Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 137

Thread: Treasury Letter from 1984

  1. #81
    You're not sure, but I know why you mentioned my mention of it. I notice things; little things; your tokens.

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    3) I executed RILF for every deposited check in TY 2013 and 2014 to-date.
    Since you made your demand for lawful money, the bank cannot fractionally lend on those deposits & you owe no income tax on those deposits. You're all set. Thank you for helping us Run the Fed!
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 01-04-15 at 06:10 AM.

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    You're not sure, but I know why you mentioned my mention of it. I notice things; little things; your tokens.

    Since you made your demand for lawful money, the bank cannot fractionally lend on those deposits & you owe no income tax on those deposits. You're all set. Thank you for helping us Run the Fed!
    Johnny, I'm still not sure what you are getting at. What do you mean by, 'I notice things; little things; your tokens'? Are you insinuating something?

    Here's what I am getting at, the bottom line if you will:

    1) I made a lawful money demand in 2013 (see Treasury Letter Affidavit below, recorded at County) of which references mostly if not all NET pay transactions.

    2) I RILM every check for 2013 and 2014 with the standard 12 USC 411 novation on the back only.

    3) Filing late for 2013 and current for 2014, I wanted to take the lawful money deduction for both years.

    4) After posting to this thread with regards to the Supporting Schedule and how to 'fill it out', Doug555 mentioned that this might not be a wise idea, given my basically 'NET PAY' demand in my Treasury Letter (below). This is because the GROSS Pay is the payment for any taxable event, i.e. being an "employee" and earning "wages" (we're all coerced into that, but whatever). Bottom line: my demand was not for 'ALL transactions'.

    5) You made a statement to the effect of (paraphrasing), "take your lawful money demand; the IRS won't want to deal with it". Your statement was posed in general, not in response to anything I posted or to me personally. However, I was curious that your statement was somewhat in conflict with Doug555's warning to me due to my 'empty' Affidavit demand (it does not demand lawful money on ALL transactions - i.e. GROSS and Net pay, withdrawals, etc).

    So given my track record with 6702 penalties (i.e. 'tax protestor label'), I was wary in utilizing the lawful money reduction for 2013 and 2014, based on Doug555's warning. I have since filed 'normal' for 2013 (I had to, given other circumstances) and I am planning to do the same for 2014. Going forward, I will record my 'all transactions' Affidavit as soon as I see the recent deposit in my next bank statement. I will feel comfortable taking the deduction for 2015 when I file in 2016 because I am now using the 'all transactions' language on the FRONT of the check/deposit slip.

    So my general question to you was, how do you feel about what Doug555 stated (it's 'iffy' to use the deduction relative to my situation) vs. what you stated in general ("go for it, they won't touch it"). I'm not asking for advice. I just thought there was some conflict there, especially from well-respected suitors where I thought comments from you would be beneficial to the discussion in this regard.

    Regards,
    imm


    02/19/2013
    Prepared by, and Return to:
    ‘imm’

    Department of the Treasury
    1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20220*
    Attn: Secretary of the Treasury

    Re: Lawful Money Demand


    Dear Secretary of the Treasury,

    THIS IS NOTICE TO ONE AND ALL that I, ‘imm’, a man, hereby make a DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY pursuant to Title 12 USC 411 for redeeming all monies that are deposited into and withdrawn from any bank or depository institution, as performed by me or for me; hereinafter ‘events’.

    Events include but are not limited to the following: direct-deposit from any company paying me in such manner; check cashing or deposit; cash deposits; bank cards; ATM; debits or withdrawals or payments; electronic transfers, or any other means relating to all accounts I have at any financial institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act. Said events are subject to a superseding DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY with the express intent to redeem any private credit instrument into lawful money pursuant to, albeit absent any benefit or privilege from, Title 12 Section 411 of the United States Code.

    This demand is made pursuant to law binding all parties subject to Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, now codified at Title 12 United States § 411. This demand is made for the express purpose of exercising my remedy under the law and to rebut the false and presumptive notion that I voluntarily endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. I expressly do not endorse private Federal Reserve credit in any form.

    This Notice also applies retroactively to any existing accounts I have at any institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act. It was only by fraudulent omission that I was prevented from invoking the remedy available within 12 USC §411 from the start of any relationship I have made with any financial institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act.

    Any current or previous contractual obligation I may have made due to the fraudulent omission of the remedy found in Title 12 USC §411 is unequivocally subordinate to this Notice and Demand letter, and, shall not be construed to modify any provision contained within this Notice and Demand letter.
    I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

    ________________________________
    ‘imm’ – All rights reserved

  3. #83
    These hip waders need way more room in the crotchal area. Is it me, or are the fish just not biting today?

  4. #84
    The difference between net and gross is essential because of the deductions and withholdings are of an insurance policy nature. In other words one should not demand premiums back, just because they did not make a claim. If you treat SSI like a tax, just because it is based on the amount of money you earn then you might more easily be presumed to owe that as a tax; rather than treating it like an insurance policy premium.


    (Nibble, nibble...)

  5. #85
    I agree.
    Someone making $800 a week as a W4 worker would receive a year-end W2 like this: http://jesse2012.com/W2_2011.pdf
    And if every paycheck was redeemed in lawful money their tax return might look like this: http://jesse2012.com/jtd1040.pdf
    They'd get all of box 2 "Fed inc tax withheld" back as a refund.

  6. #86
    So how do we deduct for obamacare if its insurance?
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    I agree.
    Someone making $800 a week as a W4 worker would receive a year-end W2 like this: http://jesse2012.com/W2_2011.pdf
    And if every paycheck was redeemed in lawful money their tax return might look like this: http://jesse2012.com/jtd1040.pdf
    They'd get all of box 2 "Fed inc tax withheld" back as a refund.
    Any TRANSACTION amount that is not demanded to be redeemed in lawful money creates a nexus/contract with FED because those amounts USED FRNs... IMO.

    That tax return shows one is double-minded, and gives probable cause for being called "frivolous".

    Please explain WHY you are NOT demanding lawful money for the GROSS wages amount?

    I believe the State was giving a clue about this "GROSS" error in the excerpt below from post15868:


    Originally Posted by Breneth

    So, another update on this issue..

    I received a check from the State (Iowa Department of Revenue) for about 10% of the amount on Tuesday. On Wednesday, I got an explanation letter from them. One form shows how they recalculated my taxes and completely disregarded my "Demand for Lawful Money Reduction". On another form, they put this:

    Reason for Notice:
    The gross income has been adjusted.
    The taxpayers trust fund tax credit has been adjusted or denied.
    Your refund claim has been partially denied.

    I feel like I should send something back to them arguing that they are breaking the law, though as they as disregarded it already, I feel that I should take this elsewhere. A complaint to the State Treasurer, State Senator, Representative? Any suggestions would be most welcomed!
    We had better pay attention to their letters... they may actually be trying to help us!

    Then, to be consistent, each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS should also be demanded to be in lawful money.

    Yes, I know that total amount of lawful money demands will then be greater that the actual GROSS wages amount, making the Adjusted GROSS to be a negative amount.

    But isn't that legitimate?

    Don't all of those amounts that were presumed to be in FRNs need to be adjusted back out, to reduce the national debt accordingly?

    BTW: This 1040 accounting approach has worked for the past 3 years, so it is NOT just theory.
    Last edited by doug555; 01-05-15 at 11:31 PM.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    Any TRANSACTION amount that is not demanded to be redeemed in lawful money creates a nexus/contract with FED because those amounts USED FRNs... IMO.

    That tax return shows one is double-minded, and gives probable cause for being called "frivolous".

    Please explain WHY you are NOT demanding lawful money for the GROSS wages amount?

    I believe the State was giving a clue about this "GROSS" error in the excerpt below from post15868:




    We had better pay attention to their letters... they may actually be trying to help us!

    Then, to be consistent, each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS should also be demanded to be in lawful money.

    Yes, I know that total amount of lawful money demands will then be greater that the actual GROSS wages amount, making the Adjusted GROSS to be a negative amount.

    But isn't that legitimate?

    Don't all of those amounts that were presumed to be in FRNs need to be adjusted back out, to reduce the national debt accordingly?

    BTW: This 1040 accounting approach has worked for the past 3 years, so it is NOT just theory.

    So is this what you're saying for "W-4 workers" (using the above example) --> rather than putting 35,662 on line 21.....put 43,950.40 --> the total of 41,600 wages plus SS tax & medicare tax of 2350.40.....making the adjusted gross (2350.40)

    If that is the case, why not just put 41,600 on line 21 for the lawful money deduction....doesn't that cover the other with-holdings then?

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by ag maniac View Post
    So is this what you're saying for "W-4 workers" (using the above example) --> rather than putting 35,662 on line 21.....put 43,950.40 --> the total of 41,600 wages plus SS tax & medicare tax of 2350.40.....making the adjusted gross (2350.40)

    If that is the case, why not just put 41,600 on line 21 for the lawful money deduction....doesn't that cover the other with-holdings then?
    NO.

    Please, tell me, Why is TRANSACTION-BASED REDEMPTION so hard to grasp?

  10. #90
    All right....the redemption for W-2 workers is on the gross weekly pay --> "ALL TRANSACTIONS".....that's not so hard to understand.....so -41,600 on line 21 is the way to account for "each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS"

    I was just attempting to reconcile your mention of a negative adjusted gross.


    Lawful Money and full discharge is demanded on all transactions 12USC411, 95a(2)
    Last edited by ag maniac; 01-06-15 at 01:07 AM.

Posting Permissions

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