Just to keep "easy to follow" order of the thread I am re-posting some of the related to "bank account" post snippets that were made on different branches:
From Here
And Here
Printable View
Here is a good example of a comprehensive Notice and Demand.
I was looking at the 843 Form and it is not for overpayment of Income Tax. While that does not include refund of withholdings it may be best to file with a 1040 Form and use the 843 Form if the IRS should ever charge the frivolous penalty.
Keep in mind that the term "lawful money" does not exist in the IRC.
The word lawful occurs about 3 times or so, but not in connection with money, and money is mentioned many times, but not in connection with lawful.
I suspect that the reason for this is similar to the reason why footballs are not described in the rules for tennis or golf: different ball game.
If the IRS is involved in any way, then lawful money isn't.
The IRS has nothing to do with lawful money and doesn't know what that is (not that it will admit to anyways).
My advice is to stay away from lost horizons; there's a reason why they are lost.
Finished watching David Merrill’s movie again (3rd time I believe). It is fascinating how information in the movie gets more and more clear with each view (admitted I did quite a bit of reading in between). It is like a sponge, which takes water very slowly at the beginning then faster and faster with each passing second. Seems like I am a very “dry sponge” :) hopefully, will get wet enough at end – and there is not observable final degree of wetness. Assuming that I am swimming in the clean/pure water and not in a toxic swamp.
Getting back to the topic though. The fact that I am involved in “trade or business” and federal employee (signature on W-4) doesn’t prevent me from demanding lawful money, use them and pay NO fee/taxes on them. I might not be able to declare withheld money as lawful, but what was given to me (thanks IRS for not withholding 100%. IRS it is not a tip) and not bound by signature/converted to lawful money are mine to deduct (seems to be an incorrect word but cannot come up with a better one) from the “income”.
The real rub here is that filling out the W-4 Form is a mandatory part of employment in America. If the employer fails to collect the W-4 Forms from all the employees there can be fines and other penalties for the employer.
This reminds me of the LOST TV series. I watched the entire six seasons only to find that it was a post-death hallucination - all of it! It was a remake of Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge, and Jacob's Ladder in my opinion. Beware the linguistics of anything LOST!
Thank you for the video commentary. It has prompted me to Review of My Videos - new threads coming soon. I know there are things I have confirmed as well as am embarrased to have said. Like with HENDRICKSON that is a problem about publishing where you are at that time, when life is a learning process.
The evolved comment in your second paragraph Realname, is that we can be full-fledged State Banks and still make our demand for lawful money. That in fact is who (what) the remedy is intended for - state banks who have been issued Federal Reserve notes. There are suitors earning over $100K/year gainfully employed.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Your last comment, David, is very interesting to me. I've been mulling over the very same idea, that the demand is available only to state banks. After all, isn't it true that anyone holding FRN's is then a state bank by default? At any rate, I've been trying to figure out what this implies. It seems that if someone is holding FRN's (or has deposits on account denominated in FRN's) , and is entitled to demand redemption in lawful money, he has been holding FRN's from the beginning. Since this must be the case, then isn't it also true he that his status as a state bank hasn't changed? And that any income he receives is first received in FRN's? And while his income in FRN's might be offset by the demand, wouldn't filing a return still be required?
I apologize for my muddled thinking, but I'm trying to understand the process completely. After much soul searching, I've come to realize that my most important concern is to completely withdraw from this system. However, it appears that one must be in the system in order to use it. That is appealing on one level, but it still goes against my grain.
It has occurred to me that the only way to completely withdraw is to never receive FRN's. That leaves barter or using alternative currency altogether as a means of trading with people. I guess my problem boils down to this: I don't see how redeeming lawful money changes the nature of a person's relationship to the government. I see how it can be advantageous and desirable to redeem lawful money, but it looks like a catch-22; that one must be in the system in order to use it.
I'm sorting my thoughts as I write, and it appears my goal of withdrawing completely may not be realistic. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
That is what I've been thinking until lately. To withdraw would require finding enough people to trade with who could supply the things we all need. And while there are now numerous cooperatives and mutual aid societies in existence, I have found a great reluctance among most people to even consider trading in anything other than FRN's. Barter is okay, but it's very difficult to get most things when you need them.
Don't forget production. Produce your own.
How about another idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Alan
How about using a corporation or trust as an interface and front for acquiring the things that you need or desire?
If there is some ownership interest involved, that interest can be deposited into a trust.
I haven't thought about that, honestly. I am a sole proprietor contractor in California, so the business should probably be incorporated anyway. I really don't know enough about though. Besides, business has been steadily going away for several years now. I'm sad to say my family is in dire financial straits. I couldn't afford to incorporate even if I wanted to. Not now, anyway.