Here is an example of the supporting schedule for the 1040 Form.
Printable View
Here is an example of the supporting schedule for the 1040 Form.
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.
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.
At line 21, did the suitor note "Demand For Lawful Money" or words to that effect, but leave the column entry blank?
See this previous post for the Example 1040 Form link and the Line 21 notation.
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.
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?
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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/pd...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 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:
Attachment 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
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.
We seek the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US Government through the US clerk of court and PACER.Quote:
Citizens should not have to use the District courts to negotiate their business relationship with the IRS.
www.savingtosuitorsclub.net
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-o.../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
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
[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".
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.
[QUOTE=gdude;10473]Penalty of perjury - 28 USC § 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjuryQuote:
Originally Posted by Why would you sign the 1040 form under penalty of perjury? QUOTE
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1746
Bentley
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-o.../to150-06.aspx
and violates Title 31 section 333 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/333
Bentley
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, and share and put that gDrive URL link on my Support Schedule for 1040 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, 95a(2), 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 of Harm.
My Rationale folder contains additional material supporting this remedy, which you may also cite.
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
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
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 and the Creator's "red line" declared in Mt 22:21.
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
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.
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?
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:
Attachment 2077
Another such free web drive is http://hugedrive.com/
Just search for "free web drive account" to find others.
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.
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?
I know you want the signature card your way, but why do you want dwell on it createvalue9?Quote:
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 -
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 #72Quote:
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"?
Good link doug555.Quote:
- harm to a man
- injury to a man's property
- breach of a valid and lawful contract
Void enough?
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...onversationid=
In above, "realname" is referring to this post which contains this image below:
Attachment 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, 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.Quote:
"SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM."
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)?Quote:
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/datastor...5/11-16276.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.
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).
Attachment 2079
http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...-immunity.html
Attachment 2080
NOW...
"What do you have in YOUR wallet?"
I have USNs!!! And I can PROVE it! :)
Also see this post about the Schedule.
Here is what Criminal Tax Manual 8.00 -- 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 . 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 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 on 12-15-2013?
And David's reply post12168 on 12-16-2013?Quote:
"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!!
Thanks again Chex!Quote:
Thank you! That is why I did not get your point - I misunderstood. Transaction-based redemption. That sinks in.
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