement below, one CAN explicitly redeem ALL transactions, IF that is how you made your demand for same for "ALL TRANSACTIONS", and is ON THE RECORD as such, ie. "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)":



Thanks to Chex for his recent post re: Hawkins v. FTB (http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2014/09/hawkins-v.-ftb.html), excerpted below. One's understanding of this Schedule and WHY you are submitting it is crucial to prove your INTENT to REDEEM FRNs - not to EVADE TAXES.



Do you see now that YOU must be clear in your INTENT when you submit a 1040 Return with Line 21 as the total amount of FRNs that require REDEMPTION based on your demands for lawful money, to the best of your knowledge and belief (INTENT)?

Does not a substantive non-heasay record exist in your bank with your lawful demands on your checks and deposit slips that constitute admissible evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, your INTENT to comply with 12 USC 411 in redeeming FRNs for lawful money, and NOT to evade taxes?

And if you are using the below wording in your demands, you are also protected from court action by 12 USC 95a(2).


2079


http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-immunity.html (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-immunity.html)

2080



NOW...

"What do you have in YOUR wallet? (http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/one-dollar-two-images.html)"

I have USNs!!! And I can PROVE it! :)

Also see this post (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1351-Treasury-Letter-from-1984&p=15771&viewfull=1#post15771) about the Schedule.




Doug can you be more clear on the issue of receiving a 1099 where all the checks have been redeemed in LM either by actually demand per 12 USC 411 OR with this phrase: Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable federal reserve notes of face value - 12 USC 95a, By John Doe. I believe both the actual statute 12 USC 411 OR the Deposited for credit .... of face value equal the same over all idea of not accepting FRNs. Thanks

The question remains, that both a W2 and 1099 are tax class 5 forms - for estate and gift tax classification.

Brian
12-27-14, 04:44 AM
Be careful not to confuse different types of income taxes. 12USC411 may prevent the Springer Income Tax. It will not prevent 16th amendment (Pollock) or Flint v. Stone Tracy income taxes.

doug555
12-27-14, 03:29 PM
Doug can you be more clear on the issue of receiving a 1099 where all the checks have been redeemed in LM either by actually demand per 12 USC 411 OR with this phrase: Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable federal reserve notes of face value - 12 USC 95a, By John Doe. I believe both the actual statute 12 USC 411 OR the Deposited for credit .... of face value equal the same over all idea of not accepting FRNs. Thanks

The question remains, that both a W2 and 1099 are tax class 5 forms - for estate and gift tax classification.


12 USC 411 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title12/pdf/USCODE-2011-title12-chap3-subchapXII-sec411.pdf) specifies the wording as "redeemed in lawful money on demand".

We must only make the demand, in present tense, IMO.

The Trustees must perform the redeeming, as they deem fit.

The other wording you mention appears to be presuming something has already happened, and is impinging on their domain. Let them alone to do their duty in their own good time, IMO.

David Neil
02-09-15, 11:33 PM
I just wish to thank all of the participants at Saving To Suitors Club for the great debates, shared experiences. I had to wade through a lot of information to gather all the nuggets but I believe I have just successfully completed and submitted my 2014 1040, reducing my tax burden by the Lawful Money Reduction I took on line 21. Can't wait until next year when I can claim all my income as Lawful Money.

Chex
02-09-15, 11:58 PM
Don't forget to protect it (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1423-Sheriff-Stands-Up-to-IRS&p=16379&viewfull=1#post16379)

EZrhythm
02-10-15, 01:41 AM
Can't wait until next year when I can claim all my income as Lawful Money.

Next year? Why wait when you may claim "lawful money" on all "income" this year? I would file an amended return and claim all funds as "lawful money". I would add "nunc pro tunc" if I felt the desire to do so or issue Notice of Claim of Lawful Money that indicates my claim dating back as far as I see fit. I would even go back three years and file a return for all such funds contributed as said "tax".

Chex
02-10-15, 04:50 AM
There you go, that's the way to do it. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=16399&viewfull=1#post16399)

doug555
05-29-16, 05:39 PM
Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=10366&viewfull=1#post10366)

Above example is obsolete. Use new TEMPLATE at:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_cURWel9RTDJFOVk (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_cURWel9RTDJFOVk)

doug555
05-29-16, 08:53 PM
Next year? Why wait when you may claim "lawful money" on all "income" this year? I would file an amended return and claim all funds as "lawful money". I would add "nunc pro tunc" if I felt the desire to do so or issue Notice of Claim of Lawful Money that indicates my claim dating back as far as I see fit. I would even go back three years and file a return for all such funds contributed as said "tax".

IMO, "nunc pro tunc" is a flagged keyword for labeling a return as "frivolous".

That money has already been ratified as FRNs by your not timely posting the redemption of it on the 1040 form for that year.

One cannot claim fraud when the remedy was always there in the Federal Reserve Act, in HJR 192, and in 12 USC 411 in plain sight.

Michael Joseph
05-29-16, 10:17 PM
IMO, "nunc pro tunc" is a flagged keyword for labeling a return as "frivolous".

That money has already been ratified as FRNs by your not timely posting the redemption of it on the 1040 form for that year.

One cannot claim fraud when the remedy was always there in the Federal Reserve Act, in HJR 192, and in 12 USC 411 in plain sight.

Exactly. I can't tell you how many folks I have had to help out of the hole they dug for themselves with this nunc pro tunc stuff. I have no problem signing things nunc pro tunc as long as it only affects me but once third parties are affected by my actions I refrain from such. This is the nature of "being thy brother's keeper". If my brother has eaten and enjoyed upon his table based upon my deed who am I to annul my deed after the fact - that seems to me the opposite of equity.

I am in accord with you regarding claim of fraud for one claiming fraud who is complicit in the game points the finger at himself. Seems like a house divided to me.

The following is my opinion only: Once the Use is exercised - even in ignorance - then the obligation inures upon the User. Since the Use transferred to a grantee/trustee the Cestui Que Use requires of its trustees to give account [once a year] of the benefit. Folks around here call that a return. Since the notes a private credit instruments 3rd party to the State, the collection is also INTERNAL to that Trust. The State stands surety for the entire game just as 12USC412 tells us.

Consider now if one endorses said 3rd party central bank then one becomes Trustee. Now consider for a moment what happens when Trustee contracts with Trustee. Who do you think has the rule? See how we Re-VENUE ourselves into Overlay Districts wherein we may no longer claim certain protections? For at once the Constitution wars against us at Article I Section X. With choice most, including myself, choose death. But no longer. I choose Life - I choose to fish out of the RIGHT SIDE of the Boat. For look closely at Washington's head. See he is the Alpha and he is flanked by an Omega. And upon his head is an Alter.

And guess what dear reader - do you Sacrifice upon that Alter and of which Boat do you fish - Left or Right? In other words - I have no further than to look in the mirror for it was My Sacrifice. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACjIiAzkc3c)

Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

Lev 5:3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.

And Jesus said - it does not defile a man what goes into his mouth [Mind] it defiles a man what comes out of his mouth [Mind]. Thusly it is our deeds which defile us - and of course our deeds are predicated upon Mind. For Mind was before Matter.

Hogslop in tends to bring Hogslop out. Thusly is the MIND reformed and transformed. And I give thanks to the School Teacher in money for before I understood it kicked my rear end - but now I know - I am my brothers keeper. I serve him and her with my choice. I choose life. For me and you!


Shalom,
MJ

David Merrill
05-29-16, 10:42 PM
Experience as intelligence nexus for the brain trust, the nunc pro tunc approach of declaring fraud worked well for about three years. Then no longer at all.

I agree with Michael Joseph. Or as I have been saying, the bankers have been banking on your signature. It is like they remembered the old addage; Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Bentley
05-30-16, 09:00 AM
Has anyone had experience making 12 USC411, 95a(2) claims of Lawful money demands on funds paid out via a 433-D agreement forced upon someone so as to avoid a levy? Is it reasonable to conclude that monies deposited during the year via lawful money deposited in an account that the IRS draws from to satisfy the 433-D agreement can be re-claimed via la lawful money demand on the following year's filing of the 1040?

Thanks, Bentley

David Merrill
05-30-16, 11:41 AM
These signature agreements are taken quite seriously. That seems to be a big point, and point of contention as I have two trusts where beneficiaries go into dishonor, and the court system will only uphold the banker's side of agreements. The court system is vacant bonding because there are not valid oaths of office. [This is being hashed in more depth on www.lawfulmoneytrust.com where we can regulate the education value more precisely.]

Get a look at the Form. (https://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/formsInstructions.html;jsessionid=Ce3JNkN1NVMBpXry BAZrpA__?value=433&criteria=formNumber&submitSearch=Find)

It would be great if somebody has this experience you wish to seek learn from. Please don't let my interjection stop people from chiming in.

ag maniac
05-30-16, 12:07 PM
I'm gonna chime in about a minor adjustment to making claims to 12USC95a(2)

12 USC 95a (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a) is now omitted.....

....and found again at 50 USC 4305 (b)(2) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/4305).

David Merrill
05-30-16, 03:13 PM
Thank you.

I point out too, that it would seem to be a graduate student at Cornell Law School who made the change. If it were Congress then it would show up in the Notes as an amendment or repeal.

ag maniac
05-31-16, 01:33 AM
Quite right DM......it still shows @ gpo.gov (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title12/USCODE-2011-title12-chap2-subchapIV-sec95a)

David Merrill
05-31-16, 02:33 AM
Thank you for that. This is interesting... legislating from a law school website.

What next!


This really makes me wonder if the grad student IT guy or gal is reading here? I wonder if I should report this to Cornell!

David Merrill
05-31-16, 03:28 AM
P.S. I got email addresses from this Page (http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/careers/aboutus/bios.cfm). The Subject is "Breach of Trust".





Which is to presume that Cornell Law is a trusted website to begin with.

I find it a bit disturbing that, let's presume for now an IT grad student is presuming to legislate for Congress... by "Omitting" statutes from the US Code.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a

Please note that Congress has not omitted that statute.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title12/USCODE-2011-title12-chap2-subchapIV-sec95a

It started bothering me enough to mention it. Please keep the law you display on your website coherent with the actual law.


Thank you.
David Merrill.

Bentley
05-31-16, 11:09 PM
David,

Yes, the 433-D is an 'Installment agreement' with the IRS but there are multiple issues with this form, and the IRS for that matter.

1. The form says "Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service" but this clearly violates Treasury Order 150-06. Treasury Order 150-06, issued in 2005,
cancelled the Internal Revenue Service designation over 10 years ago. The T.O. issued in 2005 cancelled the order of 1953 which renamed The Bureau of Internal Revenue to the Internal Revenue Service. Now it is just an 'entity' as the treasury order plainly states. Perhaps IRS agents should be called Entity agents. See https://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of-treasury/orders-directives/Pages/to150-06.aspx

2. Treasury Order 150-02, https://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of-treasury/orders-directives/Pages/to150-02.aspx relating to the current Organization and Functions of the Internal Revenue Service, was also cancelled. This occurred in 2006. It cancelled the treasury order issued in 2001 that defined the existing Area structure we find today. None of the IRS organization should be in existence, but it is. Here is but one example, that of the SB/SE Area. https://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-01_IRB/apd.html

3. The IRS as we know it does not have a valid charter. The last one on file was signed in 2010 by Commissioner Shulman. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/irpac_2011_renewal_charter.pdf

For these reasons, and others too numerous to list here, renders the 433-D form (and ALL 1040s) a fraudulent document, in violation of 26 USC 7207. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7207

Perhaps Americans should protect themselves by employing this technique found here: http://www.newstruth.co.uk/how-to-sign-your-name-without-assuming-liability/

Regards, Bentley

David Merrill
06-01-16, 12:28 AM
Well, we found 95a. I have not heard back from Cornell Law staff.

What kind of claim were you thinking of drafting? I am thinking if you demand lawful money though, you would leave it to the IRS to deduct the refund off the settlement agreement.

Bentley
06-01-16, 03:47 AM
Check this: uscode.house.gov Jump to 50 usc 4305 You will find 95a there.

David Merrill
06-01-16, 02:05 PM
Check this: uscode.house.gov Jump to 50 usc 4305 You will find 95a there.

Thanks! I have been using and trusting in Cornell Law for years:

4038

So I prefer they stop "omitting" the banking code just because it is found in the military code. It is the Trading with the Enemy Act and is an important building block in understanding redemption in general.


YOU CANNOT FIGHT YOUR WAY OFF THE BATTLEFIELD

Bentley
06-01-16, 03:24 PM
The agreement would not be willful. I would precede my signature with the initials, V.C., an abbreviation for the Latin term, Vi Coactus, which means signed only under threat of force. This would allow me to legally object to the seizure, and leave open the demand a return of lawful money seized, on the 1040 return.

David Merrill
06-01-16, 06:06 PM
It is not a seizure, as I understand it. The banks are required to report cash transactions paid cash of over $10K. I have done this myself and cannot see any way to convince the bank that they do not actually have to...

Crosstalk:


I have said, YOU CANNOT FIGHT YOUR WAY OFF THE BATTLEFIELD!

Lately I have also mentioned some things about Creation and Ownership; and how they are so closely interrelated. It delights me to get a suitor on the brain trust encouraging Michael Joseph and me.


David & MJ,

I rarely, (about never) speak to the dialog(s) and discourse undertaken by & among yourselves, but just want to say "Thanks" for stimulating the gray matter, and prompting a process of growth & inquiry.

As I look to travel up the mountain I see numerous trails. Some I've learned were switch backs, others dead ends. But, herein there is always meat & drink. I frequently labor to digest, but such is the nature of this adventure.

Keep it up.

I believe that encouragement has arrived at the very moment I can concisely describe how and why it seems confusing some times, whether to choose retaliation or forgiveness. From my previous broadcast:


This is an important mathematical Key comprehending foundations of priestcraft. In context of Passages and the visiting lecturers I noticed David Lyle JEFFREY. PhD, FRSC Baylor University while lecturing about Beauty in the Bible, making this substitution and so mentioned this to him. His reply: I very much appreciate this note, and the important distinction you articulate. I think that you’ll be correct in assuming that the reflexive association of Ruah with neshemah in someone like myself owes to a teaching tradition. In my case that is evangelical rather than Catholic, and to some degree Jewish as well, since I reflect on chumash and read Talmud quite often. So thanks for this—you have prompted me to look into the matter further.

This is as big a Key as Redemption, and could be argued is exactly the same thing. It is also the Key to Ownership, whether you consider yourself redeemed by God, or as being instilled with God's Mind, yourself as Creator. And if you ever find yourself angry or even attacking another for being at peace, please take a breath and consider that this is likely you always find yourself on the wrong side of the Trading with the Enemy Act. In other words if you find it easy to point your finger at somebody who considers themselves God and Creator of the entire universe, maybe you should try it yourself some time. If you include everybody and everything into the Mind of God, instilled into you, then it is no threat whatsoever.

What got me to this breakthrough is waiting for the staff at Cornell Law School to correct a private website omission of the Trading with the Enemy Act (1917). As I pointed out:


4039


However, according to Congress there is no such "omission". Cornell's notes describe the reason to omit the Trading with the Enemy Act from the Bankers' Code (Titles 12 and 31) is because it is found repeated in Title 50, the Military Code. Congress is a legislative body and Cornell is a law school - mission: education.

So I wrote to the staff at Cornell Law School:


SUBJECT: Breach of Trust


Which is to presume that Cornell Law is a trusted website to begin with.

I find it a bit disturbing that, let's presume for now an IT grad student is presuming to legislate for Congress... by "Omitting" statutes from the US Code.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a

Please note that Congress has not omitted that statute.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title12/USCODE-2011-title12-chap2-subchapIV-sec95a

It started bothering me enough to mention it. Please keep the law you display on your website coherent with the actual law.


Thank you.
David Merrill.

I got one reply, that she would not be answering her messages until after the holiday weekend. So I know the emails arrived okay. Now I have silence leaving my imagination to wander all over reasoning why to "Omit" the TWEA from the mind/education of the public, especially within the scope of it affecting banking. I might give it a couple more days. It truly does not seem a big thing, to just correct it back the way it was or maybe just write me a short explanation why they feel at Cornell Law School, they do not need to repeat repetitive codes.

Surely it would not be that the TWEA has nothing to do with banking. It is the heart and soul of the Secretary and/or the President being able to declare a Bankers' Holiday. It was Americans 'hoarding' gold that justified FDR declaring war on the Great Depression.


Regards,
David Merrill.




P.S. Let's say you keep going back to the bank every day for $9,990.00. I believe they are instructed to report you anyway.