Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 137

Thread: Treasury Letter from 1984

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Doug, I'm starting to create my supporting schedule based on one of the example templates, but I'm confused. My schedule lays out every entry on the year-end payroll register (see below w/o amounts), with a corresponding column for any Lawful Money reduction as applicable to each (not shown below). If I may ask some questions to clear this up for me, please:

    1) One Lawful Money reduction would be the total amount of all the deposits made in Lawful Money, correct? In my case this is virtually the same amount as the Net Pay (I missed literally one check - long story).

    NO. All deposits are presumed to be in FRNs - the default currency. The main and primary LM reduction amount is all Gross pay received AFTER your first LM demand was made on the record.

    IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

    2) The Fed Withholding is your Gross Pay withheld towards a tax. However, if you redeemed all or virtually all of the Net Pay then the Fed Withholding is not applicable in that sense (a tax). So can some/all of Fed Withholding be added as an offset? See 3 below relative to this...

    NO. IMO, Net Pay is NOT a transaction to be counted, since Gross Pay to you already includes this amount. However, FITW is a transaction. As are the other withholdings.

    IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

    3) Regarding the text I bolded in your quote above, I believe you are saying that "Other Income" (in this simple example) would be (Net Pay + Fed Withholding). I believe you are saying that "Other Income" should be greater than 'Gross Pay'; or 'Adjusted Gross Income'? How can that be, with all the other non-redeemable deductions in play? Just not seeing it clearly yet.

    NO. Gross pay transaction + ALL withholding transactions... IF you made your LM demand as I instructed, which makes it (LM Demand) TRANSACTION-based.

    IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

    Sorry for my confusion. This is my first-time RILM and I'm trying to comprehend it overall and relative to filling out the 1040. Any help or clarification is most appreciated.

    I am sure others are confused too. Let's ALL get this right!

    Sincerely,

    IMM

    Payroll Register entries...
    Gross Pay Regular
    Gross Pay OT
    Gross Pay Bonus
    Net Pay
    Fed Withholding Tax
    SS Withholding Tax
    Medicare Tax
    State Withholding Tax
    Doug, my replies are above in RED. Hopefully this round of replies will get me there. I want to get this right the first time. I get the overall concept and have been novating for almost 2 years now. It's the 1040 application of it that I'm wrestling with. I'm actually late-filing for 2013 in Lawful Money and then will do so for the upcoming TY 2014. Also wanted to say that your/the '1040reliefblogspot' content is excellent! Thanks for providing that. The education here is priceless. I want to get this right, understand it and then pass the knowledge on. Thank you, DM and all Suitors.

    Most grateful,

    IMM

  2. #42
    IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

    IMO, a "letter" does not fit the Hearsay Rule Exception (6)(B).

    IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

    Nothing from the Corporations is "paid in Lawful Money". They all offer only FRNs. We must always redeem all of that after those transactions occur. IMO, that is what the annual 1040 "accounting" is for. Gross Pay must be demanded in lawful money -- NOT Net Pay. Do NOT also include Net Pay in your total... to me that would be "double-dipping" IMO.


    IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

    YES. IMO, those Employment Taxes amounts were rightly presumed to be FRNs and should be redeemed. Don't you agree?

    But you cannot expect a refund of that because you are contracting to get its benefit, aren't you?

    If I am wrong on this, please, everyone on this blog, raise your objections.

    Listen, if you do not understand this, you will be easy picking for anyone to come along and trap you into admitting you committed a "crime" when you actually didn't.

    Just read George Orwell's 1984... 2+2=5. Right?



    Last edited by doug555; 12-24-14 at 05:29 PM.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

    IMO, a "letter" does not fit the Hearsay Rule Exception (6)(B).

    IMM: That Hearsay Rule 803 (the 'not logic' behind it) is really confusing. Gee, go figure. Regardless, after re-reading my letter to the Treasury, there is no mention of 'All transactions' or 'All payments' made to me. It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money'. So that appears to be my first mistake of which I believe I can modify with another Demand letter stating the proper Demand language (whatever that may be - need to research examples to get it right - if you have links from other posts handy I'm all ears/eyes). So given this conundrum that it may be a slippery slope to ask for ALL FITW to be refunded w/o originally demanding ALL Gross Pay be RILM, I'm thinking I still may be able to claim a RILM reduction on the NET deposits. Do you agree? Bottom line: I don't want to ask for something that I can't feel comfortable backing up with almost empirical evidence. I've already been torched big-time by 'them'.


    IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

    Nothing from the Corporations is "paid in Lawful Money". They all offer only FRNs. We must always redeem all of that after those transactions occur. IMO, that is what the annual 1040 "accounting" is for. Gross Pay must be demanded in lawful money -- NOT Net Pay. Do NOT also include Net Pay in your total... to me that would be "double-dipping" IMO.

    IMM: Got it. However, given my answer here in number 1 above i.e. regarding the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter where I basically made a Demand for 'Net Pay only' w/o realizing it, does the Schedule now change to only asking for the 'Net Pay' as a reduction? Not sure of what I can legally claim as a reduction. Like I said, rather play it safe than sorry. So if it's a 'partial reduction' based on 'Net Pay', so be it. Problem is that I have 2 years now of demanding Lawful Money for 'Net Pay only' transactions, if that's how it's being interpreted by 'them' based upon my Treasury Letter.

    A secondary question about 'the paychecks/deposit slip amounts': If the proper Demand letter (RILM all transactions, i.e. starting with Gross Pay) was made, is there any calculating of the actual check amounts/deposits to be made regarding the Schedule? Or is that just evidence that ALL transactions were made in Lawful Money? In other words, the 'Net' amounts need not be computed in the actual Line 21 amount because THAT amount is a 'Gross Pay amount' (unless a partial Demand was made like mine, i.e. 'Net amounts' based on my ill-advised Treasury letter).

    Thoughts welcome here.


    IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

    YES. IMO, those Employment Taxes amounts were rightly presumed to be FRNs and should be redeemed. Don't you agree?

    IMM: Yes. And because the Employment Tax amounts are ALSO being taxed based on Gross Pay (double-dipping for them), then if demand was made properly on Gross Pay then then the RILM deduction for Employment Tax amounts is valid. However, the 'federal privilege' of someday participating in those Employment benefits makes it an unavoidable tax (regardless of RILM). Do you agree with my explanation as it relates to yours, so to speak?

    But you cannot expect a refund of that because you are contracting to get its benefit, aren't you?

    IMM: Agree. I alluded to that in number 3 just above (i.e. 'contract', 'federal privilege' for SS/Med).

    If I am wrong on this, please, everyone on this blog, raise your objections.

    Listen, if you do not understand this, you will be easy picking for anyone to come along and trap you into admitting you committed a "crime" when you actually didn't.

    Just read George Orwell's 1984... 2+2=5. Right?

    IMM: I DO recognize that and I appreciate you reminding me of that fact. I suppose I should feel lucky that I've only had to pay enormous 6702 penalties instead of (like PH), going to jail. That's why I'm trying to get it right even if I have to ask for a partial reduction, given your thoughts and others regarding the answers/questions I posed just above.

    Thanks again.





    Doug, my replies again in RED above. Thank you for this back-and-forth. I think it's educational for all of us.

  4. #44
    As I will also be applying lawful money demand to this coming tax return, for the first time, I do appreciate the willingness to ask the question and Doug555's gracious offer of his experience and opinions on the proper course to take.

    Wishing to all on this site, and our Nation; as we gather in strength to combat the national debt, a prosperous and happy New Year.

  5. #45
    Thank you David Neil;


    This is very exciting indeed, the immanent run on the Fed!

  6. #46
    IMM: That Hearsay Rule 803 (the 'not logic' behind it) is really confusing. Gee, go figure. Regardless, after re-reading my letter to the Treasury, there is no mention of 'All transactions' or 'All payments' made to me. It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money'. So that appears to be my first mistake of which I believe I can modify with another Demand letter stating the proper Demand language (whatever that may be - need to research examples to get it right - if you have links from other posts handy I'm all ears/eyes). So given this conundrum that it may be a slippery slope to ask for ALL FITW to be refunded w/o originally demanding ALL Gross Pay be RILM, I'm thinking I still may be able to claim a RILM reduction on the NET deposits. Do you agree? Bottom line: I don't want to ask for something that I can't feel comfortable backing up with almost empirical evidence. I've already been torched big-time by 'them'.
    The FRE Hearsay Exception Rule 803(6)(B) is critical to record formation for defending one's position. One MUST understand this BEFORE doing anything. IMO, one MUST create admissible evidence to successfully rebut legitimate and often outrageous diabolical presumptions. The Matrix runs on records.

    Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 803, Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay:
    (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;

    IMO, any "letter" is NOT evidence. Sorry.

    IMO, since the Gross Pay transaction was not in your demand, then that entire amount remains in FRNs, and you owe for that total FRN usage. IMO, the tax is transaction-based, and based on a taxable event - FRN Usage. You may want to share your redacted "Demand Letter" so others do not make this same mistake.

    Your comment above raises a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE & LESSON.

    IF the above was coming from disinformation agent, would it not be fairly easy to charge one with tax evasion if one commingled funds by claiming "Net Pay" was NOT using FRNs?

    Can you see how such a question posed above could easily be a TRAP if anyone espoused such a position?

    See Mt 22:18-21 for the Divine Law against commingling of Caesar's and God's money. This account is the "red line in the sand" that is the enforcement behind 12 USC 411, IMO, at least for His bondservants who keep His Word, and claim its protections in His Name.

    BTW, I have already more than once provided you with "examples to get it right".

    See again: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html

    Is there a reason this example is not clear?

    I realize that I am the only one on this site requiring this exact wording... perhaps you are seeking confirmation from others on this site?


    IMM: Got it. However, given my answer here in number 1 above i.e. regarding the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter where I basically made a Demand for 'Net Pay only' w/o realizing it, does the Schedule now change to only asking for the 'Net Pay' as a reduction? Not sure of what I can legally claim as a reduction. Like I said, rather play it safe than sorry. So if it's a 'partial reduction' based on 'Net Pay', so be it. Problem is that I have 2 years now of demanding Lawful Money for 'Net Pay only' transactions, if that's how it's being interpreted by 'them' based upon my Treasury Letter.

    A secondary question about 'the paychecks/deposit slip amounts': If the proper Demand letter (RILM all transactions, i.e. starting with Gross Pay) was made, is there any calculating of the actual check amounts/deposits to be made regarding the Schedule? Or is that just evidence that ALL transactions were made in Lawful Money? In other words, the 'Net' amounts need not be computed in the actual Line 21 amount because THAT amount is a 'Gross Pay amount' (unless a partial Demand was made like mine, i.e. 'Net amounts' based on my ill-advised Treasury letter).

    Thoughts welcome here.
    IMO, the "the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter" is NOT evidence, and can be completely IGNORED.

    IMO, you cannot use the Schedule at all. Sorry. That would involve commingled funds given your scenario above.

    If I may ask, where did you get that "ill-advised Treasury letter"?
    Last edited by doug555; 12-25-14 at 10:28 PM.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    The FRE Hearsay Exception Rule 803(6)(B) is critical to record formation for defending one's position. One MUST understand this BEFORE doing anything. IMO, one MUST create admissible evidence to successfully rebut legitimate and often outrageous diabolical presumptions. The Matrix runs on records.

    IMO, any "letter" is NOT evidence. Sorry.

    IMO, since the Gross Pay transaction was not in your demand, then that entire amount remains in FRNs, and you owe for that total FRN usage. IMO, the tax is transaction-based, and based on a taxable event - FRN Usage. You may want to share your redacted "Demand Letter" so others do not make this same mistake.

    Your comment above raises a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE & LESSON.

    IF the above was coming from disinformation agent, would it not be fairly easy to charge one with tax evasion if one commingled funds by claiming "Net Pay" was NOT using FRNs?

    Can you see how such a question posed above could easily be a TRAP if anyone espoused such a position?

    See Mt 22:18-21 for the Divine Law against commingling of Caesar's and God's money. This account is the "red line in the sand" that is the enforcement behind 12 USC 411, IMO, at least for His bondservants who keep His Word, and claim its protections in His Name.

    BTW, I have already more than once provided you with "examples to get it right".

    See again: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html

    Is there a reason this example is not clear?

    I realize that I am the only one on this site requiring this exact wording... perhaps you are seeking confirmation from others on this site?


    IMO, the "the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter" is NOT evidence, and can be completely IGNORED.

    IMO, you cannot use the Schedule at all. Sorry. That would involve commingled funds given your scenario above.

    If I may ask, where did you get that "ill-advised Treasury letter"?

    Doug555,

    I understand the Hearsay Exception Rule is important. I just meant that the wording is tricky and can be confusing if not thought out well. FWIW, my 'Treasury letter' was recorded at the County Recorder's office, so it's not like there is no 'on-the-record' evidence of my demand even though now I realize it's an 'empty' demand. I will post it for review however I'm not sure of the method of attaching a Word document here - if someone can give a quick instruction on attaching I'd be happy to post it. Also FWIW, I was paraphrasing 'Net Pay events' when stating: "It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money". I never actually stated 'Net Pay' in my letter as you will see when it's posted. However, it READS that way based on the language I used.

    I found an example from the various links you have posted regarding the 'all transactions' Affidavit demand (after my prior post so my apologies for not researching more before posting). I'm surmising that with a new recorded Affidavit I cannot 'retroactively' demand 'all transactions' back to Jan 2013 (when I started restricting my signature) to effectively 'supersede' my original recorded demand letter. So 2 years of 'incomplete/empty' demands for lawful money. If I cannot retroactive the new demand, at least it will be in effect for Jan 1, 2015 as I intend to get it recorded ASAP for start of 2015. If that's the best I can do going forward, then a harsh and disappointing lesson learned.

    My question about RILM on 'Net Pay' ('commingling funds') based on my original 'Treasury letter demand' was sincere, if not misguided and ignorant. I now realize the taxable event is on the Gross Pay of which I failed to realize upfront - and you can't RILM the Gross Pay until after the fact with your novated paychecks/deposit slips via the 'Net Pay' of which is what you are given, and, is the evidence of the demand on the Gross Pay based on the 'all transactions' language. If I am misunderstanding this still, PLEASE correct me. I hope this clears any confusion up for you. I most certainly DO NOT want to put misinformation out there. I'm trying to learn and I ask a lot of questions, some of them perhaps 'impatiently' without first more study, of which I apologize for that. I have studied here many times, but I'm feeling quite foolish at the moment for not enough study and better comprehension. But my intentions are sincere about learning and 'doing it right'.

    The 'ill-advised Treasury letter' was drafted by myself based on information over 2 years ago from this site (STSC) and another site of which was visited by a well-known Suitor here, where that Suitor provided some information on that other site and directed me and others here at STSC. Obviously I did not study enough back then and thought that the RILM deposits themselves were the only necessary demand to be made (i.e. not recognizing Gross Pay nor the necessary 'all transactions' demand).

    I welcome your replies.

    IMM

  8. #48
    IMM

    I will post it for review however I'm not sure of the method of attaching a Word document here - if someone can give a quick instruction on attaching I'd be happy to post it.

    Click "Reply", under the text box click "Go Advanced", top row of icons click the "paperclip", top right of new pop-up click "add files"


    Don't forget to sanitize doc before upload --> you don't want a valentines card from me in 6 weeks

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Doug555,

    I understand the Hearsay Exception Rule is important. I just meant that the wording is tricky and can be confusing if not thought out well. FWIW, my 'Treasury letter' was recorded at the County Recorder's office, so it's not like there is no 'on-the-record' evidence of my demand even though now I realize it's an 'empty' demand. I will post it for review however I'm not sure of the method of attaching a Word document here - if someone can give a quick instruction on attaching I'd be happy to post it. Also FWIW, I was paraphrasing 'Net Pay events' when stating: "It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money". I never actually stated 'Net Pay' in my letter as you will see when it's posted. However, it READS that way based on the language I used.

    I found an example from the various links you have posted regarding the 'all transactions' Affidavit demand (after my prior post so my apologies for not researching more before posting). I'm surmising that with a new recorded Affidavit I cannot 'retroactively' demand 'all transactions' back to Jan 2013 (when I started restricting my signature) to effectively 'supersede' my original recorded demand letter. So 2 years of 'incomplete/empty' demands for lawful money. If I cannot retroactive the new demand, at least it will be in effect for Jan 1, 2015 as I intend to get it recorded ASAP for start of 2015. If that's the best I can do going forward, then a harsh and disappointing lesson learned.

    My question about RILM on 'Net Pay' ('commingling funds') based on my original 'Treasury letter demand' was sincere, if not misguided and ignorant. I now realize the taxable event is on the Gross Pay of which I failed to realize upfront - and you can't RILM the Gross Pay until after the fact with your novated paychecks/deposit slips via the 'Net Pay' of which is what you are given, and, is the evidence of the demand on the Gross Pay based on the 'all transactions' language. If I am misunderstanding this still, PLEASE correct me. I hope this clears any confusion up for you. I most certainly DO NOT want to put misinformation out there. I'm trying to learn and I ask a lot of questions, some of them perhaps 'impatiently' without first more study, of which I apologize for that. I have studied here many times, but I'm feeling quite foolish at the moment for not enough study and better comprehension. But my intentions are sincere about learning and 'doing it right'.

    The 'ill-advised Treasury letter' was drafted by myself based on information over 2 years ago from this site (STSC) and another site of which was visited by a well-known Suitor here, where that Suitor provided some information on that other site and directed me and others here at STSC. Obviously I did not study enough back then and thought that the RILM deposits themselves were the only necessary demand to be made (i.e. not recognizing Gross Pay nor the necessary 'all transactions' demand).

    I welcome your replies.

    IMM
    IMO, the first banking record created with the "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" on it is when you have admissible evidence of breaking your contract with the FED through usage of FRNs.

    County records I believe are also evidence... however, subsequent inadvertent usage of FRNs re-establishes the FED contract, IMO.

    The Affidavit in the county record memorializes the exact date when you created that first 12 USC 411 demand on record with the bank.

    I think you have it now!

    Now, just go write yourself a check and deposit it today, Dec 26, 2014, with the above exact demand on both instruments under your name & address on the front, and then go out and celebrate!

    You are now free... you have just "broken the bonds"!

    Thanks for your patience and perseverance!

    BTW: I continue to write this exact wording on all my checks and deposit slips, just to establish a "preponderance of evidence" in case it is ever needed.
    Last edited by doug555; 12-26-14 at 09:32 PM.

  10. #50
    Thank you for bringing the Rules of Evidence into the picture.

Posting Permissions

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