Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Lawful Money Stops IRS Proposal

  1. #11
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,545
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Michael,

    You are 'teasing me' with your knowledge of how you turned IRS away including the garnishment, which is amazing, actually. That is truly a feat and my congrats to you. I currently do not have the 'key' to unlocking the chains, as you have found. It is not thru ignorance, as I do quite a bit of research; however it's that 'key' part of the research and knowledge that I cannot seem to find. Although I acquiesced a bit in this current situation I am in, the 'terms' stated were to not assess a penalty. So they have lied. It's not surprising, but it is true. They do not say WHAT is 'frivolous'; never do.

    So now I must try to stop collection. Surely I have not done enough or executed the correct actions (such as you did) in stopping previous threats. I would welcome a private correspondence with you if that is possible, but I respect your privacy and wishes. In lieu of that, perhaps you and others could suggest some specific STSC topics to research. I will start researching regardless.

    Thank you for your time and input here. It is greatly appreciated.

    Sincerely,
    imm
    imm,

    What I am trying so hard to show you, absent teasing, is that you already have the answer. The fact is you don't trust yourself that you are correct. You wish to be justified by third parties. This is why Jesus said fish out of the Right Side of the Boat. And when they did they caught 153 (1 + 5 +3 = 9) GREAT FISHES. He was talking about consciousness.

    I am saying the same thing to you. Look at a $1 Note. Look closely at Washington [the Alpha] do you see he is flanked by an Omega. Look carefully at his head. What is above his head? The answer is AN ALTER.

    imm, you have the answer already. You know the remedy. You have apparently put your knowledge into action and have now been tested to see if you truly believe what you are doing or are you just following that which you discerned from without your being [what you read on the internet].

    In my opinion, these letters are computer generated based on input parameters observed while scanning. You seem to have the key and you seem to have the understanding. The question begging to be answered is: does your will align with your thoughts and emotions? What is the intent of your deed? Is it based in self [greed and lust] whereof you may be easily manipulated in fear? OR is your deed based in Love whereof it is almost impossible to move you from your belief?

    The answer lies in you. If it was me, every time I received a correspondence [issue] of the IRS, I would respond with a kind letter kindly explaining my position and kindly refusing to accept their offer to submit myself under their administration. But that is just me and you must find your own path. The remedy exists you know it exists - and how do I know that you know it exists? Because apparently you have put that remedy into use and clearly one who does such a thing does so with knowledge, right? Clearly one who acts does so with knowledge and full liability upon his own deeds, right?

    Therefore the only thing left is do you believe yourself or not? Can you be forced to form a belief? Only you can answer that question. If you want me to say just refer to section xyz subsection abc of the such and such code, well you already know of which you draw your "water". Upon testing, now what?

    I begged the IRS for a local sit down, actually pleaded for the opportunity to meet with a local agent over a cup of coffee. Can you believe the clerk actually said "we don't do that"? What she meant is they don't do that for those who are centered in will, emotion and deed. I cannot be moved from this internal rock.

    Now consider carefully what you are reading in the following:

    Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

    1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.


    Now clearly God is a respecter of persons, right? I mean why the Jew first, then the poor miserable wretched Greek? Well lets look a bit deeper shall we?

    Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

    Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

    Can you be moved Moses [Reason]? Only you can know. For what is the causes which impelled you to act in the first place? Only you can know. The answer truly lies within you.


    You can research all you want and you can read from other successes, but the remedy will only come when you begin to truly believe that you are right and you don't need any other party to justify you. For indeed Egypt is a shaky reed. Let me be a bit more blunt. Just because I am right, does not mean another will not challenge.

    The external struggle of minds is projected first from the internal struggle in my mind. When my will, emotion and deed are all aligned then the struggle ceases - I believe, therefore I act. They were turned back from garnishment because they were made to see their "error in presumption".

    Truly, the battle is not in flesh and blood it is in mind and beliefs. Become as the Jew [Judah] camping in the East toward the rising sun and begin to look inward and you shall find what you desire. I am telling you truth, I hope that you can receive.

    Numbers 2:3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies....

    and again,


    Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


    Questions: What did you do? Why did you do it? Upon what understandings did you act? What are the errors in presumption? What is your intent? Where is your trust? What is the error?


    =======================

    The other day an associate called me and told me that human beings were absent free will. He too is experiencing problems with the IRS as he was duped into the "secured party scam" which is in effect trying to tap the stock of a corporation of which he has no beneficial interest. I responded simply "since you have no free will, then you should submit in totality to the IRS and go to jail if need be."

    Needless to say he was not pleased. So what say ye? Do you have free will to choose which path you should walk?

    Only you can know. But do take your six friends [who, what, when, where, how and why] with you on the journey.

    To your success,
    MJ
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 08-09-15 at 07:49 PM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    imm,

    What I am trying so hard to show you, absent teasing, is that you already have the answer. The fact is you don't trust yourself that you are correct. You wish to be justified by third parties. This is why Jesus said fish out of the Right Side of the Boat. And when they did they caught 153 (1 + 5 +3 = 9) GREAT FISHES. He was talking about consciousness.

    I am saying the same thing to you. Look at a $1 Note. Look closely at Washington [the Alpha] do you see he is flanked by an Omega. Look carefully at his head. What is above his head? The answer is AN ALTER.

    imm, you have the answer already. You know the remedy. You have apparently put your knowledge into action and have now been tested to see if you truly believe what you are doing or are you just following that which you discerned from without your being [what you read on the internet].

    In my opinion, these letters are computer generated based on input parameters observed while scanning. You seem to have the key and you seem to have the understanding. What is left is does you will align with your thoughts and emotions. What is the intent of your deed? Is it based in self [greed and lust] whereof you may be easily manipulated in fear? OR is your deed based in Love whereof it is almost impossible to move you from your belief?

    The answer lies in you. If it was me, every time I received a correspondence [issue] of the IRS, I would respond with a kind letter kindly explaining my position and kindly refusing to accept their offer to submit myself under their administration. But that is just me and you must find your own path. The remedy exists you know it exists - and how do I know that you know it exists? Because apparently you have put that remedy into use and clearly one who does such a thing does so with knowledge, right? Clearly one who acts does so with knowledge and full liability upon his own deeds, right?

    Therefore the only thing left is do you believe yourself or not? Can you be forced to form a belief? Only you can answer that question. If you want me to say just refer to section xyz subection abc of the such and such code, well you already know of which you draw your "water". Upon testing, now what?

    I begged the IRS for a local sit down, actually pleaded for the opportunity to meet with a local agent over a cup of coffee. Can you believe the clerk actually said "we don't do that"? What she meant is they don't do that for those who are centered in will, emotion and deed. I cannot be moved from this internal rock.

    Now consider carefully what you are reading in the following:

    Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

    1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.


    Now clearly God is a respecter of persons, right? I mean why the Jew first, then the poor miserable wretched Greek? Well lets look a bit deeper shall we?

    Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

    Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

    Can you be moved Moses [Reason]? Only you can know. For what is the causes which impelled you to act in the first place? Only you can know. The answer truly lies within you.


    You can research all you want and you can read from other successes, but the remedy will only come when you begin to truly believe that you are right and you don't need any other party to justify you. For indeed Egypt is a shaky reed. Let me be a bit more blunt. Just because I am right, does not mean another will not challenge.

    The external struggle of minds is projected first from the internal struggle in my mind. When my will, emotion and deed are all aligned then the struggle ceases - I believe, therefore I act. They were turned back from garnishment because they were made to see their "error in presumption".

    Truly, the battle is not in flesh and blood it is in mind and beliefs. Become as the Jew [Judah] camping in the East toward the rising sun and begin to look inward and you shall find what you desire. I am telling you truth, I hope that you can receive.

    Numbers 2:3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies....

    and again,


    Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


    Questions: What did you do? Why did you do it? Upon what understandings did you act? What are the errors in presumption? What is your intent? Where is your trust? What is the error?


    =======================

    The other day an associate called me and told me that human beings were absent free will. He too is experiencing problems with the IRS as he was duped into the "secured party scam" which is in effect trying to tap the stock of a corporation of which he has no beneficial interest. I responded simply "since you have no free will, then you should submit in totality to the IRS and go to jail if need be."

    Needless to say he was not pleased. So what say ye? Do you have free will to choose which path you should walk?

    Only you can know. But do take your six friends [who, what, when, where, how and why] with you on the journey.

    To your success,
    MJ
    Michael,

    I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.

    I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.

    My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...

    At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.

    So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.

    Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
    imm

    "Refusal for Cause"
    "Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
    "Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
    "Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Michael,

    I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.

    I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.

    My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...

    At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.

    So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.

    Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
    imm

    "Refusal for Cause"
    "Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
    "Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
    "Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"

    Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

    See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

    Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

    See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

    I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

    Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!
    Last edited by doug555; 08-10-15 at 01:03 AM.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post

    Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

    See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

    Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

    See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

    I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

    Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!
    Doug555,

    Coincidentally and perhaps divinely I have been listening to Marc Stevens videos for an hour before seeing your post! Yes, jurisdiction is apparently huge! Not to mention, I accepted conditional terms in their 'offer' in the 3176C so they have violated the terms, as far as I can see. The 'send the corrected return' they state in the 3176C letter is not specific to whether it must be a new or previously non-filed return, or one that was already filed as in my circumstances. Regardless, an attempt to correct my first return WITH EVIDENCE would not seem to be frivolous. Plus, where is it published in the code or manuals that my deduction demand is 'frivolous'? Nowhere, is the answer.

    I will research the Marc Stevens links. Thank you so much!

    Regards,
    imm

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney...

    Michael,

    I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.

    I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.

    My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...

    At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.

    So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.

    Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
    imm

    "Refusal for Cause"
    "Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
    "Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
    "Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"
    Response posted by Doug555...


    Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

    See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

    Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

    See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

    I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

    Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!
    My current response to this exchange...

    After reviewing the excellent videos by Marc Stevens (I have seen some prior to now), I'm perplexed relative to Marc's question: where are the facts and evidence that the Constitution and the IRC i.e. "the code", apply to 'me'?

    1) In a general sense, I can see why Marc is saying that the IRC does not apply to us (it only does thru coercion, fear, and corruption); but why does he mention the Constitution in the same breath with the IRC, as though they are tied together and cannot apply exclusively without each other? In other words, can I not fight the IRS without the Constitution? Do I need to reference the Constitution when simply stating that "the code" does not apply to me should suffice?

    2) Relative to Marc's WINNING arguments regarding 'jurisdiction' and the lack thereof by the State, I have a conundrum with my current IRS situation.
    Due to my hasty departure to visit my ill father, I agreed to a conditional acceptance of their proposal in the 3176C 'your frivolous!' notice. Granted, I wish I had not, but here we are. So it would seem that I entered their jurisdiction when I agreed to their conditional terms, but...

    ...THEY have violated those conditional terms. There are no stipulations that the 'corrected' return must be a previously non-filed return (see IRM 4.10.12.4 below). I had already filed, so the 'corrected' return was the original filed return. Further to this IRM statement... "The letter also gives the taxpayer the opportunity to submit non-frivolous returns or statements within 30 days of the date of the letter to avoid assessment of the penalty." ...simply DENYING the amended return is frivolous is NOT a frivolous statement! [italics, mine]. Not to mention they NEVER cite what is actually frivolous, probably for fear of taking a 'position' that they SO love to label us with. Is it not Lords and Servants with them?

    And there it is.

    4.10.12.4 (09-05-2014)
    Case Processing
    When the Service receives what it determines to be a frivolous filing under IRC Section 6702, the Service issues Letter 3176C. The letter 3176C informs taxpayers that their return is frivolous and subject to a $5000 civil penalty under Section 6702. The letter also gives the taxpayer the opportunity to submit non-frivolous returns or statements within 30 days of the date of the letter to avoid assessment of the penalty. Issuance of this letter is required before assessment of an IRC 6702(b) penalty. See IRC 6702(b)(3). Failure to issue the letter does not indicate an IRC 6702(1) penalty should be abated.
    Last edited by itsmymoney; 08-11-15 at 01:26 AM.

  6. #16
    Good point there IMM, I am just enjoying the jurisdiction subject and getting a better grasp on it

    Federal Power Limited

    The fiction, "that because it was an excise tax, it was legal," is not true. The power of the federal government is limited to its own property, as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. 18 U.S.C., Section 921, Definitions, states,

    "The term 'interstate or foreign commerce' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)."

    Only employees of the federal government, residents of the District of Columbia, residents of naval bases, residents of forts, U.S. citizens of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions were lawfully required to file and pay the Victory Tax.

    I think this is where MJ states "you" must understand "Trust Law" ?

    In 1953, the United States relinquished its control over the Philippines.
    Why do the Philippine pure Trusts #1 (customsduties) and
    #2 (internal revenue) continue to be administered today?
    Who are the Settlers of the Trusts?
    What is done with the funds in the Trusts?
    What businesses, if any, do these Trusts operate?
    Who are the Beneficiaries?

    Coincidentally, on July 9, 1953, the Secretary of the Treasury, G. K. Humphrey, by "virtue of the authority vested in me," changed the name of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue, BIR, to Internal Revenue Service when he signed what is now Treasury Order 150-06.

    TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 Page Content

    SUBJECT: Designation as Internal Revenue Service
    CANCELLATION DATE: August 22, 2005
    REASON FOR CANCELLATION: TO 150-06, dated July 9, 1953. The entity formerly known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be known as the Internal Revenue Service. TO 150-06 is cancelled http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-o.../to150-06.aspx

    This was an obvious attempt to legitimize the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
    Without the approval of Congress or the President, Humphrey, without any legal authority, tried to turn a pure trust into an agency of the Department of the Treasury.

    Treasury Decision 2313 Under Internal Revenue Laws of the United States
    Even Pete. I have come to a more forgiving perspective, and no longer believe that anyone who has vigorously deployed the edited TD 2313 is guilty of deliberate fraud or ill-intent After all, the actual text of TD 2313 not only does not support the point for which the edited portion is presented, but does, in fact, discredit the entire 'argument' on behalf of which that edited portion is used. http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misu...ngs/TD2313.htm

    Know Your identity “Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law, but are liable for the normal and additional tax upon the entire net income "from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States," computed upon the basis prescribed in the law.”

    T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.
    Last edited by Chex; 08-11-15 at 06:50 PM.
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  7. #17
    ClemTucker
    Guest
    When I negotiate a check I make a general reservation of rights: "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" and a specific reservation immediately thereunder: "I DEMAND LAWFUL MONEY". These reservations are consistent with the UCC and apply to any negotiable instrument.

    I do not expect to receive "Lawful money" but that is not the point. The point is I have not waived my right to lawful money. Because I have not waived my right to lawful money I have not accepted obligations of the United States as a measure of the value for the transaction. Consequently there is no taxable event until I receive something of value for the transaction.

    I don't know if lawful money is exempt from taxation or not. But who cares? I do not accept FRNs as the measure of the transaction because they are only obligations of the United States!

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    287
    When sharing my success, trying to reach people, I've learned there are many psychological factors at play, whether actively deployed or subconsciously applied. Much effort has gone into building false assumptions (ie. the nation is under external attack, etc). Some you try to reach are ignorant, some in denial, many are fearful. And there is always the possibility you're just dealing with an agent gathering intel and playing mind games. At another forum someone also wanted to see my certified IRS letter but of course I didn't share it. The letter contained no secret incantation, the attached evidence of non-endorsed checks was the key to victory.

    I agree he already has the answers, or at a minimum they are available here at this forum. I advise not spending much time and energy on the unconvinced. They know I've escaped taxation via non-endorsement and they know where to find me for more. Oh I'll try, but after a certain point the time and effort is wasted and can even be counter-productive. They may defend their false positions more vociferously. They will ostracize the rebel who sees it all too clearly. The effort itself may wear down the person dedicated to the truth and toward good. My advice is not to worry about them. Very complex psychological factors are at work. By presenting your case, you are disturbing their comfort zones. So let them pay taxes we easily avoid. Let them lose their life savings. Let them take up residence in a FEMA Camp. Let them take the tainted vaccines. Let them have the RFID chip. Let them be subjected to strip searches at airports, and be exposed to radiation. Let them drink the fracked ground water. Let them live in the California drought zone. Let them lose their retirement account in the market crash. Let them have their bank accounts depleted by bail-in confiscations. Let them be tracked like farm animals with credit cards, Facebook and Google Plus. These are willing subjects to the fascist state.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post
    I would like to share my experience with the Saving To Suitors Club. The IRS said they'd get back to me about my lawful money tax return within 60 days, but they have not even allowing time for mailing. No response.

    Made about $40k at job (W2) and about $28k at side business (1099) for the year. I put a minus $15k on Line 21 of the 1040 return (paychecks redeemed in Lawful Money). None of the side business income was entered on the return as it was all redeemed lawful money.
    Tax return filed: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny1.jpg
    http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny2.jpg

    It is likely the IRS computer finally detected the reported 1099 business income was NOT included on my 1040 return, and they sent this CP2000 proposal of $10k due: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_1.jpg
    http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_2.jpg

    My letter back to them essentially said, no I don't agree with your proposal, the reported 1099 amounts were all redeemed lawful money and here attached are copies of the LM checks, front and back.

    IRS response: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/LTR4.jpg

    Since then: [crickets]

    To be sure, I also requested and just received this Account Transcript showing a zero balance due on the account: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/Transcript724.jpg

    This confirms David Merrill is correct. Lawful money is not neccesarily taxable income. Thank you.

    You are quite welcome! Thank you for sharing.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    287
    I was going through my canceled checks and discovered ... someone I wrote a check to did not endorse private credit of the Fed:

    http://ctcwarrior.com/lawful_money_BackImage.jpg

    Not even a signature and the Bank honored it too. The secret is getting out!
    Last edited by lorne; 11-10-15 at 07:10 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •