Here is a great example because it is current and itemizes the amounts where the suitor actually made demand.
I have left the "1"s in the SSN in place to indicate that more than the Refund amount adds up.
Click Here.
Printable View
Here is a great example because it is current and itemizes the amounts where the suitor actually made demand.
I have left the "1"s in the SSN in place to indicate that more than the Refund amount adds up.
Click Here.
P.S. Here it is with the Refund check at the very bottom.
Click Here.
David,Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Please expound upon the excerpt below taken from your “Public Money vs. Private Credit” article on:
http://www.21silver.com/?show=merril...private_credit
“If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple!”
I wish to comprehend the WHY behind these 2 statements, to explain the “Demand for Lawful Money Deduction” on line 21 of the 1040 to my accountant. This just is not “simple” to me, unless you’re connecting it the involuntary servitude clause of the 13th Amendment in the first statement. The second one is a mystery to me. Sorry for being a little dense…
Thanks,
Doug
P.S. And many thanks to the one who bravely shared this evidence of success!
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug555
Before I explain that passage imagine a fellow, like me is summoned to testify in court. They find me and by whatever name have tagged that summons to me, You are served. I get to the courthouse at the time and day on the summons and some attorneys meet me in the hall and try pulling me aside into a room with wooden chairs around a conference table. I tell them that I am here today to testify in court. They try to tell me that it is traditional for me to answer a bunch of questions before they call me to the witness stand and I study the summons again and inform them that the summons is clearly for me to testify in court. So I leave the room with them trying to stand between me and the door like they have authority...
Then the judge calls me to the witness stand (by whatever name) and they go through the same ceremony, Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
David Merrill: Absolutely not. [Insert screeching vinyl here. If you don't know that sound you are under 35.]
The judge just sits there but the attorneys from the conference room are beside themselves! After a sidebar discussion they hope to salvage the jury composure, the both of them; offense and defense. So the judge complies with their pleas and decides to bluff me.
Judge: It is traditional for witnesses to say, Yes. If you do not like to swear then we have provided that you might be able to attest instead, in the question.
David Merrill: I will not swear or affirm.
Judge: Please tell the Court why.
David Merrill: As I understand law, the constitutions grant you the authority to compel witnesses to testify. Witnesses are compelled by law to respond to summons and to take the stand and testify in court. I am here today in compliance to the summons to testify. Here I am.
Judge: Then why wont you swear or affirm?
David Merrill: Because I do not want to.
The clever judge knows not to tell me he has authority to make me swear:
Judge: What makes you think that I do not have the authority to make you swear in?
David Merrill: If you had that authority by law then the swearing in ceremony is moot. Congress and the General Assembly would have given up the statutes and procedures for such superfluous wasted words.
Are you starting to get it?
The Return is there because it is voluntary. The irrecusable obligation arises from reporting. If you are an employee in the United States you are compelled to report but only because you have been endorsing private credit from the Fed. If it were compulsory to file, then the government would simply tell you what you owe and save the words and mailing and reading etc.
Regards,
David Merrill.
[QUOTE=David Merrill;7712]Before I explain that passage imagine a fellow, like me is summoned to testify in court. They find me and by whatever name have tagged that summons to me, You are served. I get to the courthouse at the time and day on the summons and some attorneys meet me in the hall and try pulling me aside into a room with wooden chairs around a conference table. I tell them that I am here today to testify in court. They try to tell me that it is traditional for me to answer a bunch of questions before they call me to the witness stand and I study the summons again and inform them that the summons is clearly for me to testify in court. So I leave the room with them trying to stand between me and the door like they have authority...
David Merrill: As I understand law, the constitutions grant you the authority to compel witnesses to testify. Witnesses are compelled by law to respond to summons and to take the stand and testify in court. I am here today in compliance to the summons to testify. Here I am.
is the above sentence correct?
should it be... "As I understand law, DO the constitutions grant you the authority to compel witnesses to testify."
charlie
Was that the end of it, or did you testify anyway?
The constitutions guarantee that a defendant has a right to witnesses. That grants the judges authority to get the witness to the stand.
I have seen evidence that some state codes grant the judge authority to hold a witness in contempt of court if he refuses to swear or affirm on the witness stand. So I might spend some time in the holding cell with my approach. Once I saw that code it makes sense to me that there is no use getting a witness to the stand if you cannot accept his testimony. But I still hold that it is the action of swearing or affirming that binds one under authority of the court for perjury.
Regards,
David Merrill.
It's been suggested the suitor's Form 1040 linked in original post contains an error. The attachment "STATEMENT OF OTHER INCOME and DEMAND FOR LAWFUL" seems to indicate the suitor received payments online (PayPal), I'm guessing in additional to the regular W2 earnings. Perhaps operating a little sideline business or hobby that generated $3361.63 in 2011. Apparently the suitor then redeemed $1545 of that into lawful money, reducing the "income" of that sideline business to $1816.63. So it seems that $1816.63 should be entered on Line 21 "Other Income."
But maybe the filer tucked the $3361.63 into Line 7 (W2 wages of 16855.65 + other income of 3361.63 = 20217.28 total). Either way results in the same Line 22 "total income" of $18676.53.
And I notice the filer ticked the 6a box but didn't enter "1" for personal exemption, as allowed. Entering a "1" there would reduce Line 43 Taxable income by $3700 and result in a bigger refund. There is still time (3 years prior) for the suitor to file a 1040X Amended Return.