Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 158

Thread: 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by David Neil View Post
    Frivolous tax returns; “nunc pro tunc.”
    This ruling emphasizes to taxpayers..
    Hmm, just wondering -- because the Suitor is no longer endorsing private credit, how can they still be a taxpayer? Isn't the whole idea to avoid paying the user fee for private credit and get the tax refund?

    Would be nice to read more of EZ's view about the nunc pro tunc he mentioned.

  2. #62
    stoneFree
    Guest
    My take here is that "froze25" has conspired to slur lawful money redemption. A setup from the get-go to portray REDEEMING LAWFUL MONEY in a bad light. This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    IRS refund sent!



    Beautiful example of a LAWFUL MONEY Federal Income Tax Return filing for 2013. Note that a matching Form W2 was attached. Also, filer received a Form 1099 for the year with an amount in the tens of thousands but none of it was entered on the 1040.

    http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_2.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_3.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/status1.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg

    Culminating in the refund to bank account on March 25th:
    http://ctcwarrior.com/refund2013.jpg

    THANKS EVERYONE!

  3. #63
    Member froze25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The Land that some call New York
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by stoneFree View Post
    My take here is that "froze25" has conspired to slur lawful money redemption. A setup from the get-go to portray REDEEMING LAWFUL MONEY in a bad light. This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.
    Stonefree, what I'm trying too do is get a full refund after receiving a semi threatening letter from the IRS, believe it or not that is what I am doing. With some luck this thread will help others to do the same even with threatening letters. That is why I'm attempting to document my experience. Can you show some examples of yours?

  4. #64
    Froze, here is your explanation in full for the IRS. You may find some or all of it useful in your reply.
    I am an American Citizen by being born within the territory of the Union States (jus soli), and born to parents who were also American Citizens (jus patria). As an American Citizen I have certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the ownership of property. Just because the United States of America Corporation (federal government) issued a transmitting utility for me (YOUR FULL NAME) for my use in participating in the public trust, I never voluntarily and knowingly surrendered any of my unalienable rights for a commercial contract (see eg, NCGS 25-1.308 of the UCC), a practice deplored by the United Nations International Covenant on Enforcement of Individual Civil Rights (the ICEICR, now adopted by 176 nations). And since citizenship is a First Amendment right, I chose this past tax year to keep some of the fruits of my labor, which cannot be taxed by the IRS, as the living man has an unalienable right to earn his living through his labor. The use of lawful money is a formal way to rebut the presumption that I have agreed to be a debt slave to the corporate government. Since lawful money is issued by the US Treasury more or less in accordance with the Constitution, it is outside the purview of the IRS, which can only collect a privilege tax on monies gifted to the public trust through the transmitting utility, with endorsement of Federal Reserve credit (sight notes of zero maturity), and thus dealing in private securities, being the privilege. There is nothing frivolous about asserting my rights to retain the fruits of my labor. After all, paying income taxes is voluntary, as is participation in the public trust, and thus volunteering to commit all my property and labor as surety for the onerous national debt.

    Freed

  5. #65
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    Yeah, and I forgot to include the matching W2. As an eyewitness to the events, I can testify that redeeming lawful money works. Saw the original untouched documents myself. So here is the full example of 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money from a W2 taxpayer:

    http://ctcwarrior.com/W2_2013.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_2.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_3.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/status1.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/refund2013.jpg
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 04-01-14 at 04:05 AM.

  6. #66
    Member froze25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The Land that some call New York
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    Yeah, and I forgot to include the matching W2. As an eyewitness to the events, I can testify that redeeming lawful money works. Saw the original untouched documents myself. So here is the full example of 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money from a W2 taxpayer:

    http://ctcwarrior.com/W2_2013.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_2.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_3.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/status1.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg
    http://ctcwarrior.com/refund2013.jpg
    Congratulations on your success, was the 3 page of your return, the one that shows other income one of the IRS's forms or did you make it yourself? That is the only fundamental difference I see between your 1040 and mine. Also I see you only attached one check, I sent all of mine.

  7. #67
    Member froze25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The Land that some call New York
    Posts
    71
    OK so this will be the finial draft of the letter:

    Dear Sir or Madam;

    The letter postdated April 7, 2014 (copy included with this letter) stating that I have filed a frivolous Tax Return confuses me. I have been making demand for redeemed lawful money most of the tax year 2013 and therefore should be getting nearly a full refund or a full refund of all withholdings. Additionally I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 that I have been and will continue doing as evidenced by the copies of the checks that were included with my refund. I have included 3 of them with this letter as examples. To save money on postage I have not resent all of them. If the agents acting for the IRS need me to resend all of them I can and will upon request.

    Please explain exactly where on the Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4 (included with this letter) you find the Remedy I am using or something similar that applies to my filing and respond BEFORE charging me a $5,000 Frivolous Penalty because I cannot find any connection with the process of redeeming Lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 or demand for lawful money reduction on Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4. It is critical that you point out what exactly is frivolous about my Tax Return Filing in order for me to correct it properly.

    On the letter that was sent to me it states, "review the enclosed Publication 2105 (Why do I have to pay taxes)". Publication 2105 was not included in the letter but I went on irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf and found what I believe to be the one that was supposed to be sent to me and included it with this letter. Is the included publication 2105 the one the letter I received from the IRS Post dated April 7th 2014 the "Publication 2105" it was referring to? If it was the correct publication I was unable to find any reference to the process of redeeming lawful money per USC Title 12 §411 or demand for lawful money reduction. Again, since you claim to have included a publication that you did not enclose with your Letter it is critical that you clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.

    If I am mistaken please tell me what section(s) apply to my return in your response so that I may understand for this as well as future filings. If after further review the 1040 I filed is found by the IRS to be correct as I have determined it to be, please respond in kind and I will await the check in the mail. If not please answer my questions and we can work to a speedy resolution.

    Warm Regards,

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by froze25 View Post
    Ok, I got the letter from the IRS, Here it is suggested replies?
    Attachment 1596
    Temporarily Deleted
    Attachment 1598

    I have to agree with Micheal Joseph that you must re-butt their proposal within 30 days or else you lose by default.

    I appears that there have sent a proposed NEW contract to your all capitals Strawman in the hopes that you answer the letter, which in reality would be an acceptance to contract with them, which binds you back into their Jurisdiction.

    Remember, they can not prosecute you outside of their Jurisdiction

    It seems to me the best thing you could do is write across their letter in big bold red letters:

    THAT'S NOT ME

    REFUSED FOR CAUSE

    Then get it Notarized and send it back registered mail receipt requested for your records

    I may be wrong with my thinking so hopefully others on here can chime in


    This not legal advise, it is only my opinion

  9. #69
    Member froze25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The Land that some call New York
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by LearnTheLaw View Post
    I have to agree with Micheal Joseph that you must re-butt their proposal within 30 days or else you lose by default.

    I appears that there have sent a proposed NEW contract to your all capitals Strawman in the hopes that you answer the letter, which in reality would be an acceptance to contract with them, which binds you back into their Jurisdiction.

    Remember, they can not prosecute you outside of their Jurisdiction

    It seems to me the best thing you could do is write across their letter in big bold red letters:

    THAT'S NOT ME

    REFUSED FOR CAUSE

    Then get it Notarized and send it back registered mail receipt requested for your records

    I may be wrong with my thinking so hopefully others on here can chime in


    This not legal advise, it is only my opinion
    I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by froze25 View Post
    I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).
    What would you expect them to say about it?

    Remember, they are willing to lie to you in order to get you into their Jurisdiction

    Like I said, hopefully others [like DM or MJ] will chime in

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •