Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

Thread: IRS recognizes Redeeming Lawful Money - Yes!!!

  1. #11
    I spoke with a suitor who said effectively, I think the IRS is looking for a template like the LoR that they can attack and make it look as though Redeeming Lawful Money is bogus.

    Most certainly that was Wserra's - Wesley SERRA - objective on Quatloos recently. I think that is quite possibly an objective but Congress says differently. If you contract with the Congress-created jurisdiction of the Fed, it would seem things get arbitrary fast. However if you stay out in the original cognizance of the Judiciary Act (1789 'saving to suitors') we find that the Memorandums are resorting to a term in context of the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION to attempt slurring LM redemption.

    So maybe your gut is sensing the IRS desire more than the IRS ability to slur remedy?

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I am just asking somebody to please find it and show us.

    http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/dfp/sco/cafr/cafr.htm
    Take a look at FY2011, page 6:

    Name:  ColoradoFY11.jpg
Views: 661
Size:  14.3 KB

    That's 13,393.1 million or 13.3 BILLION dollars. That's just the remainder after the State of Colorado subtracts its assets from liabilities.

    There are 50 States. How much in total assets do you think the 50 States have? We would be approaching a trillion dollars.

    This doesn't even cover the counties, municipalities, districts, agencies, bureaus, federal, etc.
    This doesn't cover the various funds that each of these governments have setup for pensions, insurance, institutional funds, etc.

    Take the composite, the aggregate, the sum, of all of those and where do you think we'd wind up?

    Perhaps this clears things up a bit?

  3. #13
    Bump. Read my previous post again .....

    That's 13 BILLION from taxpayer money ....

    So, when government starts whining about their budget, you may want to go to the books to see exactly what's what.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Treefarmer View Post
    While I have serious doubts about the "IRS recogniz[ing] Redeeming Lawful Money", I know what the IRS does NOT recognize:

    The IRS does not recognize as "taxpayers" some people I've known who have never filed any paperwork with the IRS in their entire lives, who work only for lawful money, and who have bank accounts, credit cards, DLs, BCs, insurance policies, and SSNs, and one even has a mortgage.
    I have amended some of this Crosstalk so as to keep this suitor's identity concealed. FIRST MIDDLE LAST is most commonly the trust company in most people's minds when they become aware that their parents named them First Middle. - Like with this Massachusetts Trust.

    I can only testify regarding my own affairs. My latest experience:


    Ten checking accounts were closed on Monday this past week by way of Notice to Quit. Meaning the banking agreement says they can Quit for any cause.

    So we paid the bank a visit to see if we could determine the reasoning for the Notice. It turns out that the bank had been doing some recent accounting of the books and it turns out that they were not very pleased to find out that their front line manager had not picked up on the fact that we had been making a DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411 regarding all instruments touching said accounts.

    From what we gleaned from said Manager he and his staff were reamed and people lost their jobs. I BELIEVE that said bank was upon the practice of Fractional Reserve Lending touching instruments that were Redeemed. As such, said bank was in desperate need of balancing the counterfeit book entries.

    So today we decided to walk in and with draw 9.5k because you know - WHY NOT, right? So as usual we made a demand for lawful money on the withdrawal ticket - to wit:


    1. The teller upon RECOGNIZING said disclaimer launched herself from her seat and quickly moved to the banking managers office; and,

    2. The banking manager, upon being awakened, [I jest] asked us to enter his office; and,

    3. We had a discussion whereupon we informed him that we had informed his predecessor that we intend to remain without the Federal Reserve Districts and Cities and we do not use Federal Reserve Credit; and,

    4. he informed us that we could not use that disclaimer; and,

    5. not to be egotistical but I informed him that he was NOT going to give us legal advice as we did not ask for it and that he was going to accept our disclaimer as this was the business he chose and he was going to take the good with the bad and we were not going to be told by some banking manager how to sign a record; and,

    6. he said that his bosses told him he was not to accept any withdrawal or check with that disclaimer to which I said, Call Legal now.; and,

    7. He called and put us on speaker phone; and,

    8. Unbelievably we entered into a three-way conversation - usually legal will only speak to their client; and,

    9. I asked if they were trying to FORCE account holders to execute a Record without legal capacity; and,

    10. I asked if they were aware of Art I - Sec 10 and were they trying to make a policy that would impair the obligation of an existing contract?; and,

    11. In deadpan voice, counsel said, Do it!; and,

    12. We got a huge grin on our faces and said manager went and counted out the hundreds; and,

    13 Afterwards, he invited us back into his office and said he was directed to ensure that the accounts closed; and,

    14. It was obvious to everyone in the room that said manager had recently gotten his rear end chewed on extensively; and,



    DON'T TELL ME that something IS a certain way. Maybe for you, but not for me. I have spoken to banking managers in the past five years and without exception they ALL know what I am up to. In fact, I have had some very interesting responses.

    Regarding the IRS we have now had CONSISTENT returns of 100 percent even with with-holdings returned - even though we did not ask for them. We tried to GIFT the withholdings - but they were returned to us 100%. So today we went to another bank and opened up all new accounts - and the manager just smiled as we executed the Agreement in FULL DISCLAIMER.

    I can remember the first time I walked up to a teller to cash a check drawn on that bank with the following disclaimers:

    NAME OF TRUST COMPANY, by its Agent, Me, absent individual capacity, absent individual liability assumed, absent surety, absent accommodation, absent recourse, without prejudice, and principally and perpetually made subject to the terms of conditions of NAME OF TRUST COMPANY and demand is made for lawful money per 12U.S.C.411: signature

    6 font text - you can get this on the back of a check within the allowed space - without problem.

    I thought the red/blue lights would start flashing as my heart raced - no one was there to help me or to give me words in case things did not go my way - and to my great surprise the teller said - "What the heck is all of this?" To wit, I responded, perhaps you should speak to your manager. Upon her return she said "I learn something new everyday".

    Egypt is a reed shaken in the wind - but the children of the King are free.

    Hopefully, my report will encourage some of you. Trust in God. But Faith absent Deeds is dead. I in every event always prayed over the event prior to attempt - the victory was mine before I left my car. I walked it out as a WITNESS to the Glory of God.

    This testimony is very revealing. Early on, so early that we were using the non-negotiable verbiage a suitor deposited a rubber paycheck. The bank called him when the funds would not go through the boss's bank. He went to the bank and they gave him back the instrument but the non-endorsement had been torn off the end of it. He described it over the phone so you see this example is a simulation for demonstration, not the actual torn check:


    Together this suitor testimony reveals the nature of fractional lending and how it creates currency in circulation. This extra currency must be bonded, it has to be worth something for people to place any value in the (extra) currency, and since the extra currency looks just like the US (Treasurer and Secretary signatures) bonded currency that means we have inflation anyway...

    In the Crosstalk testimony above, the bank was treating the non-endorsed demanded lawful money like it was endorsed and had to clean house rather than be sanctioned by the Reserve Board or OCC, maybe even prosecuted for counterfeiting. The funds that are non-endorsed need to be treated as special deposits or the accounts, after fractional lending will simply not balance out.

    This is why many suitors have noticed after non-endorsing funds on a long-held account it will be revised to non-interest bearing without mention or notice. If the bank can have no benefit of fractional lending on the funds then there is no cause for the bank to be paying for that benefit as a State bank.

    At the first glance it is a bad thing for people to have their bank accounts closed out. True. But you should sit back a bit and look what is really happening. The bank, ignoring putting the funds into special deposits had cost jobs and risked criminal prosecution. Therefore closing the bank accounts fit under their Quit for No Reason clause on the signature cards.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.


    P.S. Treefarmer;


    I am sure that the vast majority of readers here wish they had never filed a W-4 or 1040 Form. However how many people regret being employed?

  5. #15
    stoneFree
    Guest
    * DING *
    No more calls; we have a winner!

  6. #16
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by stoneFree View Post
    * DING *
    No more calls; we have a winner!
    No more calls from the Dragon?

  7. #17
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post


    I am sure that the vast majority of readers here wish they had never filed a W-4 or 1040 Form. However how many people regret being employed?

    Exactly! I like to think of my Service in Employment or otherwise as sharing of my gift for the Public benefit. Therefore wages issue also to sustain me so that I can continue to be a blessing to the Public. this is Corporation Sole in a sense. I am working in my Ministry on behalf of the Public at Large. I must work as I am required in Duty to God and I work to sustain this temple and to promote the Word of God in effort to glory God in this Earth both within - my body, and without the Planet. Is not the Heavens my Thoughts and the Earth my flesh? For Yehovah Elohim FORMED man from the dust [Adamah] of the Earth.

    The Mayor for the City of Name is also a Corporation Sole with specific Ministry to the Public. The Bishop of the Church of Rome is a Corporation Sole with its Ministry the Public. Therefore the Preamble to the Constitution creating a more perfect Union - is a Ministerial Trust - provide for the general Welfare.

    Therefore, putting my ego on the shelf and removing the saying my wages, my income - is not the circulation of notes issued to a Public Name. Of course it is. And if the Usufructuary is holding both the Legal and the Equitable titles in Name then my interest is IN the USUFRUCT claiming for the benefit of the Public and not for my private gain.

    However, i am of the mindset that even money may not be necessary if one is upon his Priestly office of Corporation Sole a member of the Church of Christ providing services in Ministry to promote the Public Good.

    Great no more Enemy of the State. I come in peace - therefore I will not play the game. For if I do the ONLY office available is Trustee. Trustee to Trustee provides for an even playing field in Commercial Affairs. Therefore if Trustee/Trustee then UCC law can control in Commerce.

    Shalom,
    MJ
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 12-19-12 at 03:05 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  8. #18
    Priesthood without priestcraft. Melchizedek prior to the Golden Calf that created the Levite.

  9. #19

    how to fill out tax return form for full refund

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I have amended some of this Crosstalk so as to keep this suitor's identity concealed. FIRST MIDDLE LAST is most commonly the trust company in most people's minds when they become aware that their parents named them First Middle. - Like with this Massachusetts Trust.




    This testimony is very revealing. Early on, so early that we were using the non-negotiable verbiage a suitor deposited a rubber paycheck. The bank called him when the funds would not go through the boss's bank. He went to the bank and they gave him back the instrument but the non-endorsement had been torn off the end of it. He described it over the phone so you see this example is a simulation for demonstration, not the actual torn check:


    Together this suitor testimony reveals the nature of fractional lending and how it creates currency in circulation. This extra currency must be bonded, it has to be worth something for people to place any value in the (extra) currency, and since the extra currency looks just like the US (Treasurer and Secretary signatures) bonded currency that means we have inflation anyway...

    In the Crosstalk testimony above, the bank was treating the non-endorsed demanded lawful money like it was endorsed and had to clean house rather than be sanctioned by the Reserve Board or OCC, maybe even prosecuted for counterfeiting. The funds that are non-endorsed need to be treated as special deposits or the accounts, after fractional lending will simply not balance out.

    This is why many suitors have noticed after non-endorsing funds on a long-held account it will be revised to non-interest bearing without mention or notice. If the bank can have no benefit of fractional lending on the funds then there is no cause for the bank to be paying for that benefit as a State bank.

    At the first glance it is a bad thing for people to have their bank accounts closed out. True. But you should sit back a bit and look what is really happening. The bank, ignoring putting the funds into special deposits had cost jobs and risked criminal prosecution. Therefore closing the bank accounts fit under their Quit for No Reason clause on the signature cards.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.


    P.S. Treefarmer;


    I am sure that the vast majority of readers here wish they had never filed a W-4 or 1040 Form. However how many people regret being employed?

    I have been writing on all deposit slips and checks redemption for lawful money for almost half a year now, I recently started working for a company and didn't want to raise red flags so i signed w4 form. so I'm not sure how to fill out a 1040 (i sent out a letter to bank stating all deposits for credit or exchanged for lawful money etc, notarized and return reciept, and i have a copy of the letter) i wanted to file for full refund for all tax taken out of paycheck

  10. #20
    ManOntheLand
    Guest

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I spoke with a suitor who said effectively, I think the IRS is looking for a template like the LoR that they can attack and make it look as though Redeeming Lawful Money is bogus.

    Most certainly that was Wserra's - Wesley SERRA - objective on Quatloos recently. I think that is quite possibly an objective but Congress says differently. If you contract with the Congress-created jurisdiction of the Fed, it would seem things get arbitrary fast. However if you stay out in the original cognizance of the Judiciary Act (1789 'saving to suitors') we find that the Memorandums are resorting to a term in context of the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION to attempt slurring LM redemption.

    So maybe your gut is sensing the IRS desire more than the IRS ability to slur remedy?
    David, please pardon this very long post. But the following has got to be said and heard before anybody else files a return claiming a deduction for lawful money or encourages others to do so. This is a WARNING.

    I speak from experience. I have successfully avoided all income tax for 12 years. At first I did not file at all for 4 years in a row (this is when I had my own business and no W-2 reporting). Ultimately I filed zero returns for those years, and those filings were never challenged. For a few years after that I received W-2's and then filed a return Cracking the Code (CTC) style to claim a 100% refund, and actually got the refunds for a couple of years. Very exciting!!

    But I saw the writing on the wall with CTC 3 years ago and started claiming exempt on W-4 so I would not NEED to claim a refund (except for FICA). After 3 years of being hammered with frivolous penalties and harassment due to the CTC returns I filed, I have come full circle and I am back to not filing a return at all (this is not to say I ignore the evidence being sent to IRS by third parties, as this is unwise.)

    But if I must have a debate with IRS, I would rather it be about that information return and whether I am required to file (a discussion I can have from outside their jurisdiction) than to be in a position of begging them to give me my money back and filing a "taxpayer" return that argues that I am not actually a "taxpayer", regardless of how great the argument seems to be.

    Or worse--having to argue with them about "frivolous return" penalties. You cannot win a debate with them if they decide your return is frivolous. It is a total nightmare. And no one will help you. Not the taxpayer advocate, not the due process appeals officer, not the Tax Court, probably not even a District Court or Appeals Court. They are all in on it. People I tell about this act like they don't believe me, like I am exaggerating. It is no joke. A "Frivolous return" penalty is a "scarlet letter". They will never tell you what it was that was "frivolous" about your return. If they could just kill you for filing such a return, they would. To them a frivolous return filer is a contagion that could infect the minds of the other cattle.

    Don't be fooled that you have found a "magic bullet" with the lawful money redemption. You cannot possibly win any argument as a "taxpayer" unless they allow you to win. By filing a return you agree to play by their "rules" (there actually are none, if they find the rules are too inconvenient--its completely arbitrary). What hope does making an argument for your "remedy" ultimately have in such an environment? Filing a return with any argument on it is like asking for their approval. When they decide they no longer approve, watch out! This is what happened with Cracking the Code returns. It will happen with "lawful money" returns as well.

    People have got to be careful about relying on remedy exclusively to extract themselves from the income tax system. I learned this lesson with CTC the hard way. IRS does not like to lose customers. Don't think IRS will not fight as hard as it can for survival. It has survived this long by bamboozling the public and terrorizing individuals. IRS will use bamboozling the public and terrorizing individuals to defeat remedy if it can, no matter how bulletproof you think remedy is.

    Public perception is everything. The remedy has been there since 1913, yet people did not know it, so it has done them no good. IRS has had no reason to attack remedy, because so few people knew about it, its better (even at this point) to keep it quiet. If enough people do start to learn about this and use it, it will soon no longer be possible for IRS to sit quietly. If IRS survival is threatened, you can bet the IRS will attack remedy.

    Do you really think they care that remedy is legitimate? So is your right to due process, and they trample on that every day. They know (and you should know) that even if people know about remedy, but they don't believe it or they are conditioned that it could land them in prison, or get them harassed by IRS, remedy will be useless.

    I am gravely concerned about people getting too excited about filing "lawful money" returns. All it will take to slur remedy publicly is for one person to go to prison for filing "false documents" with the IRS (as Pete Hendrickson was convicted of), and for that person's filing to make anything close to an argument about "redeeming lawful money" along with a good media campaign by IRS to spread the word about the "remedy freaks".

    I am not fear-mongering. But don't underestimate the adversary. Don't underestimate the lengths they will go to, no matter how long it takes them! It took them 8 years to bring Hendrickson down, but they had no choice once they were seeing tens of thousands of people (and growing every year) exiting their system for good with CTC!

    As Hendrickson found out, a "false documents" charge does not require that any money be owed (they never claimed he owed any, in fact he got 100% refunds for the documents he went to prison for!! Almost 6 years afterward, they charged him with felonies) They also never contested any of his legal arguments on his returns, because they didn't have to! Pete failed to realize that the judge instructs the jury on the law, and that Pete would not be allowed to discuss the law to the jury. A defendant's only realistic defense in a tax case is to convince the jury he had a "sincere belief" he was not breaking the law, but a couple of frivolous return letters is all it will take to show that somebody was put on notice they were "breaking the law" so they "should have known".

    Of course, if somebody can't successfully articulate remedy to the average folks on the jury, (or if the jury is rigged, or just impatient, or angry that he isn't paying his "fair share") the defendant is going to be up a creek! And even people who have been acquitted for tax crimes (based on whatever sincerely held belief they have) have been forced to abandon their "wrong" belief afterward (since the Court finds they have broken the law, and the acquittal was based only on the lack of "willfulness", the acquitted defendant can no longer claim he does not "know" he is violating the law if he persists in not filing the way the IRS prefers).

    Let's say they don't want lawful money actually discussed in a trial. No problem! Faced with criminal charges, most people will abandon their position and agree to pay whatever IRS demands in back taxes, penalties and interest. When the public sees a "remedy" tax filer having to pay big bucks (by their own agreement, to avoid a trial) after making the remedy argument, IRS can and will discredit remedy without having to even risk a public trial.

    But what has really caused the downfall of CTC (and will no doubt be used to destroy remedy) is the relentless $5,000 penalties issued out to thousands of CTC filers. IRS has gotten totally lawless with the 6702 penalties--I have friends who got $5,000 more added to their penalties every time they simply wrote a letter back in response to IRS bills. My friends know that is messed up, but they are no less terrified and they are not exactly referring CTC to anybody like they used to. And that's the whole point. IRS has to stop the spread of the idea. Terror works. Have you seen the lost horizons website lately? Every week Pete is bitching that nobody sends him scans of refund checks anymore.

    This is my concern for remedy. Not that it is wrong, but that IRS will try to discredit it sooner or later. If remedy catches on, they will find the lamest person they can to pick on, someone using some convoluted version of remedy, so they are sure to get a conviction (or even an acquittal may serve IRS purposes, since they can still discredit remedy as an argument). But mostly, they will use the frivolous penalty to hammer people who file returns that way into submission (or at least shutting up about it, or advertising it as a recipe for trouble).
    Last edited by ManOntheLand; 05-23-13 at 09:46 AM.

Posting Permissions

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