Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 137

Thread: Treasury Letter from 1984

  1. #11
    I'm not sure how more well it can be hidden in plain site. The drawee on most any payroll check is the address. If you comprehend how checks (sic drafts) are laid out from a commercial law or customary perspective the "to" or "on" or "against" position is where the address usually is on a paycheck. The drawer/drawers is/are usually at the top. The drawee is usually a bank. And if in the district.....



    An enticing invitation to endorse private credit or...to accept it as the drawee? Remember, with a payroll check every two weeks or so some kind of report goes out to the IRS and the SSA to make sure the instrument will be a perfect match to the bi-weekly reports to the IRS and the SSA.



    ...lawful money
    What is lawful or legal in a Federal Reserve district might be neither lawful nor legal elsewhere. The jurisdictional game is probably more sneakily hiding in the details.
    Last edited by allodial; 12-13-14 at 01:52 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  2. #12
    Junior Member djlamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Nearby the North Carolina
    Posts
    17
    Wow. This thread is awesome. Allodial, what you just shared is something I am dealing with, right now. Everything is direct deposit where I "work". Since the EMPLOYER (university) is FEDERALLY funded (in some kind of capacity), I just assumed the school has its contracts with the govt.

    Now, I just have to figure out exactly how to lawfully refuse THEIR invitation. I am still going through all of the info y'all are sharing here (in the forum), while also digesting it fully (I am astounded how you can take apart stuff, like this letter, and point out what certain words/terms REALLY mean - I am actually curious as to where I can learn that language). I have read enough that I will be giving NOTICE AND DEMAND to "my" bank by the end of December and getting a stamp. What I would like to figure out is what I have to do, as far as proper notice to "my" EMPLOYER.

    As I had shared in the "Introductions" thread(s), my ignorance has guided me down the wrong path. I neglected to file an income tax return last year, because of the erroneous assumption that my labor was not taxable (yada yada yada) and that the IRS can send me what they think I owe THEM (in invoice / bill). I am correcting that and will not only file the return (unfortunately late, so I will probably get penalized) but also file for 2014. Though I was familiar with lawful money, I was "doing it wrong" (simply writing on the back of checks - REDEEM IN REAL LAWFUL MONEY ONLY. NO FEDERAL RESERVES NOTES - yeah, pretty dumb of me).

    Now that I am amongst fellow beings who know what is really factual truth (not misinformation, which I was getting in other groups), I am confident and willing to resolve my dumb mistakes. I appreciate it. ~ DJ Lamb

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by djlamb View Post
    Wow. This thread is awesome. Allodial, what you just shared is something I am dealing with, right now. Everything is direct deposit where I "work". Since the EMPLOYER (university) is FEDERALLY funded (in some kind of capacity), I just assumed the school has its contracts with the govt.

    Now, I just have to figure out exactly how to lawfully refuse THEIR invitation. I am still going through all of the info y'all are sharing here (in the forum), while also digesting it fully (I am astounded how you can take apart stuff, like this letter, and point out what certain words/terms REALLY mean - I am actually curious as to where I can learn that language). I have read enough that I will be giving NOTICE AND DEMAND to "my" bank by the end of December and getting a stamp. What I would like to figure out is what I have to do, as far as proper notice to "my" EMPLOYER.

    As I had shared in the "Introductions" thread(s), my ignorance has guided me down the wrong path. I neglected to file an income tax return last year, because of the erroneous assumption that my labor was not taxable (yada yada yada) and that the IRS can send me what they think I owe THEM (in invoice / bill). I am correcting that and will not only file the return (unfortunately late, so I will probably get penalized) but also file for 2014. Though I was familiar with lawful money, I was "doing it wrong" (simply writing on the back of checks - REDEEM IN REAL LAWFUL MONEY ONLY. NO FEDERAL RESERVES NOTES - yeah, pretty dumb of me).

    Now that I am amongst fellow beings who know what is really factual truth (not misinformation, which I was getting in other groups), I am confident and willing to resolve my dumb mistakes. I appreciate it. ~ DJ Lamb
    Here is what I have done, and it avoids "upsetting" the Banks and Employers. This has worked for 3 years.

    lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)

    Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs (out-going amounts of LAWFUL money excluded). By doing so in good faith reliance thereon, one is provided immunity from liability in any court action, per 12 USC95a(2).
    See below example of a Deposit Slip. I also handwrite (more powerful than stamps) this demand under may name and address on all my checks. This creates a "preponderance of evidence". I do not do restrictive endorsements on any of their checks. I believe the back side of all checks are on their private side.... in their realm.

    Name:  Deposit Slip demand.jpg
Views: 471
Size:  28.4 KB


    Your job is only to make a substantive record of the demand. That is all 12 USC 411 requires. Do NOT interfere with the banks' or the employers' realm and duties.

    IMO, as long as you have NON-HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FRE 803,#6.B), recorded by the bank in their normal course of business, you are all set for proving your demands for lawful money for all transactions.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

    Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

    The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
    ...

    (6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

    (A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

    (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

    (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

    (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

    (E) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
    Last edited by doug555; 12-13-14 at 04:05 PM.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Doug555,

    Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

    Questions:

    1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

    2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

    3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

    4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?


    Thank you all for this great site and these Forums.

    Sincerely,

    IMM

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Doug555,

    Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

    Questions:

    1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

    I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

    2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

    No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.


    3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

    I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.


    4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

    I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

    Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.

    However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html


    Thank you all for this great site and these Forums.

    Sincerely,

    IMM
    See highlighted replies above...
    Last edited by doug555; 12-13-14 at 06:41 PM.

  6. #16
    No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.
    The burden of proof is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

    Preponderance of Evidence. A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action. In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of ...

    Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is ...

    Burden of Proof Vs. Preponderance of Evidence. Civil and criminal litigation use different standards for finding a defendant responsible for the charge. While both ...

    Since the IRS are the ones not accepting the law in 12USC411 where is there Preponderance of Evidence. Milam v. U.S. is really starting to smell.
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    My responses and follow-up questions in RED. Thank you...

    Doug555,

    Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

    Questions:

    1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

    I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

    IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?

    2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

    No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

    IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.

    3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

    I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.

    IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.

    Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?


    4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

    I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

    Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.

    However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html

    IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.

    I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.

    Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.

    I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.

  8. #18
    No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
    The burden of proof is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

    Preponderance of Evidence. A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action. In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of ...

    Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is ...

    Burden of Proof Vs. Preponderance of Evidence. Civil and criminal litigation use different standards for finding a defendant responsible for the charge. While both ...

    Since the IRS are the ones not accepting the law in 12USC411 where is there Preponderance of Evidence. Milam v. U.S. is really starting to smell.
    Good point and research.

    In David's "Diminished Money counterclaim", one is the Plaintiff in that Civil Action.

  9. #19
    Doug555,

    Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

    Questions:

    1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

    Doug: I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

    IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?

    Doug: 1040, Line 21 has "See Attached" on it right after its description. The TaxACT Program then create a separate schedule that has Lines 1 & 2 available for your use. See example below. The Line 21 amount will always have a preceding dash to indicate a negative amount of "Other income", and it should always be greater than your Gross Income amount, because of adding in the "withholding" transactions amounts that were legitimately presumed by the employer to be provided in the default FRN currency.

    Name:  1040-Other Income Details+URL.jpg
Views: 443
Size:  94.6 KB


    2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

    Doug: No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

    IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.

    3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

    Doug: I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.

    IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.

    Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?

    Doug: YES, definitely. See split-year example here.

    4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

    Doug: I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

    Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.

    However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html

    IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.

    I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.

    Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.

    I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    My responses and follow-up questions in RED. Thank you...

    See blue replies above... and thanks for your good questions.

    It is great that David provides this forum because I am sure many others will have similar circumstances and questions, and will be able to profit from this exchange here.

    And it is also important to avoid any bad precedents from being set by this group when others here have already paved the way successfully.

    Last edited by doug555; 12-13-14 at 11:16 PM.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by djlamb View Post
    I am still going through all of the info y'all are sharing here (in the forum), while also digesting it fully (I am astounded how you can take apart stuff, like this letter, and point out what certain words/terms REALLY mean - I am actually curious as to where I can learn that language). I have read enough that I will be giving NOTICE AND DEMAND to "my" bank by the end of December and getting a stamp. What I would like to figure out is what I have to do, as far as proper notice to "my" EMPLOYER.
    I would tend to recommend getting hold of a Black's Law Dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a Balllentine's Law Dictionary and an old 1700s/1800s Giles Jacob law dictionary online and consider that there are at least two English languages: 'common speak' and 'official'. Also the mindset of helping servants out or keeping them in line might be more fruitful and healthy than us/me vs them theater of war mindset. To be a good master might take some diligent study and rightly dividing of the word of truth.

    A green contract law hornbook is a nice quite helpful start. I'd be sure to cover and the basics of contract formation, remedies and recourse, requirements for parties at the least. IMHO a book like this for only $5.96--is like free gold coins like forever. Consider that checks, promissory notes and bonds are types of contracts.
    Last edited by allodial; 12-20-14 at 03:31 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

Posting Permissions

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