Lawful Money Stops IRS Proposal

I would like to share my experience with the Saving To Suitors Club. The IRS said they'd get back to me about my lawful money tax return within 60 days, but they have not even allowing time for mailing. No response.

Made about $40k at job (W2) and about $28k at side business (1099) for the year. I put a minus $15k on Line 21 of the 1040 return (paychecks redeemed in Lawful Money). None of the side business income was entered on the return as it was all redeemed lawful money.
Tax return filed: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny1.jpg
http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny2.jpg

It is likely the IRS computer finally detected the reported 1099 business income was NOT included on my 1040 return, and they sent this CP2000 proposal of $10k due: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_1.jpg
http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_2.jpg

My letter back to them essentially said, no I don't agree with your proposal, the reported 1099 amounts were all redeemed lawful money and here attached are copies of the LM checks, front and back.

IRS response: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/LTR4.jpg

Since then: [crickets]

To be sure, I also requested and just received this Account Transcript showing a zero balance due on the account: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/Transcript724.jpg

This confirms David Merrill is correct. Lawful money is not neccesarily taxable income. Thank you.

You are quite welcome. Now 2018 and an important lesson is that the Withholdings amount should match the Claim. That is to say do not try to get a refund back that is any different that what is on account as withholdings. The 1040 Form is complicated even if you use it for reporting use of private credit like it is designed.

The only amount due for you to claim is the withholdings. So exemptions might be shown on the Form, but they are irrelevant for calculating the amount of the refund. The claim for a refund should match exactly the amount of the total withholdings on all the W-2's. Which should be considered like an account.

Thanks for sharing. Principal is not taxed. Interest is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lorne

I would like to share my experience with the Saving To Suitors Club. The IRS said they'd get back to me about my lawful money tax return within 60 days, but they have not even allowing time for mailing. No response.

Made about $40k at job (W2) and about $28k at side business (1099) for the year. I put a minus $15k on Line 21 of the 1040 return (paychecks redeemed in Lawful Money). None of the side business income was entered on the return as it was all redeemed lawful money.
Tax return filed: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny1.jpg
http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny2.jpg

It is likely the IRS computer finally detected the reported 1099 business income was NOT included on my 1040 return, and they sent this CP2000 proposal of $10k due: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_1.jpg
http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_2.jpg

My letter back to them essentially said, no I don't agree with your proposal, the reported 1099 amounts were all redeemed lawful money and here attached are copies of the LM checks, front and back.

IRS response: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/LTR4.jpg

Since then: [crickets]

To be sure, I also requested and just received this Account Transcript showing a zero balance due on the account: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/Transcript724.jpg

This confirms David Merrill is correct. Lawful money is not neccesarily taxable income. Thank you.

---

I like that. The notes in circulation have trustees in place to understand. Any new credit created by fractional reserve banking practices requires an accommodation party. Thusly the signature on the back of the private financial instrument commonly called a cheque.

The experience shared by lorne has been my experience. Can you imagine what would happen if agents for IRS came back with a "yes you are exactly right, you got us. We give up". A response like that would spread almost instantaneously around the globe. No it is better for the business plan to just fall silent.

When they tried to levy a 10k friv. filing penalty - two letters and two phone calls and all I get is crickets....

I suppose it is the nature of curiosity that we have a need to feel vindicated at the end of the day as if we are not yet sure unless someone else tells us we are right. But at once that is an immediate trap. For if I come seeking judgment from you, then I have placed my trust in you and by my submission to you for judgment, I am now subject to your rulings. Silence is wonderful.

Smile and waive boys - just smile and waive. When told recently by a local attorney that I should be very afraid, I responded "you're not very smart are you." He actually brought up their poster boy "Wesley Snipes". I asked did you study his case? He responded no. I said "he tried to tap the stock of a bankrupt company." Like I say, when fear is gone there is no control mechanism left - save a gun.

Thusly is the importance of education. For the greatest in the Kingdom is the servant.

Make it a great day!
MJ


P.S. It looks like Maureen thinks he/she/it can give you an offer. Can he/she/it? I mean you don't have to do a thing, just sit back and relax while we determine your fate. Is that right? Is that what you will do? Is there not a cause whereof one should refuse such offer? Is your claim/demand valid or not? Only you can tell. Many may show, but only you can know. For it is your claim and your's alone. And therefore, only you know if the claim/demand is valid.

TAKE - implies abandonment.

fly on the wall all I get is crickets...if the Tax question is repeated refer to first decision from Internal affairs classafied silent service silence is golden

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

The experience shared by lorne has been my experience. Can you imagine what would happen if agents for IRS came back with a "yes you are exactly right, you got us. We give up". A response like that would spread almost instantaneously around the globe. No it is better for the business plan to just fall silent.

---

Exactly. The secret is out. Tell all your friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

I like that. The notes in circulation have trustees in place to understand. Any new credit created by fractional reserve banking practices requires an accommodation party. Thusly the signature on the back of the private financial instrument commonly called a cheque.

The experience shared by lorne has been my experience. Can you imagine what would happen if agents for IRS came back with a "yes you are exactly right, you got us. We give up". A response like that would spread almost instantaneously around the globe. No it is better for the business plan to just fall silent.

When they tried to levy a 10k friv. filing penalty - two letters and two phone calls and all I get is crickets....

I suppose it is the nature of curiosity that we have a need to feel vindicated at the end of the day as if we are not yet sure unless someone else tells us we are right. But at once that is an immediate trap. For if I come seeking judgment from you, then I have placed my trust in you and by my submission to you for judgment, I am now subject to your rulings. Silence is wonderful.

Smile and waive boys - just smile and waive. When told recently by a local attorney that I should be very afraid, I responded "you're not very smart are you." He actually brought up their poster boy "Wesley Snipes". I asked did you study his case? He responded no. I said "he tried to tap the stock of a bankrupt company." Like I say, when fear is gone there is no control mechanism left - save a gun.

Thusly is the importance of education. For the greatest in the Kingdom is the servant.

Make it a great day!
MJ


P.S. It looks like Maureen thinks he/she/it can give you an offer. Can he/she/it? I mean you don't have to do a thing, just sit back and relax while we determine your fate. Is that right? Is that what you will do? Is there not a cause whereof one should refuse such offer? Is your claim/demand valid or not? Only you can tell. Many may show, but only you can know. For it is your claim and your's alone. And therefore, only you know if the claim/demand is valid.

TAKE - implies abandonment.

---

Michael,

You obviously know your way around such things. I have not been so lucky...

I am currently faced with a CP15 'pay us 5k' letter for a 'frivolous' return. I have about 8 days to respond. I filed a 2013 sheeple return and was paid. I then filed a 1040x amended return with a LM deduction. I believe I should have started a LM deduction with the 2014 return of which the LM deduction was honored; however I'm sure I will see a CP2000 at some point for 'unpaid taxes'.

Their initial 3176C letter ('we have identified your return as frivolous') I responded to 3 months ago with a denial of any liability and simultaneously rescinded that amended return (the 3176C language states I may rescind and send a 'corrected' return). However, the 'corrected' return is actually the original return already refunded. They recently assessed the 5k penalty anyway, I presume because I was ALREADY paid a refund from the original 2013 return. They will do anything to steal your money.

There is not much recourse but I thought someone might have suggestions as to my response. I was rushed into the 3176C response due to a family illness and I may have lost my 'right of inquiry' window to stall them. The CP15 is an actual 'invoice' from their MFT 55 'penalty' module in the IMF system. Insidious, but there it is. However, I believe there is a 'mistake' statute that may come into play here. Doug555 mentioned it somewhere in this forum and I need to find it to see if it might apply - D555 if you have that statute handy please forward if possible.

Any other thoughts are welcome.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itsmymoney

Michael,

You obviously know your way around such things. I have not been so lucky...

I am currently faced with a CP15 'pay us 5k' letter for a 'frivolous' return. I have about 8 days to respond. I filed a 2013 sheeple return and was paid. I then filed a 1040x amended return with a LM deduction. I believe I should have started a LM deduction with the 2014 return of which the LM deduction was honored; however I'm sure I will see a CP2000 at some point for 'unpaid taxes'.

Their initial 3176C letter ('we have identified your return as frivolous') I responded to 3 months ago with a denial of any liability and simultaneously rescinded that amended return (the 3176C language states I may rescind and send a 'corrected' return). However, the 'corrected' return is actually the original return already refunded. They recently assessed the 5k penalty anyway, I presume because I was ALREADY paid a refund from the original 2013 return. They will do anything to steal your money.

There is not much recourse but I thought someone might have suggestions as to my response. I was rushed into the 3176C response due to a family illness and I may have lost my 'right of inquiry' window to stall them. The CP15 is an actual 'invoice' from their MFT 55 'penalty' module in the IMF system. Insidious, but there it is. However, I believe there is a 'mistake' statute that may come into play here. Doug555 mentioned it somewhere in this forum and I need to find it to see if it might apply - D555 if you have that statute handy please forward if possible.

Any other thoughts are welcome.

Thanks.

---

Just stick to the facts and be unwilling to swerve from the truth. Simply put refuse to leave the battlefield of words. As such, there is no need to be alarmed at the clerks on the other end of the phone. In the end you will eventually come to see that "it is NOT your money".

Money is for the USE subject to the Statute. There exists trustees to understand the issue of money - but those who endorse fractional reserve banking accommodate that system. I have lost much in my struggle for truth but then too, I have gained much. The answer is simple - I demand lawful money and I refuse to understand any new private credit as surety or accommodation. The trust account held by United States whereof I have an Estate interest is not subject to the accommodation of "new credit" because I refuse to ORDER up new credit. My grant is to the United States and not the Federal Reserve Bank. Nevertheless it is my freewill choice.

Consider McDonalds. When you walk in what does the clerk ask you? "May I take your Order?" And for the consideration of your order you are billed for the service or thing delivered. Actually at McDonalds it is both. There is nothing new under the sun.

Have you called the clerks? Have you written the clerks explaining the causes upon which you must refuse their offer to charge the Estate? The government is truly upon your shoulders - will you undertake for the benefit of all? Should you remain silent then the Estate may be Latched - LACHES DOCTRINE.

Use of Money is Usufruct. For you, "itsmymoney", make a use of property that belongs to another.

In my opinion that is all that needs to be known regarding this matter. But only you alone can walk down into the Valley and face the Giant [Goliath].


Best Regards,
MJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

Just stick to the facts and be unwilling to swerve from the truth. Simply put refuse to leave the battlefield of words. As such, there is no need to be alarmed at the clerks on the other end of the phone. In the end you will eventually come to see that "it is NOT your money".

Money is for the USE subject to the Statute. There exists trustees to understand the issue of money - but those who endorse fractional reserve banking accommodate that system. I have lost much in my struggle for truth but then too, I have gained much. The answer is simple - I demand lawful money and I refuse to understand any new private credit as surety or accommodation. The trust account held by United States whereof I have an Estate interest is not subject to the accommodation of "new credit" because I refuse to ORDER up new credit. My grant is to the United States and not the Federal Reserve Bank. Nevertheless it is my freewill choice.

Consider McDonalds. When you walk in what does the clerk ask you? "May I take your Order?" And for the consideration of your order you are billed for the service or thing delivered. Actually at McDonalds it is both. There is nothing new under the sun.

Have you called the clerks? Have you written the clerks explaining the causes upon which you must refuse their offer to charge the Estate? The government is truly upon your shoulders - will you undertake for the benefit of all? Should you remain silent then the Estate may be Latched - LACHES DOCTRINE.

Use of Money is Usufruct. For you, "itsmymoney", make a use of property that belongs to another.

In my opinion that is all that needs to be known regarding this matter. But only you alone can walk down into the Valley and face the Giant [Goliath].


Best Regards,
MJ

---

Michael,

Poor choice of words by me regarding 'lucky' and that was not my intent (meaning that you are more savvy at defeating this sort of thing). Also, everyone needs to 'get over' my username. In my opinion it is morally and ethically criminal to deprive one's pay for labor to provide for themselves and their family. Unalienable rights. In that regard, yes, IT'S MY MONEY. Legally it may be another story, but even then there are other factors and definitions applicable of which are ignored or dismissed in favor of all who take your 'money' from you.

I mentioned that yes, I did send an initial written response to their 3176C 'frivolous' letter. I rescinded the amended return per their instruction but they assessed the penalty anyway. I have failed in many respects to get away from these 'people'. An inherent flaw for sure. In the current instance I failed to 'ask questions' as to the charges, i.e. my 'right of inquiry' as such and all part of due process if there is any left. Phone calls rarely work once the TC240 penalty assessment is posted in the MFT 55 'penalty' module of 'your' IMF (Individual Master File). That's where we're at. So now I have received a CP15 which is the 'pay up' Notice. I've been thru this before and collection procedures are right around the corner.

You have stated that you have avoided such problems but you do not provide specifics regarding the IRS letters (for example, the 3176C above) and specific responses that were involved. This would be helpful to everyone, not just me in this situation.

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itsmymoney

Michael,

Poor choice of words by me regarding 'lucky' and that was not my intent (meaning that you are more savvy at defeating this sort of thing). Also, everyone needs to 'get over' my username. In my opinion it is morally and ethically criminal to deprive one's pay for labor to provide for themselves and their family. Unalienable rights. In that regard, yes, IT'S MY MONEY. Legally it may be another story, but even then there are other factors and definitions applicable of which are ignored or dismissed in favor of all who take your 'money' from you.

I mentioned that yes, I did send an initial written response to their 3176C 'frivolous' letter. I rescinded the amended return per their instruction but they assessed the penalty anyway. I have failed in many respects to get away from these 'people'. An inherent flaw for sure. In the current instance I failed to 'ask questions' as to the charges, i.e. my 'right of inquiry' as such and all part of due process if there is any left. Phone calls rarely work once the TC240 penalty assessment is posted in the MFT 55 'penalty' module of 'your' IMF (Individual Master File). That's where we're at. So now I have received a CP15 which is the 'pay up' Notice. I've been thru this before and collection procedures are right around the corner.

You have stated that you have avoided such problems but you do not provide specifics regarding the IRS letters (for example, the 3176C above) and specific responses that were involved. This would be helpful to everyone, not just me in this situation.

Thank you.

---

I will not share those letters in this open forum. I did that once before and many just copied them word for word absent understanding of what they were doing.

Also, the IRS went up to the point of notice of garnishment and were turned away. It is a fact that in one case the IRS called my wife's boss [human resources department] to begin garnishment and we were able to stop that garnishment and zero the account within thirty days. That only took one letter. Which explained their mistake.

I can testify to that fact with first hand factual evidence. They sent me all sorts of offers to settle the debt because they are operating in common law - but few actually observe that fact. The question arises is there a debt to settle or is there a mistake in presumption?

Knowledge will always rule ignorance, therefore with patience I have developed my deeply rooted beliefs. Simply put I just refuse to back off of my belief. When I am offered a new offer I write or call. I believe I owe no tax. That is the crux. I AM free of that burden in my belief. Therefore my will is in alignment with my emotion and thought such that my deed [child] is not duplicitous. My will is in alignment with Love. For I care for my brethren enough to not cause a burden upon their shoulders. We will rise or fall as One. It only seems that we are disconnected.

In my opinion, all that you need to know, regarding this matter, has been discussed in this Website and others. When someone makes you an offer in the form of a well dressed mandate, it still remains only an offer. An offer may be refused at anytime or accepted in silence or obedience.


Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


Once a revenue officer posted two business cards on the garage door. I viewed this simply as an offer to make me an offer. I did not wish to intercourse his business so I refused for cause his offer on the basis that I don't wish to engage his company.

I am already married [contracted] to another.

Even though the following is about consciousness and spirituality versus fleshly existence I also see it working out in engagements to State [children of the Married Lady] and Foreign Bank [children of the Desolate]. The children are the deeds performed.


Isa 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.


What makes me any more special than you? - NOTHING. You, dear reader are AWESOME - just realize it. Then go forward and help yourself and in doing so do not trespass upon your brethren. Even the ignorant brethren. I can be made a billion offers to contract the IRS and I will refuse them all. I will never act on their advice as I do not accept that I am subject to their Administration. A mistake in presumption has happened.

Those who understand Trust Law will at once see to see. I have not received a benefit of the Central Banking Scheme, therefore I am not subject to their Administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

I will not share those letters in this open forum. I did that once before and many just copied them word for word absent understanding of what they were doing.

Also, the IRS went up to the point of notice of garnishment and were turned away. It is a fact that in one case the IRS called my wife's boss [human resources department] to begin garnishment and we were able to stop that garnishment and zero the account within thirty days. That only took one letter. Which explained their mistake.

I can testify to that fact with first hand factual evidence. They sent me all sorts of offers to settle the debt because they are operating in common law - but few actually observe that fact. The question arises is there a debt to settle or is there a mistake in presumption?

Knowledge will always rule ignorance, therefore with patience I have developed my deeply rooted beliefs. Simply put I just refuse to back off of my belief. When I am offered a new offer I write or call. I believe I owe no tax. That is the crux. I AM free of that burden in my belief. Therefore my will is in alignment with my emotion and thought such that my deed [child] is not duplicitous. My will is in alignment with Love. For I care for my brethren enough to not cause a burden upon their shoulders. We will rise or fall as One. It only seems that we are disconnected.

In my opinion, all that you need to know, regarding this matter, has been discussed in this Website and others. When someone makes you an offer in the form of a well dressed mandate, it still remains only an offer. An offer may be refused at anytime or accepted in silence or obedience.


Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


Once a revenue officer posted two business cards on the garage door. I viewed this simply as an offer to make me an offer. I did not wish to intercourse his business so I refused for cause his offer on the basis that I don't wish to engage his company.

I am already married [contracted] to another.

Even though the following is about consciousness and spirituality versus fleshly existence I also see it working out in engagements to State [children of the Married Lady] and Foreign Bank [children of the Desolate]. The children are the deeds performed.


Isa 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.


What makes me any more special than you? - NOTHING. You, dear reader are AWESOME - just realize it. Then go forward and help yourself and in doing so do not trespass upon your brethren. Even the ignorant brethren. I can be made a billion offers to contract the IRS and I will refuse them all. I will never act on their advice as I do not accept that I am subject to their Administration. A mistake in presumption has happened.

Those who understand Trust Law will at once see to see. I have not received a benefit of the Central Banking Scheme, therefore I am not subject to their Administration.

---

Michael,

You are 'teasing me' with your knowledge of how you turned IRS away including the garnishment, which is amazing, actually. That is truly a feat and my congrats to you. I currently do not have the 'key' to unlocking the chains, as you have found. It is not thru ignorance, as I do quite a bit of research; however it's that 'key' part of the research and knowledge that I cannot seem to find. Although I acquiesced a bit in this current situation I am in, the 'terms' stated were to not assess a penalty. So they have lied. It's not surprising, but it is true. They do not say WHAT is 'frivolous'; never do.

So now I must try to stop collection. Surely I have not done enough or executed the correct actions (such as you did) in stopping previous threats. I would welcome a private correspondence with you if that is possible, but I respect your privacy and wishes. In lieu of that, perhaps you and others could suggest some specific STSC topics to research. I will start researching regardless.

Thank you for your time and input here. It is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
imm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itsmymoney

Michael,

You are 'teasing me' with your knowledge of how you turned IRS away including the garnishment, which is amazing, actually. That is truly a feat and my congrats to you. I currently do not have the 'key' to unlocking the chains, as you have found. It is not thru ignorance, as I do quite a bit of research; however it's that 'key' part of the research and knowledge that I cannot seem to find. Although I acquiesced a bit in this current situation I am in, the 'terms' stated were to not assess a penalty. So they have lied. It's not surprising, but it is true. They do not say WHAT is 'frivolous'; never do.

So now I must try to stop collection. Surely I have not done enough or executed the correct actions (such as you did) in stopping previous threats. I would welcome a private correspondence with you if that is possible, but I respect your privacy and wishes. In lieu of that, perhaps you and others could suggest some specific STSC topics to research. I will start researching regardless.

Thank you for your time and input here. It is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
imm

---

imm,

What I am trying so hard to show you, absent teasing, is that you already have the answer. The fact is you don't trust yourself that you are correct. You wish to be justified by third parties. This is why Jesus said fish out of the Right Side of the Boat. And when they did they caught 153 (1 + 5 +3 = 9) GREAT FISHES. He was talking about consciousness.

I am saying the same thing to you. Look at a $1 Note. Look closely at Washington [the Alpha] do you see he is flanked by an Omega. Look carefully at his head. What is above his head? The answer is AN ALTER.

imm, you have the answer already. You know the remedy. You have apparently put your knowledge into action and have now been tested to see if you truly believe what you are doing or are you just following that which you discerned from without your being [what you read on the internet].

In my opinion, these letters are computer generated based on input parameters observed while scanning. You seem to have the key and you seem to have the understanding. The question begging to be answered is: does your will align with your thoughts and emotions? What is the intent of your deed? Is it based in self [greed and lust] whereof you may be easily manipulated in fear? OR is your deed based in Love whereof it is almost impossible to move you from your belief?

The answer lies in you. If it was me, every time I received a correspondence [issue] of the IRS, I would respond with a kind letter kindly explaining my position and kindly refusing to accept their offer to submit myself under their administration. But that is just me and you must find your own path. The remedy exists you know it exists - and how do I know that you know it exists? Because apparently you have put that remedy into use and clearly one who does such a thing does so with knowledge, right? Clearly one who acts does so with knowledge and full liability upon his own deeds, right?

Therefore the only thing left is do you believe yourself or not? Can you be forced to form a belief? Only you can answer that question. If you want me to say just refer to section xyz subsection abc of the such and such code, well you already know of which you draw your "water". Upon testing, now what?

I begged the IRS for a local sit down, actually pleaded for the opportunity to meet with a local agent over a cup of coffee. Can you believe the clerk actually said "we don't do that"? What she meant is they don't do that for those who are centered in will, emotion and deed. I cannot be moved from this internal rock.

Now consider carefully what you are reading in the following:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.


Now clearly God is a respecter of persons, right? I mean why the Jew first, then the poor miserable wretched Greek? Well lets look a bit deeper shall we?

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Can you be moved Moses [Reason]? Only you can know. For what is the causes which impelled you to act in the first place? Only you can know. The answer truly lies within you.


You can research all you want and you can read from other successes, but the remedy will only come when you begin to truly believe that you are right and you don't need any other party to justify you. For indeed Egypt is a shaky reed. Let me be a bit more blunt. Just because I am right, does not mean another will not challenge.

The external struggle of minds is projected first from the internal struggle in my mind. When my will, emotion and deed are all aligned then the struggle ceases - I believe, therefore I act. They were turned back from garnishment because they were made to see their "error in presumption".

Truly, the battle is not in flesh and blood it is in mind and beliefs. Become as the Jew [Judah] camping in the East toward the rising sun and begin to look inward and you shall find what you desire. I am telling you truth, I hope that you can receive.

Numbers 2:3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies....

and again,


Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Questions: What did you do? Why did you do it? Upon what understandings did you act? What are the errors in presumption? What is your intent? Where is your trust? What is the error?


=======================

The other day an associate called me and told me that human beings were absent free will. He too is experiencing problems with the IRS as he was duped into the "secured party scam" which is in effect trying to tap the stock of a corporation of which he has no beneficial interest. I responded simply "since you have no free will, then you should submit in totality to the IRS and go to jail if need be."

Needless to say he was not pleased. So what say ye? Do you have free will to choose which path you should walk?

Only you can know. But do take your six friends [who, what, when, where, how and why] with you on the journey.

To your success,
MJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

imm,

What I am trying so hard to show you, absent teasing, is that you already have the answer. The fact is you don't trust yourself that you are correct. You wish to be justified by third parties. This is why Jesus said fish out of the Right Side of the Boat. And when they did they caught 153 (1 + 5 +3 = 9) GREAT FISHES. He was talking about consciousness.

I am saying the same thing to you. Look at a $1 Note. Look closely at Washington [the Alpha] do you see he is flanked by an Omega. Look carefully at his head. What is above his head? The answer is AN ALTER.

imm, you have the answer already. You know the remedy. You have apparently put your knowledge into action and have now been tested to see if you truly believe what you are doing or are you just following that which you discerned from without your being [what you read on the internet].

In my opinion, these letters are computer generated based on input parameters observed while scanning. You seem to have the key and you seem to have the understanding. What is left is does you will align with your thoughts and emotions. What is the intent of your deed? Is it based in self [greed and lust] whereof you may be easily manipulated in fear? OR is your deed based in Love whereof it is almost impossible to move you from your belief?

The answer lies in you. If it was me, every time I received a correspondence [issue] of the IRS, I would respond with a kind letter kindly explaining my position and kindly refusing to accept their offer to submit myself under their administration. But that is just me and you must find your own path. The remedy exists you know it exists - and how do I know that you know it exists? Because apparently you have put that remedy into use and clearly one who does such a thing does so with knowledge, right? Clearly one who acts does so with knowledge and full liability upon his own deeds, right?

Therefore the only thing left is do you believe yourself or not? Can you be forced to form a belief? Only you can answer that question. If you want me to say just refer to section xyz subection abc of the such and such code, well you already know of which you draw your "water". Upon testing, now what?

I begged the IRS for a local sit down, actually pleaded for the opportunity to meet with a local agent over a cup of coffee. Can you believe the clerk actually said "we don't do that"? What she meant is they don't do that for those who are centered in will, emotion and deed. I cannot be moved from this internal rock.

Now consider carefully what you are reading in the following:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.


Now clearly God is a respecter of persons, right? I mean why the Jew first, then the poor miserable wretched Greek? Well lets look a bit deeper shall we?

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Can you be moved Moses [Reason]? Only you can know. For what is the causes which impelled you to act in the first place? Only you can know. The answer truly lies within you.


You can research all you want and you can read from other successes, but the remedy will only come when you begin to truly believe that you are right and you don't need any other party to justify you. For indeed Egypt is a shaky reed. Let me be a bit more blunt. Just because I am right, does not mean another will not challenge.

The external struggle of minds is projected first from the internal struggle in my mind. When my will, emotion and deed are all aligned then the struggle ceases - I believe, therefore I act. They were turned back from garnishment because they were made to see their "error in presumption".

Truly, the battle is not in flesh and blood it is in mind and beliefs. Become as the Jew [Judah] camping in the East toward the rising sun and begin to look inward and you shall find what you desire. I am telling you truth, I hope that you can receive.

Numbers 2:3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies....

and again,


Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Questions: What did you do? Why did you do it? Upon what understandings did you act? What are the errors in presumption? What is your intent? Where is your trust? What is the error?


=======================

The other day an associate called me and told me that human beings were absent free will. He too is experiencing problems with the IRS as he was duped into the "secured party scam" which is in effect trying to tap the stock of a corporation of which he has no beneficial interest. I responded simply "since you have no free will, then you should submit in totality to the IRS and go to jail if need be."

Needless to say he was not pleased. So what say ye? Do you have free will to choose which path you should walk?

Only you can know. But do take your six friends [who, what, when, where, how and why] with you on the journey.

To your success,
MJ

---

Michael,

I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.

I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.

My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...

At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.

So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.

Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
imm

"Refusal for Cause"
"Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
"Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
"Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itsmymoney

Michael,

I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.

I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.

My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...

At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.

So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.

Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
imm

"Refusal for Cause"
"Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
"Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
"Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"

---

Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!

---

Doug555,

Coincidentally and perhaps divinely I have been listening to Marc Stevens videos for an hour before seeing your post! Yes, jurisdiction is apparently huge! Not to mention, I accepted conditional terms in their 'offer' in the 3176C so they have violated the terms, as far as I can see. The 'send the corrected return' they state in the 3176C letter is not specific to whether it must be a new or previously non-filed return, or one that was already filed as in my circumstances. Regardless, an attempt to correct my first return WITH EVIDENCE would not seem to be frivolous. Plus, where is it published in the code or manuals that my deduction demand is 'frivolous'? Nowhere, is the answer.

I will research the Marc Stevens links. Thank you so much!

Regards,
imm

Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney...

Quote:

---

Michael,

I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.

I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.

My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...

At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.

So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.

Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
imm

"Refusal for Cause"
"Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
"Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
"Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"

---

Response posted by Doug555...

Quote:

---

Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!

---

My current response to this exchange...

After reviewing the excellent videos by Marc Stevens (I have seen some prior to now), I'm perplexed relative to Marc's question: where are the facts and evidence that the Constitution and the IRC i.e. "the code", apply to 'me'?

1) In a general sense, I can see why Marc is saying that the IRC does not apply to us (it only does thru coercion, fear, and corruption); but why does he mention the Constitution in the same breath with the IRC, as though they are tied together and cannot apply exclusively without each other? In other words, can I not fight the IRS without the Constitution? Do I need to reference the Constitution when simply stating that "the code" does not apply to me should suffice?

2) Relative to Marc's WINNING arguments regarding 'jurisdiction' and the lack thereof by the State, I have a conundrum with my current IRS situation.
Due to my hasty departure to visit my ill father, I agreed to a conditional acceptance of their proposal in the 3176C 'your frivolous!' notice. Granted, I wish I had not, but here we are. So it would seem that I entered their jurisdiction when I agreed to their conditional terms, but...

...THEY have violated those conditional terms. There are no stipulations that the 'corrected' return must be a previously non-filed return (see IRM 4.10.12.4 below). I had already filed, so the 'corrected' return was the original filed return. Further to this IRM statement... "The letter also gives the taxpayer the opportunity to submit non-frivolous returns or statements within 30 days of the date of the letter to avoid assessment of the penalty." ...simply DENYING the amended return is frivolous is NOT a frivolous statement! [italics, mine]. Not to mention they NEVER cite what is actually frivolous, probably for fear of taking a 'position' that they SO love to label us with. Is it not Lords and Servants with them?

And there it is.

Quote:

---

4.10.12.4 (09-05-2014)
Case Processing
When the Service receives what it determines to be a frivolous filing under IRC Section 6702, the Service issues Letter 3176C. The letter 3176C informs taxpayers that their return is frivolous and subject to a $5000 civil penalty under Section 6702. The letter also gives the taxpayer the opportunity to submit non-frivolous returns or statements within 30 days of the date of the letter to avoid assessment of the penalty. Issuance of this letter is required before assessment of an IRC 6702(b) penalty. See IRC 6702(b)(3). Failure to issue the letter does not indicate an IRC 6702(1) penalty should be abated.

---

Good point there IMM, I am just enjoying the jurisdiction subject and getting a better grasp on it

Federal Power Limited

The fiction, "that because it was an excise tax, it was legal," is not true. The power of the federal government is limited to its own property, as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. 18 U.S.C., Section 921, Definitions, states,

"The term 'interstate or foreign commerce' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)."

Only employees of the federal government, residents of the District of Columbia, residents of naval bases, residents of forts, U.S. citizens of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions were lawfully required to file and pay the Victory Tax.

I think this is where MJ states "you" must understand "Trust Law" ?

In 1953, the United States relinquished its control over the Philippines.
Why do the Philippine pure Trusts #1 (customsduties) and
#2 (internal revenue) continue to be administered today?
Who are the Settlers of the Trusts?
What is done with the funds in the Trusts?
What businesses, if any, do these Trusts operate?
Who are the Beneficiaries?

Coincidentally, on July 9, 1953, the Secretary of the Treasury, G. K. Humphrey, by "virtue of the authority vested in me," changed the name of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue, BIR, to Internal Revenue Service when he signed what is now Treasury Order 150-06.

TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 Page Content

SUBJECT: Designation as Internal Revenue Service
CANCELLATION DATE: August 22, 2005
REASON FOR CANCELLATION: TO 150-06, dated July 9, 1953. The entity formerly known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be known as the Internal Revenue Service. TO 150-06 is cancelled http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-o.../to150-06.aspx

This was an obvious attempt to legitimize the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Without the approval of Congress or the President, Humphrey, without any legal authority, tried to turn a pure trust into an agency of the Department of the Treasury.

Treasury Decision 2313 Under Internal Revenue Laws of the United States
Even Pete. I have come to a more forgiving perspective, and no longer believe that anyone who has vigorously deployed the edited TD 2313 is guilty of deliberate fraud or ill-intent After all, the actual text of TD 2313 not only does not support the point for which the edited portion is presented, but does, in fact, discredit the entire 'argument' on behalf of which that edited portion is used. http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misu...ngs/TD2313.htm

Know Your identity “Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law, but are liable for the normal and additional tax upon the entire net income "from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States," computed upon the basis prescribed in the law.”

T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.

When I negotiate a check I make a general reservation of rights: "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" and a specific reservation immediately thereunder: "I DEMAND LAWFUL MONEY". These reservations are consistent with the UCC and apply to any negotiable instrument.

I do not expect to receive "Lawful money" but that is not the point. The point is I have not waived my right to lawful money. Because I have not waived my right to lawful money I have not accepted obligations of the United States as a measure of the value for the transaction. Consequently there is no taxable event until I receive something of value for the transaction.

I don't know if lawful money is exempt from taxation or not. But who cares? I do not accept FRNs as the measure of the transaction because they are only obligations of the United States!

When sharing my success, trying to reach people, I've learned there are many psychological factors at play, whether actively deployed or subconsciously applied. Much effort has gone into building false assumptions (ie. the nation is under external attack, etc). Some you try to reach are ignorant, some in denial, many are fearful. And there is always the possibility you're just dealing with an agent gathering intel and playing mind games. At another forum someone also wanted to see my certified IRS letter but of course I didn't share it. The letter contained no secret incantation, the attached evidence of non-endorsed checks was the key to victory.

I agree he already has the answers, or at a minimum they are available here at this forum. I advise not spending much time and energy on the unconvinced. They know I've escaped taxation via non-endorsement and they know where to find me for more. Oh I'll try, but after a certain point the time and effort is wasted and can even be counter-productive. They may defend their false positions more vociferously. They will ostracize the rebel who sees it all too clearly. The effort itself may wear down the person dedicated to the truth and toward good. My advice is not to worry about them. Very complex psychological factors are at work. By presenting your case, you are disturbing their comfort zones. So let them pay taxes we easily avoid. Let them lose their life savings. Let them take up residence in a FEMA Camp. Let them take the tainted vaccines. Let them have the RFID chip. Let them be subjected to strip searches at airports, and be exposed to radiation. Let them drink the fracked ground water. Let them live in the California drought zone. Let them lose their retirement account in the market crash. Let them have their bank accounts depleted by bail-in confiscations. Let them be tracked like farm animals with credit cards, Facebook and Google Plus. These are willing subjects to the fascist state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lorne

I would like to share my experience with the Saving To Suitors Club. The IRS said they'd get back to me about my lawful money tax return within 60 days, but they have not even allowing time for mailing. No response.

Made about $40k at job (W2) and about $28k at side business (1099) for the year. I put a minus $15k on Line 21 of the 1040 return (paychecks redeemed in Lawful Money). None of the side business income was entered on the return as it was all redeemed lawful money.
Tax return filed: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny1.jpg
http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny2.jpg

It is likely the IRS computer finally detected the reported 1099 business income was NOT included on my 1040 return, and they sent this CP2000 proposal of $10k due: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_1.jpg
http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_2.jpg

My letter back to them essentially said, no I don't agree with your proposal, the reported 1099 amounts were all redeemed lawful money and here attached are copies of the LM checks, front and back.

IRS response: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/LTR4.jpg

Since then: [crickets]

To be sure, I also requested and just received this Account Transcript showing a zero balance due on the account: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/Transcript724.jpg

This confirms David Merrill is correct. Lawful money is not neccesarily taxable income. Thank you.

---

You are quite welcome! Thank you for sharing.

I was going through my canceled checks and discovered ... someone I wrote a check to did not endorse private credit of the Fed:

http://ctcwarrior.com/lawful_money_BackImage.jpg

Not even a signature and the Bank honored it too. The secret is getting out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lorne

I was going through my canceled checks and discovered ... someone I wrote a check to did not endorse private credit of the Fed:

http://ctcwarrior.com/lawful_money_BackImage.jpg

Not even a signature and the Bank honored it too. The secret is getting out!

---

§ 3-401. SIGNATURE.

(a) A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument, or (ii) the person is represented by an agent or representative who signed the instrument and the signature is binding on the represented person under Section 3-402.

If the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, is a non governmental,
private agency, and in addition giving one trouble, simply
DECLARE yourself, and all that you own, even in a court
need be, as nothing BUT a sole subject and citizen under the Constitution
of the United States of America, and thereby exercise and reserve
every power and right vested to you therein, and say nothing more.
By doing so, you thereby reclaim and re enter yourself in a jurisdiction
of safety. Do not say what you are not, where you are not, who
they are not , or why they can not. Why play there game, by filing
forms and even acknowledging them as an authority, and claim yourself
in their jurisdiction as one does when they do so? They are one of the
most insidious Agencies to begin with, does one think they can be
reasoned with, or not have pretensions and pretexts to injure you?
You think they will handle you with justice. Their principles do not
even stem from what is just, so what else could be expected,
but problems? If one must contend with wolves, then fight them off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whirlingwonder

If the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, is a non governmental,
private agency, and in addition giving one trouble, simply
DECLARE yourself, and all that you own, even in a court
need be, as nothing BUT a sole subject and citizen under the Constitution
of the United States of America, and thereby exercise and reserve
every power and right vested to you therein, and say nothing more.
By doing so, you thereby reclaim and re enter yourself in a jurisdiction
of safety. Do not say what you are not, where you are not, who
they are not , or why they can not. Why play there game, by filing
forms and even acknowledging them as an authority, and claim yourself
in their jurisdiction as one does when they do so? They are one of the
most insidious Agencies to begin with, does one think they can be
reasoned with, or not have pretensions and pretexts to injure you?
You think they will handle you with justice. Their principles do not
even stem from what is just, so what else could be expected,
but problems? If one must contend with wolves, then fight them off.

---

Welcome Whirlingwonder;

I think you will be enjoying it here. My take is quite contrary:

YOU CANNOT FIGHT YOUR WAY OFF THE BATTLEFIELD.

Since redemption is built into the Fed Act then redemption is the law. This requires forgiveness. It is an Instrumentality of the US Government but that, only because Congress has sanctioned stock in it, that depreciates over time. - Quite contrary to traditional fiduciary responsibility.

Then again, what does that say about endorsers of the private credit. If a stock has a history of being worth less the day following...

What's in your wallet?

Attachment 4560

So, last week, I received some debt as change for exchange...found this 'where's george' bill..., I thought the only place it should be is back where it came from...so it was redeemed...interested in seeing if anyone will be able to receive it down the line? thought to share a side eperiment

Great idea. Here's another to add to your database.

Attachment 4600

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

Good point there IMM, I am just enjoying the jurisdiction subject and getting a better grasp on it

Federal Power Limited

The fiction, "that because it was an excise tax, it was legal," is not true. The power of the federal government is limited to its own property, as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. 18 U.S.C., Section 921, Definitions, states,

"The term 'interstate or foreign commerce' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)."

Only employees of the federal government, residents of the District of Columbia, residents of naval bases, residents of forts, U.S. citizens of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions were lawfully required to file and pay the Victory Tax.

I think this is where MJ states "you" must understand "Trust Law" ?

In 1953, the United States relinquished its control over the Philippines.
Why do the Philippine pure Trusts #1 (customsduties) and
#2 (internal revenue) continue to be administered today?
Who are the Settlers of the Trusts?
What is done with the funds in the Trusts?
What businesses, if any, do these Trusts operate?
Who are the Beneficiaries?

Coincidentally, on July 9, 1953, the Secretary of the Treasury, G. K. Humphrey, by "virtue of the authority vested in me," changed the name of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue, BIR, to Internal Revenue Service when he signed what is now Treasury Order 150-06.

TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 Page Content

SUBJECT: Designation as Internal Revenue Service
CANCELLATION DATE: August 22, 2005
REASON FOR CANCELLATION: TO 150-06, dated July 9, 1953. The entity formerly known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be known as the Internal Revenue Service. TO 150-06 is cancelled http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-o.../to150-06.aspx

This was an obvious attempt to legitimize the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Without the approval of Congress or the President, Humphrey, without any legal authority, tried to turn a pure trust into an agency of the Department of the Treasury.

Treasury Decision 2313 Under Internal Revenue Laws of the United States
Even Pete. I have come to a more forgiving perspective, and no longer believe that anyone who has vigorously deployed the edited TD 2313 is guilty of deliberate fraud or ill-intent After all, the actual text of TD 2313 not only does not support the point for which the edited portion is presented, but does, in fact, discredit the entire 'argument' on behalf of which that edited portion is used. http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misu...ngs/TD2313.htm

Know Your identity “Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law, but are liable for the normal and additional tax upon the entire net income "from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States," computed upon the basis prescribed in the law.”

T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.

---

They agreed to income taxation when they took the job

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bentley

They agreed to income taxation when they took the job

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111

---

Very enlightening! Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bentley
They agreed to income taxation when they took the job

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111

---

12 USC 411 still governs whether said tax is incurred by FRN Usage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

12 USC 411 still governs whether said tax is incurred by FRN Usage.

---

Depending on where the loan (credit) is coming from

So my lady is FINALLY *(exhausted) starting to notice things I show her. She is starting to wake up from her nap. Anyhow, she has these Treasury Bonds from '73-'75...to the best of my knowledge, I believe United States Currency Notes by then is considered 'lawful money' ...

To my knowledge... Treasury Bonds are issued by those who wish to exchange credit (SSN) 'bonding' such trust for 25$ in exchange for credit back with interest made off such 'bet'

To cash such bond would bring the (Equity) bond to a financial institution to allow holder of legal title to administer the public trust...

Redeeming it accordingly with 12 USC 411 would restrict access to the trust in exchange for credit even though it is unfortunate such is connected to public funds...if that is the case and I'm correct, redeeming it would force the Treasury to replace all credit underwrote by bond to be set-off with lawful money?

Anxious to read responses...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Thomas

So my lady is FINALLY *(exhausted) starting to notice things I show her. She is starting to wake up from her nap. Anyhow, she has these Treasury Bonds from '73-'75...to the best of my knowledge, I believe United States Currency Notes by then is considered 'lawful money' ...

To my knowledge... Treasury Bonds are issued by those who wish to exchange credit (SSN) 'bonding' such trust for 25$ in exchange for credit back with interest made off such 'bet'

To cash such bond would bring the (Equity) bond to a financial institution to allow holder of legal title to administer the public trust...

Redeeming it accordingly with 12 USC 411 would restrict access to the trust in exchange for credit even though it is unfortunate such is connected to public funds...if that is the case and I'm correct, redeeming it would force the Treasury to replace all credit underwrote by bond to be set-off with lawful money?

Anxious to read responses...

---

Redemption is TRANSACTION-BASED... not source-based.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Thomas

So my lady is FINALLY *(exhausted) starting to notice things I show her. ...

---

Congratulations to your lady, I redeemed the Treasury debt also five years ago and the teller looked to see if they were signed and saw “Redeemed U.S.Code 12 411”, and was asked can anyone do this? I said what’s the difference between you and me. The teller spoke softly and said “When I get home I have to do some reading”. Never heard a word from anyone.

Yes one was redeemed...crazy how a couple months ago a series E 25$ savings bond was worth 300+...current Treasury direct redeemable amount only 133+...I'm wondering if China's new agreement with IMF created an basket inflation within the SDR the basket of currencies?

We are also thinking of redeeming them and deed them to the trust when starting the Trust account at the bank....

That's right. Upon making demand.

I mailed a woman $100 with the stamp on the back. She got worried. I said it should rinse out, but had never tried it. It did not. So she tried soap and a scrub brush, and bleached out part of the bill. The stamp was still there though.

It spent okay. But she put herself through a lot of stress over it. There may be some troubles caused by my not caring what others think of my redemption. If I was married maybe I would have a different perspective. If she had her way, I would be quite different; an alternate identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Thomas

Yes one was redeemed...crazy how a couple months ago a series E 25$ savings bond was worth 300+...current Treasury direct redeemable amount only 133+...I'm wondering if China's new agreement with IMF created an basket inflation within the SDR the basket of currencies?

We are also thinking of redeeming them and deed them to the trust when starting the Trust account at the bank....

---

Hear! Hear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

Redemption is TRANSACTION-BASED... not source-based.

---

I want the readers to carefully consider the training - what she says to me.

I thought you, David M. would like the SDR comment...only one I know put so much emphasis on that particular,

A few months ago I was looking up cryptocurrencies and I think it was mining? Anyhow, I ended up clicking my way to SDR (I just skim though a bunch of sites then go back a little more in depth) however thought nothing of it...my problem, at the time..I was on the secured party bull and when seeing the IMF and SDR I shunned it out thinking I issue unlimited credit...smh, I can't believe just HOW bad my double mind was...so with more learning and wonderful group by factual evidence discovers 12 usc 411....thinking differently, I read 'special' (certain criteria) Drawing (endorsement/draft) Rights (according to indenture) then facts of 'fictional basket of...' I can't help but look at these pieces of paper like certificates from trust....

I'm not married, I am some what hesitant with my lady..., I express that it is my confidence in knowing my stance...(I do read people's posts and take heed to the info, thank you) and knowing that something really is not right here...when I saw the 'medicare beneficiaries' commercial I could not help but point out the fact that you provide proof of equitable title for said benefit and by using the titled info then endorsing as beneficiary...then I ask if one can divide title and pass down to inferior, well why can't I create the same to do the same? Maybe that was the final little shake that woke her up.