Bill Holter says Option B is skip the pretenses altogether and just go straight to war. Doubt they have enough cash to though.
http://blog.milesfranklin.com/100-trillion-in-debt
Printable View
Bill Holter says Option B is skip the pretenses altogether and just go straight to war. Doubt they have enough cash to though.
http://blog.milesfranklin.com/100-trillion-in-debt
1st Success, I received the NY State Return Yesterday. Pic attached Attachment 1591
The refund for the lawful money 1040 tax return was just approved:
http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg
Nice Johnny, I just saw this on mine, I wonder what the Letter will say? Attachment 1592
I can certainly see the need to bash Lawful Money, to make it look like it doesn't work. Not my cup of tea but someone must play that role; understood. The banksters can't have thousands of taxpayers filing Lawful Money tax returns - they work TOO WELL!
You both have different scenarios.
IRS refund sent!
http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg
Beautiful example of a LAWFUL MONEY Federal Income Tax Return filing for 2013. Note that a matching Form W2 was attached. Also, filer received a Form 1099 for the year with an amount in the tens of thousands but none of it was entered on the 1040.
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_3.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg
Culminating in the refund to bank account on March 25th:
http://ctcwarrior.com/refund2013.jpg
THANKS EVERYONE!
Congratulations.
I have just begun. I have redeemed lawful money on 3 paychecks. I did not sign my name anywhere on the check just the demand. They have all been credited to my account. Now I just need to wait for next year. In the mean time I procrastinate filling in this years return:mad:
Why are you waiting for next year? Why not demand lawful money "nunc pro tunc" this year and years past and collect those refunds!
I have still not received the letter from the IRS as they indicated on their website. Has anyone else gotten this from the IRS, if so how did you respond?
I am not sure of this mechanism. I have not set up a repository/court. I have also read posts that this was done successfully in the past but the IRS is no longer obliging this type of return.
Any recent success stories regarding "nunc pro tunc" on a return that has no precedent of actual demand for that tax year?
Ok, I got the letter from the IRS, Here it is suggested replies?
Attachment 1596
Temporarily Deleted
Attachment 1598
One part of the letter says, "your position has no basis in law, IRC bla bla bla" which of course is not true law.
So I wonder if it's a matter of passing the "hot potato" back to them with a rebuttal letter?
And the word "may" as in "may file a bla bla bla against you" seems to imply a possibility, but no real commitment, like the obnoxious yapping neighborhood dog that barks at every little thing but never attacks, never catches the squirrel, etc..
Suitors with an evidence repository have had success by adding to the Clerk Instruction (Refusal for Cause):
I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money that I am doing.
But that is with a Libel of Review for an evidence repository and properly refusing for cause the FrivPen warning letter.
May I suggest:
Quote:
Your letter postdated April 5, 2014 stating that I have filed a frivolous Tax Return confuses me. I have been making demand for redeemed lawful money most of the tax year 2013 and therefore should be getting nearly a full refund of all withholdings. Additionally I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money that I am doing. Please explain exactly where on the Memorandum of 40 Frivolous Arguments you find the Remedy I am using and respond immediately BEFORE charging me a $5,000 Frivolous Penalty.
froze do not listen to those who would tell you to NOT respond to this as it is just gobbygook. The IRS has convened a common law court in Admiralty and the matter is being heard RIGHT NOW. If you do not respond within 30 days, THEN you will be considered to be in default. And judgement is a matter of Res Judicata. You bring judgment in your silence. Therefore do not remain silent.
I have no idea what you sent them however you are now at a cross roads. If it was me I would write the agent to find out WHY the filing was frivolous - BECAUSE according to your records you deem it to be fine. They made a Claim - and if you remain silent their claim stands. So you write back - Counter Claim. In fact you are the accommodation party in this contract IF you have been endorsing the Federal Reserve System. So as such, it appears that you have an obligation. so what is it?
Are you or are you not? If you have kept your records, then maybe you send the agent a copy of front/back of check from beginning, middle and end of year cycle. Shows sustained performance. But read carefully - if you remain silent then you bring judgment on your own head.
Don't get wrapped around the axle - they beleive you to have an obligation - which you may or may not have. In trust law the trustee is PRESUMED guilty and must show his innocence. So are you righteous or not? If so you had best write back and prove it from within your Court of Record!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECENT CORRESPONDENCE - I HAVE EXAMINED IT VERY CAREFULLY AND FOR THE LIFE OF ME I CANNOT FIND WHERE MAKING A DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411 IS A FRIVOLOUS POSITION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER, I HAVE ATTACHED A SAMPLE OF DEMANDS FOR YOUR CONTEMPLATION - IF I CAN BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE - PLEASE ADVISE.
shalom,
MJ
P.S. I just saw David Merrill's post and I am in agreement.
OK so this is what I am thinking of using as my response letter. Let me know your thoughts.
Dear Sir or Madam;
The letter postdated April 7, 2014 (copy included with this letter) stating that I have filed a frivolous Tax Return confuses me. I have been making demand for redeemed lawful money most of the tax year 2013 and therefore should be getting nearly a full refund or a full refund of all withholdings. Additionally I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 that I have been and still are doing as evidenced by the copies of the checks that were included with my refund. I have included 3 of them with this letter as examples. To save money on postage I have not resent all of them. If the agents acting for the IRS need me to resend all of them I can and will upon request.
Please explain exactly where on the Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4 (included with this letter) you find the Remedy I am using or something similar that applies to my filing and respond BEFORE charging me a $5,000 Frivolous Penalty because I cannot find any connection with the process of redeeming Lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 or demand for lawful money reduction on Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4.
On the letter that was sent to me it states "review the enclosed Publication 2105 (Why do I have to pay taxes)". Publication 2105 was not included in the letter but I went on irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf and found what I believe to be the one that was supposed to be sent to me and included it with this letter. Is the included publication 2105 the one the letter I received from the IRS Post dated April 7th 2014 the Publication 2105 it was referring to? If it was the correct publication I was unable to find any reference to the process of redeeming lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 or demand for lawful money reduction.
If I am mistaken please tell me what section(s) apply to my return in your response so that I may understand for this as well as future fillings. If after further review the 1040 I filed is found by the IRS to be correct as I have determined it to be, please respond in kind and I will await the check in the mail. If not please answer my questions and we can work to a speedy resolution.
Warm Regards,
John Q. Doe
Based on the travails of froze25 and the documents he cited I found this:
Frivolous tax returns; “nunc pro tunc.”
This ruling emphasizes to taxpayers, promoters, and return preparers that inserting the
phrase “nunc pro tunc” on a return or other document submitted to the Service has no legal effect and does not validate an invalid return, make a delinquent return timely, invalidate a signature, create a claim for refund of taxes previously paid, or reduce one’s federal tax liability
I will therefore not use this for my current tax year. I will make a valid lawful money deduction based on my evidence repository.
Froze25:
Did you include your affidavit "In Support of Lawful Money". If so I wonder if they are using that document to qualify for "other document submitted to the Service" That affidavit uses the term "nunc pro tunc"?
Hmm, just wondering -- because the Suitor is no longer endorsing private credit, how can they still be a taxpayer? Isn't the whole idea to avoid paying the user fee for private credit and get the tax refund?
Would be nice to read more of EZ's view about the nunc pro tunc he mentioned.
My take here is that "froze25" has conspired to slur lawful money redemption. A setup from the get-go to portray REDEEMING LAWFUL MONEY in a bad light. This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.
Stonefree, what I'm trying too do is get a full refund after receiving a semi threatening letter from the IRS, believe it or not that is what I am doing. With some luck this thread will help others to do the same even with threatening letters. That is why I'm attempting to document my experience. Can you show some examples of yours?
Froze, here is your explanation in full for the IRS. You may find some or all of it useful in your reply.
I am an American Citizen by being born within the territory of the Union States (jus soli), and born to parents who were also American Citizens (jus patria). As an American Citizen I have certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the ownership of property. Just because the United States of America Corporation (federal government) issued a transmitting utility for me (YOUR FULL NAME) for my use in participating in the public trust, I never voluntarily and knowingly surrendered any of my unalienable rights for a commercial contract (see eg, NCGS 25-1.308 of the UCC), a practice deplored by the United Nations International Covenant on Enforcement of Individual Civil Rights (the ICEICR, now adopted by 176 nations). And since citizenship is a First Amendment right, I chose this past tax year to keep some of the fruits of my labor, which cannot be taxed by the IRS, as the living man has an unalienable right to earn his living through his labor. The use of lawful money is a formal way to rebut the presumption that I have agreed to be a debt slave to the corporate government. Since lawful money is issued by the US Treasury more or less in accordance with the Constitution, it is outside the purview of the IRS, which can only collect a privilege tax on monies gifted to the public trust through the transmitting utility, with endorsement of Federal Reserve credit (sight notes of zero maturity), and thus dealing in private securities, being the privilege. There is nothing frivolous about asserting my rights to retain the fruits of my labor. After all, paying income taxes is voluntary, as is participation in the public trust, and thus volunteering to commit all my property and labor as surety for the onerous national debt.
Freed
Yeah, and I forgot to include the matching W2. As an eyewitness to the events, I can testify that redeeming lawful money works. Saw the original untouched documents myself. So here is the full example of 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money from a W2 taxpayer:
http://ctcwarrior.com/W2_2013.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_3.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status1.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg
http://ctcwarrior.com/refund2013.jpg
Congratulations on your success, was the 3 page of your return, the one that shows other income one of the IRS's forms or did you make it yourself? That is the only fundamental difference I see between your 1040 and mine. Also I see you only attached one check, I sent all of mine.
OK so this will be the finial draft of the letter:
Dear Sir or Madam;
The letter postdated April 7, 2014 (copy included with this letter) stating that I have filed a frivolous Tax Return confuses me. I have been making demand for redeemed lawful money most of the tax year 2013 and therefore should be getting nearly a full refund or a full refund of all withholdings. Additionally I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 that I have been and will continue doing as evidenced by the copies of the checks that were included with my refund. I have included 3 of them with this letter as examples. To save money on postage I have not resent all of them. If the agents acting for the IRS need me to resend all of them I can and will upon request.
Please explain exactly where on the Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4 (included with this letter) you find the Remedy I am using or something similar that applies to my filing and respond BEFORE charging me a $5,000 Frivolous Penalty because I cannot find any connection with the process of redeeming Lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 or demand for lawful money reduction on Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4. It is critical that you point out what exactly is frivolous about my Tax Return Filing in order for me to correct it properly.
On the letter that was sent to me it states, "review the enclosed Publication 2105 (Why do I have to pay taxes)". Publication 2105 was not included in the letter but I went on irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf and found what I believe to be the one that was supposed to be sent to me and included it with this letter. Is the included publication 2105 the one the letter I received from the IRS Post dated April 7th 2014 the "Publication 2105" it was referring to? If it was the correct publication I was unable to find any reference to the process of redeeming lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 or demand for lawful money reduction. Again, since you claim to have included a publication that you did not enclose with your Letter it is critical that you clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.
If I am mistaken please tell me what section(s) apply to my return in your response so that I may understand for this as well as future filings. If after further review the 1040 I filed is found by the IRS to be correct as I have determined it to be, please respond in kind and I will await the check in the mail. If not please answer my questions and we can work to a speedy resolution.
Warm Regards,
I have to agree with Micheal Joseph that you must re-butt their proposal within 30 days or else you lose by default.
I appears that there have sent a proposed NEW contract to your all capitals Strawman in the hopes that you answer the letter, which in reality would be an acceptance to contract with them, which binds you back into their Jurisdiction.
Remember, they can not prosecute you outside of their Jurisdiction
It seems to me the best thing you could do is write across their letter in big bold red letters:
THAT'S NOT ME
REFUSED FOR CAUSE
Then get it Notarized and send it back registered mail receipt requested for your records
I may be wrong with my thinking so hopefully others on here can chime in
This not legal advise, it is only my opinion
I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).
How does one discern between an "agent sent to dissuade" and a student making innocent comments or innocent mistakes in their learning process?
And I wonder how many innocent people have been driven away from these forums in the midst of their studies, never to return, all because some assumed them to be an agent based on the above. This is tragic. Even shameful.
How does one discern between an "agent sent to dissuade" and a student making innocent comments or innocent mistakes in their learning process?
And I wonder how many innocent people have been driven away from these forums in the midst of their studies, never to return, all because some assumed them to be an agent based on the above. This is tragic. Even shameful.
Agreed, you MUST respond. Having seen multiple copies of this letter (thanks Pete/CTC), it's imperative you write, notarize, registered mail w receipt to Ogden. Once you receive the receipt, CALL and follow up w Odgen. Load Skype and an MP3 recorder that records automatically when a call is placed w Skype. Get names, ID #s, etc. Follow w another letter to the one you spoke with (again, notarize, registered mail w receipt) about your phone conversation. Even this may not be enough to stop a letter from Maureen Green, charging the penalty. However, you have a "name" to pursue if it becomes necessary. The key is stop the train before the ACS (Automated Collection System) kicks in.
BTW, it's documented (by others) that the frivpen is actually a "User Fee" based on their own codes. Credit to "woody" on that one.
Not Legal Advice, just my two bits...
Group question, not so much directed to StoneFree:
So how does one tell the difference between an "agent sent to dissuade" and an innocent student making comments or mistakes in their learning process?
And I wonder how many innocent people have been driven away from these forums in the midst of their studies, never to return, all because some assumed them to be an agent based on their questions and learning process/learning style. This is tragic. Even shameful.
What does it take for someone to prove they are not an agent?
Does anyone take the time to pray over this forum daily? How about group prayer - is there a prayer team for this forum?
Where is the fellowship?
Does agape love exist in here? Because if this place is of the Father, agape love should be thriving in here.
I have already invested many many study hours in these threads, hence my strong feelings on this subject. I have questions about what I’ve studied, yet I’m terrified to ask because of this very issue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeanne Marie
The letter has been mailed certified return receipt. I will update as it progresses.
The letter has been mailed via certified return receipt. I will update as it progresses.
It appears that people are making posts to this thread, however I seem to be having trouble seeing the posts.
Am I the only one having this problem