I received a 3176C 'frivolous letter' for 2013 1040x Amended return with LM demand

[itsmymoney]

Forget about substance. Money is what you trade with as a medium of exchange. Now quit on money and think TRUST. You must comprehend trusts. Who is underwriting the Money. Meaning the use of FRN's reflects a bond deposited with the Federal Reserve. So it is the United States bond which is underwriting the FRN. So in a sense the FRN is a promise to perform backed by US Bonds. And US Bonds are understood in substance internationally and in pledges domestically. Nevertheless there is equity understanding the notes in circulation.

The use of the notes is a benefit subject to an obligation. This is why I have endeavored so much to explore Uses, Trust, CQU and CQT.

Now when you get your mind around that then OF COURSE FRN's are taxable - or said another way - subject to the use fee. To argue against that is to deny the existence of the trust and the benefit of law.

Now the FRN is a dual capacity note. The greater always redeems the lesser. Therefore I don't care what you give me as long as it is legal tender. I fulfill the law when I make my demand for lawful money. Now is the law no more once I make my demand or does it still stand upon a future choice? Can it be said that I am forever without the IRS revenue agents just because I demand lawful money today? Perhaps I will do a deal tomorrow based on fractional reserve lending practices. Therefore there is always a presumption.

And since computers are the front line gate keepers these days, it may be a while before a living soul is reached.

The use bears the title TAXPAYER.

Regards,
MJ

Yes, the TRUST angle (and associated terms CQU, CQT). Been seeing that throughout other threads here and also by a respected poster on the CB's forum. It appears that the 'obligation' (or not) is very much the topic when it comes to the return of the estate (1040), as it has been referenced. It is true that the money itself is not taxable, but rather the "income" (gain, benefit, profit) as a result of some 'excise-taxable event'.

As I'm interpreting this, exercising a RILM demand ends the obligation of any benefit derived from FRN usage, based on the option of redeeming money solely with the U.S Treasury and not 'contracting' with a 3rd party (the Federal Reserve). If that is true, then it would appear that Govco or the Treasury is 'contracted/obligated' to repay the debt to the Fed from their own coffers and not 'me'.

[BLBereans]

Yes, the TRUST angle (and associated terms CQU, CQT). Been seeing that throughout other threads here and also by a respected poster on the CB's forum. It appears that the 'obligation' (or not) is very much the topic when it comes to the return of the estate (1040), as it has been referenced. It is true that the money itself is not taxable, but rather the "income" (gain, benefit, profit) as a result of some 'excise-taxable event'.

As I'm interpreting this, exercising a RILM demand ends the obligation of any benefit derived from FRN usage, based on the option of redeeming money solely with the U.S Treasury and not 'contracting' with a 3rd party (the Federal Reserve). If that is true, then it would appear that Govco or the Treasury is 'contracted/obligated' to repay the debt to the Fed from their own coffers and not 'me'.

Have you considered that you still derive a benefit from the use of "demanded lawful money"? Are you the creator of these notes, whether "redeemed" or not? Do you own these notes? If not, who does?

Have you considered that said notes are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States"? Where does United States acquire said "full faith and credit"? What backs this "full faith and credit"?

If United States does NOT live and breathe, it must use the energy and property of those who do as collateral, no? Did you pledge? Was it pledged for you? Did you acknowledge, agree with and/or execute completion of said pledge?

itsmymoney?

If it's truly "your money", then why are you concerned with avoiding a tax liability from a foreign entity?

[itsmymoney]

Have you considered that you still derive a benefit from the use of "demanded lawful money"? Are you the creator of these notes, whether "redeemed" or not? Do you own these notes? If not, who does?

Have you considered that said notes are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States"? Where does United States acquire said "full faith and credit"? What backs this "full faith and credit"?

If United States does NOT live and breathe, it must use the energy and property of those who do as collateral, no? Did you pledge? Was it pledged for you? Did you acknowledge, agree with and/or execute completion of said pledge?

itsmymoney?

If it's truly "your money", then why are you concerned with avoiding a tax liability from a foreign entity?

Do I not have a choice to avoid a private contract with the Fed? I admit that Obamacare seems to set a precedent otherwise, but then that 'law' is a farce against the Constitution regardless of what the SC decided (of whom they are becoming more biased for GovCo every day). If the law is to be honored then I DO have a choice to avoid the PRESUMPTION of a tax liability. I MUST be concerned about avoiding it because I am FORCED TO by the coercion of signing those presumptive-indentured-slave W-4 forms. See HJR-192 below for clarity.

https://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/hjr-192/