Remedy - lawful money solution

[itsmymoney]

VERY good questions... I have received refunds for over 3 years now, Federal and 4 different States, due to my living on land in one state, working on land in another state and being paid by yet another state, due to W-2 claims by third parties.

Now, what do you suppose that kind of evidence track record avails us as a defense?

Look up "estoppel in pais" and "estoppel" and equitable estoppel".

Now, the bigger question is:

WHY is the Matrix honoring LMD's?

It is more than just 12 USC 411.

That statute was a result of HJR 192 of June 5, 1933.

And HJR 192 was a result of McFadden's charges of theft and treason against FRS and Treasury Officials, on May 23, 1933.

But what prompted the exact wording of HJR 192?

Why did they have to provide a "remedy" for the people of the Birthright?

I believe it is directly connected with creating probable cause to trigger Holyday 2 -- the Miraculous Deliverance of God's People so that they may gather together and fulfill Holyday 3.

The exact Divine line in the sand is in Mt 22:21

D555, I briefly researched all that you have provided here (I was aware of the term 'estoppel' but not 'in pais' and 'equitable' - it is lawyer-wordy but I get the basic drift). Including HJR-192 of which I would like to comment via these findings (from http://www.educationcenter2000.com/legal/HJR_192.html)...

HJR-192 automatically extended the privilege to renege on debts to every person using the Federal Reserve banking system; however, never forget that when you operate on a privilege, you have to respect the ruler of the giver of that privilege. Furthermore, in the case of Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, the court said: "The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits."

So I believe the above is stating that I can legally opt-out of using the FRS if properly executed, correct? i.e. 'HJR-192 automatically extended the privilege to renege on debts to every person using the FRS'.

Thus, if you avail yourself of any benefits of the public credit system you waive the right to challenge the validity of any statute pertaining to, and conferring "benefits" of this system on the basis of constitutionality.

BUT, if you 'avail yourself' (use, profit from, get an advantage from) of this system, then you are not protected from the privilege of using it (the FRS).

Quite telling. Apparently the opt-out vehicle (statute) is USC 411 (don't want to use FRS system) and also 95(a)(2) - (you can't hold me to the 'debt' and must 'discharge the obligation' that I WOULD have had if I chose to 'avail yourself of any benefits of the public credit system'). Please clarify the above if I am misunderstanding the legalities or operations thereof.

Forgive me here because you weren't completely clear (perhaps by design which I respect your right to do so), but I have to presume that you DID file at least one 1040 for one of those years due to your 'W-2 claims by third parties' comment. Unless of course you were able to circumvent a 1040 despite the 'W-2 claims'. I'm not asking for full disclosure from you but it would be nice to hear from you specifically that 'yes, at least one of those years I filed a 1040'. The 'LM 1040 return for 3-years running' question is relative to the 3-year ASED for assessing a deficiency or additional taxes. Another observation...

There appears to be a conflict between the legal standing by the Supreme Court that "wages" (statutory kind, albeit coerced) is "income", yet the lawful money demand on the 1040 offsets the "wages". The only thing I can think of where these two are tied together regarding taxation is that "wages" is based on "Federal privilege" and "income" is a gain or profit from certain activities and privileges and "Federal income" in this instance (income tax) would seem to be the 'gain and privilege' of using the private currency of the FRS as funneled through the U.S. Treasury. In that regard, anyone using FRN's incurs an excise tax (it can't be a direct tax or it would be Un-Constitutional) of which is a debt obligation.

Now I have mentioned this before on this site: I found it illuminating that you/others here have stated that using FRN's incurs a USAGE FEE. Well, in fact, the 6702 penalties (frivolous return/position) in my IMF from 2008 are listed as a USER FEE. Many of us at Codebusters uncovered this and could not make the connection between what is posted in the official IRS records and how that applied to a 0-wages 1040 return. It now seems to make sense that the 6702 penalty is actually a VALID one as posted. They doctor their records all the time but in this instance it may be legit, i.e. it IS frivolous to say that I had no "wages" because the "wages" were received as FRN's and NOT lawful money. It is still deceptive and non-disclosed, but it would appear to be legit in that sense.

The "wages" thing still bothers me a bit (i.e. 'trumping' and superseding a LM deduction) but when looked upon as I have explained above (if I'm interpreting the "privilege" aspect correctly relative to "wages") then I can see where IRS will kindly move along with 'nothing to see here'.

Thanks for the info you provided, and I'd appreciate a comment on all of the above if you so please.
imm















Pleas