Treasury Letter from 1984

[doug555]

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"?