Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Patriots win again - 2013 lawful money tax filing

  1. #21
    Having a conditional usage of "all property" delivers a distinct illusion of ownership. That illusion is quite convincing.

    I tried to warn everybody about examples - that they never meet up to rules of evidence, even if they contain all the private information they can be doctored and photoshopped etc. Cyberspace has its shortcomings.

    Johnny, defending and reacting to skepticism simply weakens your "examples". Allow people to be skeptical please. Continue to skim some member's and let it go.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Having a conditional usage of "all property" delivers a distinct illusion of ownership. That illusion is quite convincing.

    I tried to warn everybody about examples - that they never meet up to rules of evidence, even if they contain all the private information they can be doctored and photoshopped etc. Cyberspace has its shortcomings.

    Johnny, defending and reacting to skepticism simply weakens your "examples". Allow people to be skeptical please. Continue to skim some member's and let it go.
    Yesssssss. Years ago there was a skeptic in our small band that would always pester me for evidence. I tried and tried to explain to him that he either trusts me or he does not. So then we come back to liability. Am I willing to take liability for myself such that I learn and then implement what I learn. But once I act it is no longer the process or doctrine of another it is solely my deed. I own my deeds. My choices are my choices.

    So then proof - what's that? Especially in a cyber arena. So then a wise one considers but then my deeds are my own and I cannot say this is David Merrill's process. It is my own the minute I act. All mine. For I am with the liability of my deeds. For me to point the finger at another is to be in limited liability - well that is the problem now isn't it?

    Thank you for this response David Merrill. You are right. Some folks come for the teaching and others come for the "free fish sandwich" - 5 loaves and 2 fishes. In the end, we hold court at our own table - what to do - only the man in the mirror can decide.

    So here's what you should do....... [written in jest - I can't answer that for you]

    you get the point. Of course there are always those who are handicapped in some nature or degree and I think there should be those who should stand in the gap for those. However, in general, we broadcast upon a candid world and the world can choose what it shall do.

    When I was a child I spake as a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things. Test and weigh all matters in the balance - in the courtroom of your own mind. You decide and quit from placing your full faith and trust in other men. Jeremiah 17:5/17:7; Psalms 91: 1-2

    Should you wish to place your trust in me, then ask of me what is my will and I may tell you what you should do. But then what will you do? Will you obey or rebel? You did place your trust in me, yes? Oh no? Then why are you asking? This is the heart of the matter - the crux.

    Says the skeptic: Something for free has no value.

    Is that true? Dear Reader: Only you can know. FEAR is a terrible enemy. It traps us into stagnation - someone should do some thing about this or that. And nothing ever gets done. Therefore CHANGE comes but not for good. Pushing thru fear one finds a house of cards. A system built upon CONSENT. Sign here and here and here and become the Guarantor / Surety. Benefit received with obligation required.

    What you are ignorant of banking - does that nullify the benefit of banking? Hardly. To the Student: keep going.

    Your servant in Christ,
    MJ
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    Thanks for mischaracterizing our win as ... left $2100. on the table. Very incongruous coming from a persona who sets their W4 exemptions to 0 yielding maximum benefit to the bank&tax scam; at a minimum giving the govt a free loan. I can say we were both elated to receive a $5k refund last March. More than the box 2 FITW withheld. We got exactly what we wanted & asked for, no more & no less. That's less than 2% tax paid on $109,00 reported income. The federal govt does provide some important services and it's possible the primary filer was willing to contribute ... a little.

    You might forgive me for glossing over the remainder of your post to save time. Just couldn't get past that .... certain agenda-driven aroma. Might wanna do something about that discharge.
    Johnny, I don't have an agenda. Quite the opposite. Why do you always dismiss other people's ideas and interpretations? As you stated, you "just couldn't get past that...". That is total arrogance and ignorance. YOU know it all, so why should we think for ourselves? We'll just blindly follow the pied piper Johnny. With or without your success, people have questions, theories.

    Despite your intelligence, you refuse to answer or address VALID questions/interpretations/theories...you name it. Case in point: you took a PARTIAL redemption for your FITW, where you 'let them keep' that $2100. So you VOLUNTEERED part of that FITW as FRN's, and redeemed only the NET portion as lawful money. My point was that I believe you have the right to redeem ALL THE FITW if recorded properly. I don't care WHAT you do. But YOU missed the point, as usual.

    BTW, smart ass, I am prepared to file RILM returns for 2013 and 2014. But you didn't read that, did you? Because of course, you didn't need to. Ignore anything that does not suit YOUR agenda. The irony is that I am using the examples THAT YOU PROVIDED for 2013 and 2014. That FACT flies right by your prejudiced brain. Did you read that last sentence? Because I'm not sure if you glossed over this or not because my opinions are so insignificant.

    And David Merrill, I disagree with you. Others learn by example. If no one provided examples or guidance on this great website, then everyone would have to make an educated guess as to how to prepare a 1040 for lawful money. I am not smart enough on my own to know that I could enter a negative "income" value on Line 21, let alone know THAT line can be used to record your lawful money demand. Just saying.

    Q: Why is SOME or ALL of the FITW included in Line 22 "income" on the 1040, when SOME or ALL of it has been redeemed as lawful money? If it's RILM then that portion is not "income", right? VALID question.
    Last edited by itsmymoney; 01-23-15 at 08:57 PM.

  4. #24
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    Must have been part of me unwilling to be silent in the face of (the afflicted with) evil. I have some quatlude canceling headgear now; all set.

    David & Michael, thank you for your comments ... and this IRS blessing!

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Having a conditional usage of "all property" delivers a distinct illusion of ownership. That illusion is quite convincing.

    I tried to warn everybody about examples - that they never meet up to rules of evidence, even if they contain all the private information they can be doctored and photoshopped etc. Cyberspace has its shortcomings.

    Johnny, defending and reacting to skepticism simply weakens your "examples". Allow people to be skeptical please. Continue to skim some member's and let it go.
    David,

    If you are referring to me about 'skepticism', you are not seeing what I am getting at. I DO NOT DOUBT your findings regarding lawful money redemption and FRN's being the main factor in any 'tax burden' laid upon the common American worker. What I am simply trying to determine here, is the METHOD upon which to best employ the redemption of FRN's in respect to the 1040 Form. Johnny Cash (and probably most suitors) employ a NET PAY redemption strategy. Doug555 has a different tact, where his method 'insures' a 100% refund of FITW. Do I personally know the EXACT method that the IRS wants to see? No. But I can look at track records to make an informed decision. As they state, Johnny has 8 years running, Doug555 has 3 years running. What works best/comfortably for me? I have not determined that yet.

    That's all I'm getting at. In fact, to my interpretation of the methods presented, I can only redeem the NET pay for 2013 (Amended return) and 2014 (original). This is because I have not novated my checks/slips with any 'all transactions' language for those years; so just the simple and to-date successful USC 411 language. That's fine. I'm grateful for the opportunity. However, I'm exploring (thru this website and my own thoughts) the possibility of receiving ALL of the FITW via lawful money remedy. If I am posing questions and submitting my own opinion to that extent, why is that so 'egregious' to some suitors? Isn't it possible that the FITW should not be included in the "income" Line 22? If it's working for everyone to include FITW in the "income" Line 22, that is fine. I'm not arguing that and I'm thrilled that IRS is honoring that.

    However, if you already know you can demand lawful money for the NET pay, AND, you have demanded lawful money for ALL transactions (via Affidavit and supporting language on your checks/slips), then don't you perhaps have the right to demand lawful money on THE ENTIRE FITW? Meaning, including that amount into Line 21 ("Other Income")? Just a question. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Last edited by itsmymoney; 01-24-15 at 12:18 AM.

  6. #26
    Noah
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    ... and this IRS blessing!
    Good way to put it. By their silence, the IRS has given you their blessing. Lawful money income is not income under the Revenue Acts of Congress. Or maybe a special dispensation - you're a member of that - group in Colorado doing it right - I don't know how that works, I'm not Catholic.

  7. #27
    JohnnyCash
    Guest

    gibberish or attitude

    Special Dispensation. You raise an interesting question. Since lawful money filers are NOT bothered by the IRS, who or what mechanism prevents the IRS notices from going out to them? Are all the suitors on a NO FLY LIST? I doubt there's a LAWFUL MONEY DEPT at the IRS, too obvious. This is the sort of secret info that needs to be kept hush-hush. Do you think a single attorney must sign-off on every notice that goes out?

    LPC may have given us a clue. They might be getting bank records ... not looking for unreported income ... but to see if you're endorsing private credit of the Federal Reserve, via naked signature backside of your paycheck !
    Quote Originally Posted by LPC
    Or there might be a series of administrative summonses to get bank records and information from businesses that have sent him Forms 1099 in the past, followed by a notice of deficiency.

    If JC responds with gibberish or attitude, it might go straight to criminal investigations.

    I don't know if there's any way to predict the timing or process for these kinds of things.

    LPC
    BTW, we just got our W2 for 2014. After LM filing expect another fat refund & victory!
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 01-30-15 at 02:12 AM.

  8. #28
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    Perhaps this is how it works in the IRS Ogden Campus:

    Layne Carver: you got a minute?

    Bill: Sure

    Layne: Got a taxpayer here, system flagged in 2013 for nonfile in TY2012 with 1099 income. Thing is ... my Civil Penalty letters never went out.

    Bill: okay . . .

    Layne: so TY2013 same taxpayer files, but non-reports his 1099 income. Zero-income. I set the system to issue the CP treatment but again ... no notices went out.

    Bill: and?...

    Layne: the only one able to override is General Counsel. That's you Bill.

    Bill: well, sometimes things mess-up. Maybe 1099s were in error; maybe filer really had no income.

    Layne: Are you saying, not all income is income?

    Bill: I'm saying mistakes can happen, but this... taxpayer here, John whathisname, it's nothing for you to worry your pretty little head over.

    Layne: Exsqueeze me? Listen Bill, there's talk going around... that group in Colorado, this lawful money thing. That it's the real deal. And if so, then we're really taxing Federal Reserve currency, not all income.

    Bill: O that's absurd.

    Layne: Is it? I looked at John's TY2013 1040, and he takes a lawful money negative on Line 21 and it sails through, no flags, no notices. Putting 2 and 2 together here...

    Bill: Do you like having a job here? all the benefits & perks?

    Layne: What's that supposed to mean? Bill, my name is on all these notices. I'd like to know if I'm ... I'm just helping you collect on the biggest scam known to man.

    Bill: Scam? [nervous laughter] Layne Carver's not your real name anyway. Hey listen, I'm late for a meeting. [graps laptop and scurries off]

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    Perhaps this is how it works in the IRS Ogden Campus:

    Layne Carver: you got a minute?

    Bill: Sure

    Layne: Got a taxpayer here, system flagged in 2013 for nonfile in TY2012 with 1099 income. Thing is ... my Civil Penalty letters never went out.

    Bill: okay . . .

    Layne: so TY2013 same taxpayer files, but non-reports his 1099 income. Zero-income. I set the system to issue the CP treatment but again ... no notices went out.

    Bill: and?...

    Layne: the only one able to override is General Counsel. That's you Bill.

    Bill: well, sometimes things mess-up. Maybe 1099s were in error; maybe filer really had no income.

    Layne: Are you saying, not all income is income?

    Bill: I'm saying mistakes can happen, but this... taxpayer here, John whathisname, it's nothing for you to worry your pretty little head over.

    Layne: Exsqueeze me? Listen Bill, there's talk going around... that group in Colorado, this lawful money thing. That it's the real deal. And if so, then we're really taxing Federal Reserve currency, not all income.

    Bill: O that's absurd.

    Layne: Is it? I looked at John's TY2013 1040, and he takes a lawful money negative on Line 21 and it sails through, no flags, no notices. Putting 2 and 2 together here...

    Bill: Do you like having a job here? all the benefits & perks?

    Layne: What's that supposed to mean? Bill, my name is on all these notices. I'd like to know if I'm ... I'm just helping you collect on the biggest scam known to man.

    Bill: Scam? [nervous laughter] Layne Carver's not your real name anyway. Hey listen, I'm late for a meeting. [graps laptop and scurries off]
    A big LOL JC !!

  10. #30
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    Tonight we are all PATRIOTS

    Name:  PATS_2015.jpg
Views: 444
Size:  24.3 KB
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 02-02-15 at 06:04 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
  •