Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 137

Thread: Treasury Letter from 1984

  1. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    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.

    Doug555,

    Based on explaining your reasoning earlier in this thread, I thought the same thing regarding the W-2/1040 examples presented by Mr Cash. I believe one can presume that if GROSS PAY (every dollar you were paid) is lawful money given the chance to redeem it as such, then the NET pay and withholding transactions deducted from GROSS PAY must also be lawful money. This is demanded retroactively when you novate your check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. It's the only way to include the withholding transactions in your demand, because they're already deducted by employer.

    If I'm reading this correctly, here's another way to look at it...

    Suppose your employer pays you in GROSS pay, $500 a week. You take that check to your bank and deposit it into your account, novating the check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. So now you have $500 Lawful Money in that account. But now it's your duty to deduct the withholding transactions from your account and pay them to the Fed and the State. However, those deductions can easily be proven to be sourced from lawful money by that restricted $500 deposit. The only difference between this example and the real-world operation is that we the payee (W-4 employees) are not authorized to handle the deductions. Therefore since we have a statutory right and claim to redeem in lawful money, the only way to do this is by means of your retroactive-to-GROSS-pay 'all transactions' demand on the NET paycheck. Plus, your County-recorded 'on the record' Affidavit enforces your demand with public evidence.
    Last edited by itsmymoney; 01-06-15 at 01:09 AM.

  2. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by ag maniac View Post
    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.
    41,600 + 3588 + 1747.20 + 603.20 = 47538.40

    So line 21 has (47538.40)
    and Line 22 has (5938.40)

    IMO.

    IF, you had this demand on record for the entire tax year:

    "Lawful Money and full discharge is demanded on all transactions 12USC411, 95a(2)"


    NOTICE, however, you are only asking for and getting a refund of the FITW,,, namely, 3588.

  3. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Doug555,

    Based on explaining your reasoning earlier in this thread, I thought the same thing regarding the W-2/1040 examples presented by Mr Cash. I believe one can presume that if GROSS PAY (every dollar you were paid) is lawful money given the chance to redeem it as such, then the NET pay and withholding transactions deducted from GROSS PAY must also be lawful money. This is demanded retroactively when you novate your check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. It's the only way to include the withholding transactions in your demand, because they're already deducted by employer.

    If I'm reading this correctly, here's another way to look at it...

    Suppose your employer pays you in GROSS pay, $500 a week. You take that check to your bank and deposit it into your account, novating the check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. So now you have $500 Lawful Money in that account. But now it's your duty to deduct the withholding transactions from your account and pay them to the Fed and the State. However, those deductions can easily be proven to be sourced from lawful money by that restricted $500 deposit. The only difference between this example and the real-world operation is that we the payee (W-4 employees) are not authorized to handle the deductions. Therefore since we have a statutory right and claim to redeem in lawful money, the only way to do this is by means of your retroactive-to-GROSS-pay 'all transactions' demand on the NET paycheck. Plus, your County-recorded 'on the record' Affidavit enforces your demand with public evidence.
    I don't follow your scenario... it's getting too late tonite.

    Here's the thing, as "Monk" would say...

    The TRANSACTIONS on the W-2 were all in FRNS, by default. You don't have a chance to demand lawful money redemption BEFORE those TRANSACTIONS occurred. Those TRANSACTIONS are on the books no matter what you did with the bank afterwards.

    Those past events/TRANSACTIONS must be included on 1040 so THEY can make the accounting adjustments on an annual basis, so lawful money can be "1040 RETURNED" to the people and the national debt reduced.

  4. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Originally Posted by ag maniac
    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.
    41,600 + 3588 + 1747.20 + 603.20 = 47538.40

    So line 21 has (47538.40)
    and Line 22 has (5938.40)

    IMO.

    IF, you had this demand on record for the entire tax year:

    "Lawful Money and full discharge is demanded on all transactions 12USC411, 95a(2)"


    NOTICE, however, you are only asking for and getting a refund of the FITW,,, namely, 3588.
    ag maniac,

    The net result of 'income' is the same in the 1040 PDF example and Doug555's example, however (as I'm understanding it) ALL transactions must be accounted for in the calculation to get there. This is because every one of those transactions is initially presumed to be paid or deducted in FRN's. So, one (i.e. IRS) could argue that in the 1040 PDF example, the NET pay deduction ($35,662) is being claimed as lawful money but the withholding deductions are not. But they both come from the same payment (Gross Pay). Upshot: you can't have one part of the Gross Pay be lawful money and another part not. However, many suitors appear to be using the '1040 PDF example' to much success. I can't argue with the success of that, but Doug555 makes a strong case that it could be interpreted as 'incorrect' to some degree.

    Doug555's example appears to mimic a general ledger-type accounting, where all transactions must be accounted for in the overall balancing. The higher-than-Gross but negative Line 21 value is the sum of ALL transactions redeemed in lawful money, as Doug555 has shown. The 'income' is the net result (the withholdings) after subtracting the Gross Pay.

  5. #95
    I believe that this situation cannot be resolved by debate. As I read and verified the Social Security Act went into place in 1933 as an income tax, simply because it is premium based and those premiums are set by the amount of income we earn. The Supreme Court verified that as stated in the 1984 Article (Opening Posts). My interpretation of the SSI premiums as premiums is set in antiquity (admiralty), that the origins of insurance are bottomry and leaving the premiums based in income percentage does not change the nature of an insurance policy to a tax.

  6. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I believe that this situation cannot be resolved by debate. As I read and verified the Social Security Act went into place in 1933 as an income tax, simply because it is premium based and those premiums are set by the amount of income we earn. The Supreme Court verified that as stated in the 1984 Article (Opening Posts). My interpretation of the SSI premiums as premiums is set in antiquity (admiralty), that the origins of insurance are bottomry and leaving the premiums based in income percentage does not change the nature of an insurance policy to a tax.
    The word "contribution" (in FICA) says it all--thusly, not an 'income tax'. Although, it seems and "smells like" VAT (for services) on the Federal level. The SSA was designed to be failure proof, is solvent (or should be) and is one of the most significant creditors to the United States.
    Last edited by allodial; 01-06-15 at 09:08 PM.
    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.

  7. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I believe that this situation cannot be resolved by debate. As I read and verified the Social Security Act went into place in 1933 as an income tax, simply because it is premium based and those premiums are set by the amount of income we earn. The Supreme Court verified that as stated in the 1984 Article (Opening Posts). My interpretation of the SSI premiums as premiums is set in antiquity (admiralty), that the origins of insurance are bottomry and leaving the premiums based in income percentage does not change the nature of an insurance policy to a tax.
    What the funds are used for is irrelevant.

    What the funds are is what matters.

    FRNs incur a usage fee no matter where the funds go.

  8. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by allodial View Post
    The word "contribution" (in FICA) says it all--thusly, not an 'income tax'. Although, it seems and "smells like" VAT (for services) on the Federal level. The SSA was designed to be failure proof, is solvent (or should be) and is one of the most significant creditors to the United States.



    I was inspired to find the photos I took from American Jurisprudence 2d. I cannot find them but did find some interesting documents.
    Attached Images Attached Images   
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by David Merrill; 01-07-15 at 01:53 AM.

  9. #99
    Even in circumstances I've seen were a payroll check was cut and 000-00-0000 was the SSN for someone who didn't have an SSN but provided a US Passport or some other ID, FICA was still deducted though withholding for income tax wasn't. The W-4 from what I recall was filled out in a way to assert exemption lawfully.

    It is IMHO worth noting that the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Social Security Administration are totally separate. However, one common factor is that they both rely on the Bureau of the Fiscal Service or Financial Management Service of the Department of the Treasury for banking and financial services.
    Last edited by allodial; 01-07-15 at 02:22 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.

  10. #100
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    [banjo]
    People lemme tell ya 'bout a con named Jay
    poor tax attorney couldn't get the time o day.
    Then one day he was auditing the bank
    when he stumbled on the truth, the source o that stank
    Banker pulls him over say: 'It's the worlds best scam.
    Now you work for us Jay, stop your runnin' on the lam'

    Next thing you know ol' Jay's a millionaire,
    His kinfolk say, 'Jay, move away from there!'
    Mimic patriots on the 'net, This is what ya oughta do'
    so he started up the webstie, called it quatloo
    loos, that is, fictional money, private credit.

    Well now it's time to say goodbye to Jay and all his kin.
    They would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin' in.
    You're all invited back next week to this locality
    To have a heapin' helpin' of their disinfo-tality

    Agents that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.

    Y'all come back now, y'hear?
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 02-06-15 at 11:37 PM.

Posting Permissions

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