Get Your Billions Back, America: 2014

[doug555]

Oregon has "disallowed" my lawful money reduction. They are asking for quotes for the IRS code which shows that lawful money is deductible. Are there any specifics that someone can guide me to?

Please provide the redacted letter for us. It is important to know the exact wording of this challenge.

IMO, there is NO "deduction" for LM in the IRC.

Why?

Because the entire IRC only applies to FRNs - private credit of the FRS - as incurred by the usage of same.

The IRS rightly only allows "deductions" for FRN usage. "Deduction" is a FRN-based term, IMO. DON'T USE IT!

LM amounts received are "non-income", that is, amounts that are not to be included in the FRN-based term called "income". This is why Line 21 of the 1040 is used to "reduce" the FRN-based "income" amount.

Let me refer you to David Merrill's article "Public Money vs Private Credit".

Notice in particular David's insightful statements below:

On page 1 of 4:
"Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated, the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation.

On page 2 of 4:
A Taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc, and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

Let me also refer you to http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/usn-not-taxable.html which illustrates that instruments "employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution" [Unites States Notes] are not taxable.

The US Supreme Court, in M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) at 17 U.S. 316, 476, states that "imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void."

And further, it states that "a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional."

M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) at 17 U.S. 316
The court has bestowed on this subject its most deliberate consideration. The result is a conviction that the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared. We are unanimously of opinion, that the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void.

This opinion does not deprive the states of any resources which they originally possessed. It does not extend to a tax paid by the real property of the bank, in common with the other real property within the state, nor to a tax imposed on the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the state. But this is a tax on the operations of the bank, and is, consequently, a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional.

So, beware of falling into the trap of letting any agency, state or federal, getting you to agree that a LM "deduction" on a 1040 Form is not "allowed" simply because LM is not mentioned as a "deduction" in the IRC.

LM in not in the IRC because it is outside the scope and jurisdiction of the IRC and the private FRS.

This jurisdictional line-in-the-sand is Divinely enforced by Mt 22:20-21.

20 And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

LM is solely a "reduction" to the amount rightly-assumed to be "income" on Line 7 and other lines, because it is an amount that was declared explicitly on the record as transacted in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411, for which you have substantive evidence per FRE 803(6) that is unrebuttable, IF you followed the instructions at http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html, namely:

...writing “lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)” on the front of one’s checks and deposit slips, underneath one’s name and address in the upper left-hand corner of these documents, then one can start subtracting those transaction amounts on the IRS 1040 forms (out-going amounts of LAWFUL money excluded).

LM is NOT a "deduction". Beware of "word-crafting" traps!

P.S. I recommend that you join David's new website at: http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/