Patriots win again - 2013 lawful money tax filing

[itsmymoney]

Correct. If this demand "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" had been on record since Jan 1, 2013, then this filer could have gotten all $7100 FITW refunded. So, evidently, "co-mingling" of funds is not an issue. The $2100 was legitimately paid as a "usage fee" for the FRNs that were used.

And I now think that JohnnyCash's position that the IRS will probably not dispute 1040's with lawful money demands is correct.

It would stir up a more formal judicial recognition of this remedy, and thereby increase its publicity and use.

So, I am very grateful for what JohnnyCash has done and posted here for all of us to see that lawful money demands are being honored by the IRS, despite any "mistakes" being made by the filers.

Doug555 and JohnnyCash...

Doug555: This 'co-mingling' of redeeming funds was your concern over at 'Treasury Letter' (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...tter-from-1984), where you suggested refraining from this. I'm wondering if you consider Johnny's method to be a DEDUCTION rather than a 'all transactions' REDUCTION, where BOTH are respectively correct. Perhaps we should craft an addendum to the 'Treasury Letter' topic/thread regarding this fact?

JohnnyCash: I did not doubt your method was working (for what, 8 years now?). I saw the logic in your method, but also saw the logic behind Doug555's method. Just trying to look at all angles and decide what works for me. Apparently I can now amend 2013 and proceed with 2014 both in a 'co-mingled' fashion as a DEDUCTION. Then start taking the REDUCTION going forward from TY 2015 with the 'all transactions' demand.

If either of you disagree with my interpretations or presumptions above, please state your thoughts to educate us all.

Thank you both for your knowledge and insight.

imm