Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 174

Thread: Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?

  1. #151
    I was just reading from Nationwide's commentary.
    Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.

  2. #152
    But Pete remains as unconvinced as ever.
    Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.

  3. #153
    US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

    United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

    I've been looking this over and over... It makes me wonder, as another version of this that I have seen states that US notes are not to be used to pay tariffs as well, if that is the reason the the IRS is not keeping the withholding. US notes demanded cannot be used to pay the national debt, while at the same time they cannot be used to pay a tariff.

    I have heard it said that because the tax is sent to a separate jurisdiction, that it is a tariff. I could be wrong with all of this, but thought I'd make my 'revelation' known...

    I am having trouble with the Canadian tax collectors, and have been looking at the same remedy for myself.

  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by amosfella View Post
    US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

    United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

    I've been looking this over and over... It makes me wonder, as another version of this that I have seen states that US notes are not to be used to pay tariffs as well, if that is the reason the the IRS is not keeping the withholding. US notes demanded cannot be used to pay the national debt, while at the same time they cannot be used to pay a tariff.

    I have heard it said that because the tax is sent to a separate jurisdiction, that it is a tariff. I could be wrong with all of this, but thought I'd make my 'revelation' known...

    I am having trouble with the Canadian tax collectors, and have been looking at the same remedy for myself.
    Searching Canadian Remedy I found this thread.

  5. #155

    Post Use a remedy if provided, have one created if none exists

    Hello All,

    If I may weigh in on the Lawful Money proviso. Lawful money implies UN-Lawful Money (anti-bacterial soap implies PRO-bacterial soap http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/image...s/confused.png). Try this perspective.

    Foreign goods transported into the US by way of the various 5 ports of entry into the US (Ports, AirPorts, Post Office, Banks, Hospitals) carries with the importation of foreign goods Impost, Duty and Excise taxes. Goods arriving into a port is registered and ledgered as an asset and legal title provided to be traded. I always thought it odd that food is imported en masse when we are purportedly the 'bread basket of the world' until I look at the taxation resulting, although I am weighing in on Lawful Money.

    When the govt abdicated their money authority entrusted to 'them' by the grantors granting 'coining money, treaties and maintaining a Navy' under the original Trust Indenture named the Constitution for the United States of America which was put in place to carry out the Treaty with the peoples embodied in the Declaration of Independence pledging to provide Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, we the beneficiary/posterity regained that authority to 'coin' money backed by the Treasury promising to pay all our debts under the New Deal. The original Trust was vacated under Lincoln who created a corporation to carry on the business of the vacant trust by incorporating the 10 sq miles of DC into municipal corporation (like Puerto Rico and Andora and Vatican city states) that used the original Constitution indenture as the Articles of Incorporation until Roosevelt, who nationalized all the assets of the US into a private trust off of which script receipts called FRNs have been drawn against the real assets belonging to the beneficiaries/posterity/you/me ledgered in Puerto Rico protectorate.

    My election to convert the value of my private labor into public cash by endorsing an instrument (pay check) and depositing the instrument into the port/Bank provided by the Trustees over my/your/our beneficial birthright. The moving of private assets from the private venue into the public venue is re-venued and called revenue.

    If the instrument is endorsed in blank, the default credit used to covert the value is the Federal Reserve foreign credit line, bringing foreign goods into the US resulting in impost, duty and excise taxes which require no special authorization by congress since congress has had the plenary right all along.
    However, my the addition of the election to convert the value of private labor into public cash using the Domestic Line of credit under Title 12 §411, removes the unlawfulness by NOT putting the treasury into more debt by covering the cash conversion into Foreign Credit. The domestic credit is MY credit against MY birthright and any taxes collected would be paid to ME the source (imho).

    By adding more restrictive endorsements I further protect the value of the asset (my labor) from confiscation like in Cyprus 'Bail-In' or any other interloper, or diminishment from bounced check fees when the maker is insolvent or whatever reason. Here's my restrictive endorsement:

    Special Deposit for [cash|credit to account ####]
    Redeem in Lawful Money i.a.w. Title 12§411
    ---Signature---
    WITHOUT RECOURSE

    As the Grantor endorsing the instrument and original owner of the asset deposited/registered, I and only I can correct any mistake or rebut any presumption on the nature and character of my intent behind any and EVERY deposits/registrations. I have written notices to the IRS collectors on the bankruptcy and the banks noticing them that the any and all deposits registered with the various banks or ports or registrars are Special in Nature that are to be ledgered to have been redeemed in lawful money in accordance with Title 12§411. This notice is notice from the originator of the value of the assets deposited specially or registered specially serves as rebuttal of any presumption contrary to the intent expressed herein.

    Now that the value of my private labor asset is held in trust by whomever received delivery of that asset (delivery being one way to create a trust), I proceed to correct the character of the source of the asset that is presumed by the IRS (presumptions stands as fact until rebutted) to be Corporate Income Class 2 rather then Donor Income Class 5.

    The IRS Transcripts showing income report the income/revenue as Class 2 on the transcript. Class 2 requires one of the 1040'ish returns. The Class 5 requires a Form 709 return that carries with it a fund to reimburse any (unlawful) taking of funds contrary to Class 5. If one looks at IRS Form 8822, boxes #1 & #2 mention both types of returns 1040 and 790.

    Here is a link to the package. I make no claim that I am the brilliant person who brilliantly caught the presumption by the IRS.
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?...usp=drive_web#


    Kind discussion on this post welcomed.
    BigBlueOcean

  6. #156
    Welcome Big Blue!


    It is a pleasure to read your opening post!

  7. #157
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by BigBlueOcean View Post
    Hello All,

    If I may weigh in on the Lawful Money proviso. Lawful money implies UN-Lawful Money (anti-bacterial soap implies PRO-bacterial soap http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/image...s/confused.png). Try this perspective.

    ...snip

    The IRS Transcripts showing income report the income/revenue as Class 2 on the transcript. Class 2 requires one of the 1040'ish returns. The Class 5 requires a Form 709 return that carries with it a fund to reimburse any (unlawful) taking of funds contrary to Class 5. If one looks at IRS Form 8822, boxes #1 & #2 mention both types of returns 1040 and 790.

    Here is a link to the package. I make no claim that I am the brilliant person who brilliantly caught the presumption by the IRS.
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?...usp=drive_web#


    Kind discussion on this post welcomed.
    BigBlueOcean
    Hello BBO, welcome to the club.
    I appreciate your discussion.
    When I tried to access your link at https://drive.google.com/folderview?...usp=drive_web#,
    I got "Access Denied, You need permission".
    Perhaps you can fix the link so we can see it?
    Thank you
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  8. #158
    Good analysis, BBO, but the Internal Revenue Code (found in Title 26) requires the filing of an income tax return only if you have taxable income, and as you point out, income redeemed in public money is not taxable, thus no return is required. Basically, for all the reasons you point out (re-venue status), public money is not revenued (it is already in this venue), thus public money is not within the purview of Title 26. Thus, no income, no income tax return, no tax.

  9. #159
    Hello all, I have just been enlighted to the redeem for lawful money and am in need of some assistance if you can be so kind. I had followed the UCC process for years and it seemed to work well until the IRS roared it's ugly head. I keep digging and trying to learn every day. I read CTC and thoguht it had some good info but, I had seen that it was flawed just like the UCC process. The IRS is garnishing my paychecks and would really like to get them to stop. Can anyone provide me guidance to help me.

  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    the Internal Revenue Code (found in Title 26) requires the filing of an income tax return only if you have taxable income, and as you point out, income redeemed in public money is not taxable, thus no return is required........
    ..................unless you have lawful money to be returned.

    Frivolous arguments: The IRS is not a big fan of these, so if you're tempted to say that you don't owe taxes because they're voluntary or you didn't get due process or some other goofy argument, it won't work.


    The "zero wages" lie: In this fraud, the taxpayer submits a Form 4852 (a substitute W-2) or a "corrected" Form 1099 to make their income look lower and avoid paying taxes. The IRS takes a dim view of this and could hit you with a $5,000 penalty.

    http://news.yahoo.com/39-pay-taxes-n...opstories.html

    So let them audit you..........

    The Internal Revenue Service is tracking down people who may be shorting the tax man by understating their income, exaggerating tax breaks and skipping out on other tax liabilities. And it isn’t just the rich and famous that agents are going after. Six percent of the IRS audits conducted on individuals in 2012 were for people who made between $200,000 and $1 million, according to IRS data.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-ways...123014838.html

Posting Permissions

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