Patriots win again - 2013 lawful money tax filing

I've been a non-filer for many years, making & depositing lawful money (not FRNs), and thus no requirement to file, even though I do get these 1099-MISC reports. For example THIS ONE I received for TY2012 and never filed a return, no IRS issues afterward.

But then the quatlude gave me an idea. What's better than paying no tax & not filing? Yep, filing with spouse so family can get a bigger refund. So for TY2013 we made use of the PERSON, as secondary filer.

PRIMARY filer: $47k in W2 wages & $14k in pension/annuity. ($14k in redeemed lawful money)
SECONDARY filer: $48k in 1099-MISC income yet none entered on the 1040. (All $48k redeemed lawful money)
Total of $109k in reported income. Federal refund of $5k:

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

VICTORY?
From the experience of others, we see the IRS typically matching their database records to come back 6 to 8 months later with a letter inquiring about the reported "income" not being entered on the 1040 return (if it really was federal income). For example, here's the experience of David L. who received 1099 info reports for tax year 2010 yet didn't file a return at all, and the IRS inquired about his missing return in November (2nd inquiry actually) of the following year. It's now January 2015, 10 months after our filing, and not a peep from the IRS.

It's in this "mourning after" period that the CtC-method usually fails. HENDRICKSON shows little of what happens after filing his so-called "zero-income" return; the CP letters, garnishments, penalties & levies. In fact, it appears I am the only successful CtC Warrior over there.

Another confirmed victory for lawful money.

Thank you Johnny!


A suitor in trouble with Pete's CtC flew him in as a house guest. Then in the suitor's office he and I discussed Pete. Pete was apparently coming to the realization that there is an inviolate "right to be heard" principal in operation within the Voluntary Compliance administration of the US Income Tax.

This is why there are so many Refund checks and so many times they are recalled, after the IRS has a chance to assess the Return in light of 1099 information. Pete's CtC method never offers anybody any law with which to argue the reassessment. - Only some of the worn out and repeatedly defeated slogans that any attorney will be sanctioned for bringing up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyCash

I've been a non-filer for many years, making & depositing lawful money (not FRNs), and thus no requirement to file, even though I do get these 1099-MISC reports. For example THIS ONE I received for TY2012 and never filed a return, no IRS issues afterward.

But then the quatlude gave me an idea. What's better than paying no tax & not filing? Yep, filing with spouse so family can get a bigger refund. So for TY2013 we made use of the PERSON, as secondary filer.

PRIMARY filer: $47k in W2 wages & $14k in pension/annuity. ($14k in redeemed lawful money)
SECONDARY filer: $48k in 1099-MISC income yet none entered on the 1040. (All $48k redeemed lawful money)
Total of $109k in reported income. Federal refund of $5k:

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

VICTORY?
From the experience of others, we see the IRS typically matching their database records to come back 6 to 8 months later with a letter inquiring about the reported "income" not being entered on the 1040 return (if it really was federal income). For example, here's the experience of David L. who received 1099 info reports for tax year 2010 yet didn't file a return at all, and the IRS inquired about his missing return in November (2nd inquiry actually) of the following year. It's now January 2015, 10 months after our filing, and not a peep from the IRS.

It's in this "mourning after" period that the CtC-method usually fails. HENDRICKSON shows little of what happens after filing his so-called "zero-income" return; the CP letters, garnishments, penalties & levies. In fact, it appears I am the only successful CtC Warrior over there.

Another confirmed victory for lawful money.

---

Why didn't filer demand lawful money for GROSS W2 wages of $47K?

I don't know, Primary filer is not here right now to ask. I'm guessing the amount of redeemed lawful money checks totalled $14k for the year (for ex. $7000 x 2 checks).

BTW, quatlude agrees with me the IRS is likely to send a letter asking about no return (or income not entered on the 1040):

Quote:

---

The 1099-MISC for 2012 is for more than $79,000 of non-employee compensation, and that's likely to result in a letter asking about a return, but it's still early. Returns for 2012 that were on an automatic extension to file were only due last October, so it could be months before the IRS notices that there's no return for that SSN (assuming that the SSN on the 1099 is correct) and sends out a letter.

I don't really know how the IRS processes these things, but I would expect that it would depend to a great extent on how JC responds. No response might result in nothing, or it might result in an SFR and a notice of deficiency based on the 1099.

Or there might be a series of administrative summonses to get bank records and information from businesses that have sent him Forms 1099 in the past, followed by a notice of deficiency.

If JC responds with gibberish or attitude, it might go straight to criminal investigations.

I don't know if there's any way to predict the timing or process for these kinds of things.

LPC

---

That is to say, ordinary Americans endorsing Federal Reserve currency get the IRS letters, not me. I use lawful money. No IRS letter indicates the IRS agrees that lawful money is not Title 26 income.

Congrats on the win. Doug may be suggesting you could have done better, that you're only half the distance to the goal, maybe some trick involved here. There was about $7100 withheld in various federal taxes according to the W-2 form. Minus the $5000 refund means you paid about $2100 to the system. Now I'm not saying you're a wolf in sheep's underpants, or if they even wear underwear, but as an outlet for ideas ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noah

Congrats on the win. Doug may be suggesting you could have done better, that you're only half the distance to the goal, maybe some trick involved here. There was about $7100 withheld in various federal taxes according to the W-2 form. Minus the $5000 refund means you paid about $2100 to the system. Now I'm not saying you're a wolf in sheep's underpants, or if they even wear underwear, but as an outlet for ideas ...

---

Correct. If this demand "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" had been on record since Jan 1, 2013, then this filer could have gotten all $7100 FITW refunded. So, evidently, "co-mingling" of funds is not an issue. The $2100 was legitimately paid as a "usage fee" for the FRNs that were used.

And I now think that JohnnyCash's position that the IRS will probably not dispute 1040's with lawful money demands is correct.

It would stir up a more formal judicial recognition of this remedy, and thereby increase its publicity and use.

So, I am very grateful for what JohnnyCash has done and posted here for all of us to see that lawful money demands are being honored by the IRS, despite any "mistakes" being made by the filers.

There's nothing to stop the mistaken party from correcting the mistake...unless it's a lack of knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohiofoiarequest

There's nothing to stop the mistaken party from correcting the mistake...unless it's a lack of knowledge.

---

Correct.

BTW, I just updated post10417 for those planning on doing a 1040 Online Filing for last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

Why didn't filer demand lawful money for GROSS W2 wages of $47K?

---

Filer may always send in an ammended return.


For those who desire to RLM (Redeem Lawful Money) before evidence of redemption was established use, "...Redeemed in lawful money nunc pro tunc."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

Correct.

BTW, I just updated post10417 for those planning on doing a 1040 Online Filing for last year.

---

doug555....I just wanna say --> YOU ROCK, OL' MAN !!!!

THANX ALOT !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

Correct. If this demand "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" had been on record since Jan 1, 2013, then this filer could have gotten all $7100 FITW refunded. So, evidently, "co-mingling" of funds is not an issue. The $2100 was legitimately paid as a "usage fee" for the FRNs that were used.

And I now think that JohnnyCash's position that the IRS will probably not dispute 1040's with lawful money demands is correct.

It would stir up a more formal judicial recognition of this remedy, and thereby increase its publicity and use.

So, I am very grateful for what JohnnyCash has done and posted here for all of us to see that lawful money demands are being honored by the IRS, despite any "mistakes" being made by the filers.

---

Doug555 and JohnnyCash...

Doug555: This 'co-mingling' of redeeming funds was your concern over at 'Treasury Letter' (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...tter-from-1984), where you suggested refraining from this. I'm wondering if you consider Johnny's method to be a DEDUCTION rather than a 'all transactions' REDUCTION, where BOTH are respectively correct. Perhaps we should craft an addendum to the 'Treasury Letter' topic/thread regarding this fact?

JohnnyCash: I did not doubt your method was working (for what, 8 years now?). I saw the logic in your method, but also saw the logic behind Doug555's method. Just trying to look at all angles and decide what works for me. Apparently I can now amend 2013 and proceed with 2014 both in a 'co-mingled' fashion as a DEDUCTION. Then start taking the REDUCTION going forward from TY 2015 with the 'all transactions' demand.

If either of you disagree with my interpretations or presumptions above, please state your thoughts to educate us all.

Thank you both for your knowledge and insight.

imm

You're welcome guys. Yes, there was 32xx. in FITW- Fed income tax withheld (box 2), 32xx. in SS tax withheld (box 4), and 7xx. in Medicare tax withheld (box 6). Subtracting the $5xxx refund equals about $2100 paid to US Treasury. Yes the refund could have been higher with more lawful money redeemed but total LM redeemed for TY13 was $14k for Primary filer (I'm Secondary filer with no FR currency earnings), that's what we have record of. Can't go back in time and redeem more LM now. But perhaps this victory will give Primary filer the confidence to redeem more LM going forward.

Srsly $2100? Doesn't even cover my Dad's SS payout for the month! How can the govt continue all their entitlement payouts on $2100 from the average family, let alone pay the banks their cut? If half the families in America pay only $2100/yr in taxes ... how will your Banking Cabal survive? The simple answer is, it can't. The bank & tax scam cannot continue on so little money. This is the end game. The run on the Fed. Lawful money users are a real threat to their scam.

No "mistake" was made in this filing, no deception or trickery involved in this win. We got the refund requested, a legal win. It's another glaring example of LAWFUL MONEY success. The Silver Bullet. LM works for both W2/W4 workers and 1099 workers.

There's no shame in admitting you've been out-coached and outplayed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyCash

You're welcome guys. Yes, there was 32xx. in FITW- Fed income tax withheld (box 2), 32xx. in SS tax withheld (box 4), and 7xx. in Medicare tax withheld (box 6). Subtracting the $5xxx refund equals about $2100 paid to US Treasury. Yes the refund could have been higher with more lawful money redeemed but total LM redeemed for TY13 was $14k for Primary filer (I'm Secondary filer with no FR currency earnings), that's what we have record of. Can't go back in time and redeem more LM now. But perhaps this victory will give Primary filer the confidence to redeem more LM going forward.

Srsly $2100? Doesn't even cover my Dad's SS payout for the month! How can the govt continue all their entitlement payouts on $2100 from the average family, let alone pay the banks their cut? If half the families in America pay only $2100/yr in taxes ... how will your Banking Cabal survive? The simple answer is, it can't. The bank & tax scam cannot continue on so little money. This is the end game. The run on the Fed. Lawful money users are a real threat to their scam.

No "mistake" was made in this filing, no deception or trickery involved in this win. We got the refund requested, a legal win. It's another glaring example of LAWFUL MONEY success. The Silver Bullet. LM works for both W2/W4 workers and 1099 workers.

There's no shame in admitting you've been out-coached and outplayed.

---

Johnny,

Thanks again. However, no one was 'out-coached and outplayed'. In fact, I (and probably others) will 'win' with BOTH methods (yours and Doug555's) depending on if/when we executed an 'all transactions' demand going forward. 'Win Win' is an appropriate term here!

If you were a humble person you would thank Doug555 because the 'all transactions' method will return more Lawful Money than 'your' method. Just saying.

Thanks again to both of you!

No. Both methods result in the same $3588 refund. Doug even says so: "NOTICE, however, you are only asking for and getting a refund of the FITW,,, namely, 3588."
Using the "John DOH" filer grossing $800/week, $41600/year:

DOUG555 EXAMPLE:
41,600 + 3588 + 1747.20 + 603.20 = 47538.40
Line 21 has (47538.40)
Line 22 has (5938.40)
Refund of 3588.

NET PAY EXAMPLE:
Line 21 has (35662.)
Line 22 has 5938.
Refund of 3588.
http://jesse2012.com/JTD1040.pdf

Heavy is the head that wears a crown.

You're right Johnny...same refund both ways....and for that matter, same refund if you manipulate the numbers for a GROSS PAY EXAMPLE.

And that gross pay ties back into Doug555's "ALL TRANSACTIONS" reasoning....to include the FITW & FICA amounts for the "W-2" employees....and your mention on another post "You cannot exclude or deduct more than your foreign earned income for the year."

I understand the logic behind the "All Transactions", but had such a hard time wrapping my head around the actual numbers in doug's example....especially when the refund comes out the same when using Gross Pay....and in my mind Gross Pay includes the transactions of FITW & FICA....but I definitely see the logic of not using Net Pay for the reason that FRN's & Lawful Money become co-mingled.

Do you and Doug carry around 2 wallets to avoid co-mingling?

Johnny, while as filers on a joint return paying $2100 in fed taxes, I feel it should be pointed out, that by virtue of primary filer being an "employee" in "employment," the employer paid in an equal (at least once was equal) amount of SocialSecurity and Medicare taxes, box 4 and box 6, into the system. So the total contribution to federal coffers would be 2100+3200+700 = $6000.
I'm surprised crazy-math Doug did not catch this as he's always looking for moar.

W2 vs 1099 For most of us the actual difference between 1099 Independent Contractors and W-2 Employees is clear cut for several reasons.

But there are many of us out there that have never encountered it or never even thought to discover and understand their differences.

Use the links on this page for additional information.

When a person is paid on the form W-2, the employer will automatically withhold and pay all of the necessary employee income taxes which are required by the IRS.
The applicable taxes include:
Federal Income Tax,
State Income Tax, and
FICA (Social Security and Medicare).

In addition, the employer will pay all of the necessary employer taxes.
These taxes shall include:
FICA (Social Security and Medicare),
FUTA (Federal Unemployment Tax), and
SUI (State Unemployment Tax).

Working on a 1099 basis actually means that you are working as a true Independent Contractor under the IRS rules.

You work on a 1099 basis when you are self employed such as a sole proprietor or as a corporation.

Your clients will report the monies they pay you to the IRS on a 1099 form.

Your clients will typically contract with you to work on a specific project.

You should have a written contract with each client that will outline the work you will perform, the fees and or cost the client will pay, and how the client will pay you.

You will forward invoices to the client according to the contract terms.

Actual independent contractors are responsible for maintaining all business expenses and income and for making quarterly federal and state income tax payments.

Resource http://www.residual-rewards.com/w2-vs-1099.html

When your Foreign Corporation expects to transact business outside your state of formation, your company may be required to qualify as a "foreign corporation".

There are many "company formation companies" that can file the necessary paperwork to qualify your business as a foreign corporation in any of the 50 states.

A corporation is considered to be domestic only in the state where it was formed.

In all other states, your company is regarded as a foreign corporation.

To qualify your company to transact business in another state, you must register for a Certificate of Authority to transact business in that state.

The consequences of not qualifying in a foreign state in which your company transacts business may include loss of access to that state's courts and potential fines.

Additionally, corporations are subject to taxes and annual report fees in both the state of formation and any states where the corporation is qualified as a foreign corporation.

Additionally, most states require corporations to have within each state where the company is qualified. This Registered Agent must be available to receive important communications from the state and others on behalf of the company. http://www.residual-rewards.com/fore...rporation.html

The statement "withhold and pay all of the necessary employee income taxes which are required by the IRS."

The question is required by whom?

I feel the FRB relies on the IRS to find out where and who has their FRN's.

Noah, you're right it's about $6000 total paid-in between Employer & Employee. Still not too bad for $109k in income (5.5%). I checked doug555's math [41,600 + 3588 + 1747.20 + 603.20 = 47538.40] and it's correct; it's not "crazy math." Please have respect for the feelings of other innocent quatlosers.

Now the fact he's choosing to add-in more than his lawful money income for the year certainly qualifies for driving the train past the station. I can appreciate that diverse viewpoint. and a CP (civil penalty). Perhaps we could characterize it as crazy train.

ChexMix, you've just spouted what THEY want us to believe. You cut & pasted propaganda. THEY conveniently leave out that these guidelines & rules are conditional; only apply to those in contract. They leave out the contract, the nexus, that we all know is FEDERAL RESERVE CREDIT. If I pay my workers in LM, bitcoin, or marbles ... then this W2/1099 reporting doesn't apply. If I'm paid in LM, bitcoin, or marbles ... then this BS doesn't apply.
This is just social conditioning. Which is easily overcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyCash

No. Both methods result in the same $3588 refund. Doug even says so: "NOTICE, however, you are only asking for and getting a refund of the FITW,,, namely, 3588."
Using the "John DOH" filer grossing $800/week, $41600/year:

DOUG555 EXAMPLE:
41,600 + 3588 + 1747.20 + 603.20 = 47538.40
Line 21 has (47538.40)
Line 22 has (5938.40)
Refund of 3588.

NET PAY EXAMPLE:
Line 21 has (35662.)
Line 22 has 5938.
Refund of 3588.
http://jesse2012.com/JTD1040.pdf

Heavy is the head that wears a crown.

---

Johnny, I meant that in the one real-world example (Primary/Secondary filer) 'they' left $2100 on the table.

In your your 'John DOH' example, both methods work because the Gross Pay is relatively low. So for the NET PAY method, plug in 75,000 Gross Pay at single-0 withholding: you do NOT receive all of your FITW. You end up 'forfeiting' less than $1000. So depending on your pay grade and withholding exemptions, you may not receive all of the FITW. Which brings me to this point...

You can NEVER redeem all the Gross Pay (including deductions) in lawful money using the NET PAY method. As Doug555 pointed out, I don't believe there is a law that states that you are NOT allowed to redeem the Gross Pay. If there is, someone please provide it if they know of it.

Here's another idea. If people are wary of Doug555's accounting method, i.e. 'adding all W-2 "income" transactions (including SS/Med) to be greater than Gross Pay' (I still need to verify that accounting method with an accountant), then the following might be an alternative to that. And, it actually combines the D555 and Johnny methods, with a twist I have added. The more I think about it, this seems to make lawful and legal sense. Here goes...

1) Create and record at the County, the suggested Affidavit that demands lawful money for ALL transactions and the discharge of all obligations via the 95a(2) language. I believe that Affidavit is linked in the 'Treasury Letter' topic. I don't know the method of linking that here, so I apologize. So you are therefore demanding lawful money on the GROSS PAY and ALL other transactions (including NET, SS/MED, ATM withdrawals, etc), with that Affidavit recording.

2) Now using the 'John DOH' example:
Line 21 has (39250) This is NET pay of 35662 + FITW of 3588.
Line 22 has (2350) This is SS of 1747 + MED of 603.

The refund is still 3588. Even if you plugged in the 75,000 Gross Pay example I mentioned, you would still receive your full FITW refund.

Here's the thought on this alternative (combining D555 with Johnny, and my removing FITW from Line 22 and adding to Line 21):

1) There is no statute or regulation (if there is, PLEASE publish it) that determines HOW to provide for a lawful money DE-DUCTION or RE-DUCTION on the 1040.

2) By including the FITW with NET PAY as "Other Income", you are demanding THAT portion (FITW + NET PAY) of the GROSS PAY in lawful money to be refunded, BECAUSE you were not able to redeem the FITW, UNTIL NOW - on the 1040.

3) This is in fact an 'income tax' matter, is it not? Look at the PAYMENTS section of the 1040. For 2013, what does it tell you to put on Line 62? FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITHHELD (I'm not yelling, just emphasizing). Do you see SS/MED anywhere here (forget the 'excess SS/etc)? No, because it's out of scope for the 1040. The SS/MED amounts are the so-called privilege/contract/taxable-event that incurs an "income" tax...so..

4) IMO the Doug555 example might want to remove the FITW from Line 22. I could say the same for the Johnny example IF he had the 'all transactions' demand Affidavit filed and the D555 'all transactions' language on the checks/slips, where he would then add the FITW to Line 21. If you are redeeming in lawful money in the D555 method, and the NET PAY you received is NOT "income", then how is the FITW considered "income" if you are receiving ALL of it back with the RE-DUCTION from GROSS PAY? If it's NOT SS/MED, then all the other amounts (NET PAY and FITW) are NOT "income" - IF you have demanded that ALL transactions be RILM ...

We KNOW we can't ask for a SS/MED refund on this Form 1040, but we CAN ask for the FITW of which WOULD have been redeemed in lawful money if we were paid in GROSS PAY. Since we are not, then the Affidavit notifies the IRS/Treasury if necessary (not a bad idea to include it with the 1040) that yes, I also have demanded the FITW (and SS/MED) in lawful money. The checks/slips are an extension of the Affidavit (or vice versa, however you want to look at it). So if I have filed my affidavit (and novated the checks/slips with 'all transactions/95a(2)' language), then I know that I can rightfully demand the NON-SS/MED amounts because this is an "income" tax Form. And my "income" in this example is $2350. The remaining (NET + FITW) is not "income" in the statutory taxation sense. Therefore it is removed from the Line 22 "income".

I recognize that BOTH methods have been working and that is great. However, I think the combined method may be viable (removing FITW from Line 22, adding it to Line 21). I'll have a year to think it over. For 2013 and 2014, it'll have to be the Johnny method for my situation.


All thoughts welcome.

Thanks for mischaracterizing our win as ... left $2100. on the table. Very incongruous coming from a persona who sets their W4 exemptions to 0 yielding maximum benefit to the bank&tax scam; at a minimum giving the govt a free loan. I can say we were both elated to receive a $5k refund last March. More than the box 2 FITW withheld. We got exactly what we wanted & asked for, no more & no less. That's less than 2% tax paid on $109,00 reported income. The federal govt does provide some important services and it's possible the primary filer was willing to contribute ... a little.

You might forgive me for glossing over the remainder of your post to save time. Just couldn't get past that .... certain agenda-driven aroma. Might wanna do something about that discharge.

Having a conditional usage of "all property" delivers a distinct illusion of ownership. That illusion is quite convincing.

I tried to warn everybody about examples - that they never meet up to rules of evidence, even if they contain all the private information they can be doctored and photoshopped etc. Cyberspace has its shortcomings.

Johnny, defending and reacting to skepticism simply weakens your "examples". Allow people to be skeptical please. Continue to skim some member's and let it go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Having a conditional usage of "all property" delivers a distinct illusion of ownership. That illusion is quite convincing.

I tried to warn everybody about examples - that they never meet up to rules of evidence, even if they contain all the private information they can be doctored and photoshopped etc. Cyberspace has its shortcomings.

Johnny, defending and reacting to skepticism simply weakens your "examples". Allow people to be skeptical please. Continue to skim some member's and let it go.

---

Yesssssss. Years ago there was a skeptic in our small band that would always pester me for evidence. I tried and tried to explain to him that he either trusts me or he does not. So then we come back to liability. Am I willing to take liability for myself such that I learn and then implement what I learn. But once I act it is no longer the process or doctrine of another it is solely my deed. I own my deeds. My choices are my choices.

So then proof - what's that? Especially in a cyber arena. So then a wise one considers but then my deeds are my own and I cannot say this is David Merrill's process. It is my own the minute I act. All mine. For I am with the liability of my deeds. For me to point the finger at another is to be in limited liability - well that is the problem now isn't it?

Thank you for this response David Merrill. You are right. Some folks come for the teaching and others come for the "free fish sandwich" - 5 loaves and 2 fishes. In the end, we hold court at our own table - what to do - only the man in the mirror can decide.

So here's what you should do....... [written in jest - I can't answer that for you]

you get the point. Of course there are always those who are handicapped in some nature or degree and I think there should be those who should stand in the gap for those. However, in general, we broadcast upon a candid world and the world can choose what it shall do.

When I was a child I spake as a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things. Test and weigh all matters in the balance - in the courtroom of your own mind. You decide and quit from placing your full faith and trust in other men. Jeremiah 17:5/17:7; Psalms 91: 1-2

Should you wish to place your trust in me, then ask of me what is my will and I may tell you what you should do. But then what will you do? Will you obey or rebel? You did place your trust in me, yes? Oh no? Then why are you asking? This is the heart of the matter - the crux.

Says the skeptic: Something for free has no value.

Is that true? Dear Reader: Only you can know. FEAR is a terrible enemy. It traps us into stagnation - someone should do some thing about this or that. And nothing ever gets done. Therefore CHANGE comes but not for good. Pushing thru fear one finds a house of cards. A system built upon CONSENT. Sign here and here and here and become the Guarantor / Surety. Benefit received with obligation required.

What you are ignorant of banking - does that nullify the benefit of banking? Hardly. To the Student: keep going.

Your servant in Christ,
MJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyCash

Thanks for mischaracterizing our win as ... left $2100. on the table. Very incongruous coming from a persona who sets their W4 exemptions to 0 yielding maximum benefit to the bank&tax scam; at a minimum giving the govt a free loan. I can say we were both elated to receive a $5k refund last March. More than the box 2 FITW withheld. We got exactly what we wanted & asked for, no more & no less. That's less than 2% tax paid on $109,00 reported income. The federal govt does provide some important services and it's possible the primary filer was willing to contribute ... a little.

You might forgive me for glossing over the remainder of your post to save time. Just couldn't get past that .... certain agenda-driven aroma. Might wanna do something about that discharge.

---

Johnny, I don't have an agenda. Quite the opposite. Why do you always dismiss other people's ideas and interpretations? As you stated, you "just couldn't get past that...". That is total arrogance and ignorance. YOU know it all, so why should we think for ourselves? We'll just blindly follow the pied piper Johnny. With or without your success, people have questions, theories.

Despite your intelligence, you refuse to answer or address VALID questions/interpretations/theories...you name it. Case in point: you took a PARTIAL redemption for your FITW, where you 'let them keep' that $2100. So you VOLUNTEERED part of that FITW as FRN's, and redeemed only the NET portion as lawful money. My point was that I believe you have the right to redeem ALL THE FITW if recorded properly. I don't care WHAT you do. But YOU missed the point, as usual.

BTW, smart ass, I am prepared to file RILM returns for 2013 and 2014. But you didn't read that, did you? Because of course, you didn't need to. Ignore anything that does not suit YOUR agenda. The irony is that I am using the examples THAT YOU PROVIDED for 2013 and 2014. That FACT flies right by your prejudiced brain. Did you read that last sentence? Because I'm not sure if you glossed over this or not because my opinions are so insignificant.

And David Merrill, I disagree with you. Others learn by example. If no one provided examples or guidance on this great website, then everyone would have to make an educated guess as to how to prepare a 1040 for lawful money. I am not smart enough on my own to know that I could enter a negative "income" value on Line 21, let alone know THAT line can be used to record your lawful money demand. Just saying.

Q: Why is SOME or ALL of the FITW included in Line 22 "income" on the 1040, when SOME or ALL of it has been redeemed as lawful money? If it's RILM then that portion is not "income", right? VALID question.

Must have been part of me unwilling to be silent in the face of (the afflicted with) evil. I have some quatlude canceling headgear now; all set.

David & Michael, thank you for your comments ... and this IRS blessing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Having a conditional usage of "all property" delivers a distinct illusion of ownership. That illusion is quite convincing.

I tried to warn everybody about examples - that they never meet up to rules of evidence, even if they contain all the private information they can be doctored and photoshopped etc. Cyberspace has its shortcomings.

Johnny, defending and reacting to skepticism simply weakens your "examples". Allow people to be skeptical please. Continue to skim some member's and let it go.

---

David,

If you are referring to me about 'skepticism', you are not seeing what I am getting at. I DO NOT DOUBT your findings regarding lawful money redemption and FRN's being the main factor in any 'tax burden' laid upon the common American worker. What I am simply trying to determine here, is the METHOD upon which to best employ the redemption of FRN's in respect to the 1040 Form. Johnny Cash (and probably most suitors) employ a NET PAY redemption strategy. Doug555 has a different tact, where his method 'insures' a 100% refund of FITW. Do I personally know the EXACT method that the IRS wants to see? No. But I can look at track records to make an informed decision. As they state, Johnny has 8 years running, Doug555 has 3 years running. What works best/comfortably for me? I have not determined that yet.

That's all I'm getting at. In fact, to my interpretation of the methods presented, I can only redeem the NET pay for 2013 (Amended return) and 2014 (original). This is because I have not novated my checks/slips with any 'all transactions' language for those years; so just the simple and to-date successful USC 411 language. That's fine. I'm grateful for the opportunity. However, I'm exploring (thru this website and my own thoughts) the possibility of receiving ALL of the FITW via lawful money remedy. If I am posing questions and submitting my own opinion to that extent, why is that so 'egregious' to some suitors? Isn't it possible that the FITW should not be included in the "income" Line 22? If it's working for everyone to include FITW in the "income" Line 22, that is fine. I'm not arguing that and I'm thrilled that IRS is honoring that.

However, if you already know you can demand lawful money for the NET pay, AND, you have demanded lawful money for ALL transactions (via Affidavit and supporting language on your checks/slips), then don't you perhaps have the right to demand lawful money on THE ENTIRE FITW? Meaning, including that amount into Line 21 ("Other Income")? Just a question. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyCash

... and this IRS blessing!

---

Good way to put it. By their silence, the IRS has given you their blessing. Lawful money income is not income under the Revenue Acts of Congress. Or maybe a special dispensation - you're a member of that - group in Colorado doing it right - I don't know how that works, I'm not Catholic.

Special Dispensation. You raise an interesting question. Since lawful money filers are NOT bothered by the IRS, who or what mechanism prevents the IRS notices from going out to them? Are all the suitors on a NO FLY LIST? I doubt there's a LAWFUL MONEY DEPT at the IRS, too obvious. This is the sort of secret info that needs to be kept hush-hush. Do you think a single attorney must sign-off on every notice that goes out?

LPC may have given us a clue. They might be getting bank records ... not looking for unreported income ... but to see if you're endorsing private credit of the Federal Reserve, via naked signature backside of your paycheck !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LPC

Or there might be a series of administrative summonses to get bank records and information from businesses that have sent him Forms 1099 in the past, followed by a notice of deficiency.

If JC responds with gibberish or attitude, it might go straight to criminal investigations.

I don't know if there's any way to predict the timing or process for these kinds of things.

LPC

---

BTW, we just got our W2 for 2014. After LM filing expect another fat refund & victory!

Perhaps this is how it works in the IRS Ogden Campus:

Layne Carver: you got a minute?

Bill: Sure

Layne: Got a taxpayer here, system flagged in 2013 for nonfile in TY2012 with 1099 income. Thing is ... my Civil Penalty letters never went out.

Bill: okay . . .

Layne: so TY2013 same taxpayer files, but non-reports his 1099 income. Zero-income. I set the system to issue the CP treatment but again ... no notices went out.

Bill: and?...

Layne: the only one able to override is General Counsel. That's you Bill.

Bill: well, sometimes things mess-up. Maybe 1099s were in error; maybe filer really had no income.

Layne: Are you saying, not all income is income?

Bill: I'm saying mistakes can happen, but this... taxpayer here, John whathisname, it's nothing for you to worry your pretty little head over.

Layne: Exsqueeze me? Listen Bill, there's talk going around... that group in Colorado, this lawful money thing. That it's the real deal. And if so, then we're really taxing Federal Reserve currency, not all income.

Bill: O that's absurd.

Layne: Is it? I looked at John's TY2013 1040, and he takes a lawful money negative on Line 21 and it sails through, no flags, no notices. Putting 2 and 2 together here...

Bill: Do you like having a job here? all the benefits & perks?

Layne: What's that supposed to mean? Bill, my name is on all these notices. I'd like to know if I'm ... I'm just helping you collect on the biggest scam known to man.

Bill: Scam? [nervous laughter] Layne Carver's not your real name anyway. Hey listen, I'm late for a meeting. [graps laptop and scurries off]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyCash

Perhaps this is how it works in the IRS Ogden Campus:

Layne Carver: you got a minute?

Bill: Sure

Layne: Got a taxpayer here, system flagged in 2013 for nonfile in TY2012 with 1099 income. Thing is ... my Civil Penalty letters never went out.

Bill: okay . . .

Layne: so TY2013 same taxpayer files, but non-reports his 1099 income. Zero-income. I set the system to issue the CP treatment but again ... no notices went out.

Bill: and?...

Layne: the only one able to override is General Counsel. That's you Bill.

Bill: well, sometimes things mess-up. Maybe 1099s were in error; maybe filer really had no income.

Layne: Are you saying, not all income is income?

Bill: I'm saying mistakes can happen, but this... taxpayer here, John whathisname, it's nothing for you to worry your pretty little head over.

Layne: Exsqueeze me? Listen Bill, there's talk going around... that group in Colorado, this lawful money thing. That it's the real deal. And if so, then we're really taxing Federal Reserve currency, not all income.

Bill: O that's absurd.

Layne: Is it? I looked at John's TY2013 1040, and he takes a lawful money negative on Line 21 and it sails through, no flags, no notices. Putting 2 and 2 together here...

Bill: Do you like having a job here? all the benefits & perks?

Layne: What's that supposed to mean? Bill, my name is on all these notices. I'd like to know if I'm ... I'm just helping you collect on the biggest scam known to man.

Bill: Scam? [nervous laughter] Layne Carver's not your real name anyway. Hey listen, I'm late for a meeting. [graps laptop and scurries off]

---

A big LOL JC !! ;)

Tonight we are all PATRIOTS

Attachment 2231

PATS BEAT BANKSTERS IN SUPERBOWL OF FREEDOM

Glendale, Arizona - The Patriots won Super Bowl XLIX last night 28-24 when the Banksters critical drive was intercepted by Lawful Money with 20 seconds left. Throughout the game, Banksters relied on their traditional Federal Reserve gameplan and strategy of infiltration, mimicking and propaganda, even acting like they were sending in Forms to correct their status. Banksters had a 10-point lead going into the 4th quarter. But under the capable leadship of David Merrill and long-time veteran Michael Joseph the Patriots rallied back with 2 touchdowns putting them up by 4. The Banksters ground back with a just a yard to go and appeared on the verge of victory. Banksters called for a 3-receiver set. But the Pats showed an unusual 8-man front, goal-line set. Banksters took the bait and passed the football. Their disinfo backfired. Badly.

Once again, Bankster loudmouth Famspear seemed unaware his team had lost, or that his disinfo aided the opponent, saying "The Patriots didn't really win." "The way they played is just beyond dumb. Stamping REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY on the back of your paycheck like it means anything is absurd!" he lectured. Quatloser Dan B. Evans was equally non-plussed with "No court has ever ruled pay-for-labor isn't taxable."

Patriots had a long history of endorsing Bankster currency, unawares. But this Super Bowl night was different. Winning team QB said "Using debt notes as money? I mean c'mon! we aren't falling for that anymore." Even Perry's halftime show suggested she had tamed the glowing-eyed IRS beast with her golden [lawful money] leash. Then rising above the field saw the game for what it was. A currency war against America. But last night The Patriots had outwitted the Banksters.
Fair and square.

Is this what you're on about?

http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/de..._posts/NFL.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyCash

You're welcome guys. Yes, there was 32xx. in FITW- Fed income tax withheld (box 2), 32xx. in SS tax withheld (box 4), and 7xx. in Medicare tax withheld (box 6). Subtracting the $5xxx refund equals about $2100 paid to US Treasury. Yes the refund could have been higher with more lawful money redeemed but total LM redeemed for TY13 was $14k for Primary filer (I'm Secondary filer with no FR currency earnings), that's what we have record of. Can't go back in time and redeem more LM now. But perhaps this victory will give Primary filer the confidence to redeem more LM going forward.

Srsly $2100? Doesn't even cover my Dad's SS payout for the month! How can the govt continue all their entitlement payouts on $2100 from the average family, let alone pay the banks their cut? If half the families in America pay only $2100/yr in taxes ... how will your Banking Cabal survive? The simple answer is, it can't. The bank & tax scam cannot continue on so little money. This is the end game. The run on the Fed. Lawful money users are a real threat to their scam.

No "mistake" was made in this filing, no deception or trickery involved in this win. We got the refund requested, a legal win. It's another glaring example of LAWFUL MONEY success. The Silver Bullet. LM works for both W2/W4 workers and 1099 workers.

There's no shame in admitting you've been out-coached and outplayed.

---

Hi all,

New to the forum, eager to learn. I've PMed a couple of people on here, but just wanted to say thank you so far for the wealth of knowledge I'm diving into. Can someone point me to a forum that specifically speaks to when and how to get started with Lawful Money. FYI I am a 1099 worker. Thanks again for your dedication.