Patriots win again - 2013 lawful money tax filing

[itsmymoney]

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.