Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: 1040 help

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Elegant!

    In my mind this demonstrates one objective truth. Which is to say that there are a variety of methods to approach it. There are as many perspectives on the truth as there are people speaking about it.

    What you bring to my mind is the perspective I sometimes acquire that FRNs are insurance policies. Redemption is merely making a claim. I started a thread recently about settling the bill with a Redemption Stamp across the dead President, showing authority to Redeem across the boundary between the Treasury and the Fed.

    I hope you share this.
    Could FRNs be likened to stock certificates?

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    Could FRNs be likened to stock certificates?

    Exactly. My purpose about the insurance model is to explain why the admiralty law presides. If a stock certificate is endorsed in general, like FRN's as bills, then they can be passed. If you redeem the certificate then it is no longer any good. If you redeem the FRN it is no longer any good.

    This happened lately and I showed this on a thread. The new suitor, in setting up an evidence repository was using a large Demand stamp and putting it across the dead President on the front of the certificate. Defacing it and emptying it of value, as it was livered to the clerk of court of the United States (Federal Reserve) District. So the clerk of court, consulting with the attorney in a federal judge robe had to accept that this bill set had no value, but was to be honored or admit the suitor had the authority to deface the money with impunity.

    Does not the power to destroy only compliment the power to create?


    P.S. The postage stamp value being absorbed in labor and technology is a great example of redeeming a stock certificate.

    P.P.S. Post works in many ways. This is the numero-linguistic interface in action. Post-Demand (after the demand) the authority to create off the bill is released. The postal clerk calls his round-date "cancellation".
    Last edited by David Merrill; 03-20-16 at 03:09 PM.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Elegant!

    In my mind this demonstrates one objective truth. Which is to say that there are a variety of methods to approach it. There are as many perspectives on the truth as there are people speaking about it.

    What you bring to my mind is the perspective I sometimes acquire that FRNs are insurance policies. Redemption is merely making a claim. I started a thread recently about settling the bill with a Redemption Stamp across the dead President, showing authority to Redeem across the boundary between the Treasury and the Fed.

    I hope you share this.
    Can you provide a link to that thread please David? THANKS!

  4. #14
    Thanks, doug!

    I've been studying this info and your 1040relief website and just want to clarify a point you made.

    You said "...out-going amounts of LAWFUL money excluded..." (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html) - this means personal checks I write to companies to pay bills, correct?

    In-coming amounts would be payroll checks and other deposits to my bank account, correct?

    Thanks in advance!

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by PilgrimPublisher View Post
    Thanks, doug!

    I've been studying this info and your 1040relief website and just want to clarify a point you made.

    You said "...out-going amounts of LAWFUL money excluded..." (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html) - this means personal checks I write to companies to pay bills, correct?

    In-coming amounts would be payroll checks and other deposits to my bank account, correct?

    Thanks in advance!
    Yes, correct. Good question!

    The outgoing amounts are presumed to be lawful money since all incoming amounts have been (will be) redeemed via 1040 Form filing.

    Including any outgoing amounts on Line 21 would be "double-dipping" in effect... IMO.

  6. #16
    Their U.C.C. operating procedures may be helpful in this regard as well (I'm thinking in written form here) . . .

    U.C.C. Section 3-114: If there are contradictory terms on a check, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.

    So how do we use their own operational parameter rules to our favor in making our demand for the payment of our check/draft medium of exchange in lawful money of value ONLY?


    Try this: (my poor attempt at trying to recreate the face of a personal check/draft)


    Pay to the order of: ABC Company _________________. $[See Below]

    One hundred and no/hundredths U.S. issued lawful money of value in units of Dollars
    This is a Title 12 USC §411 described lawful
    money of value consumer transaction
    For: described in UCC 3-103(a)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . .By demand: your autograph, maker (UCC 3-103(a)(7))


    Analysis:

    1. Per the 4 corners [ ] rule, you have eliminated them establishing an exchange ratio for purposes of this transaction between their $[### ] "FRN's" and the long-form written value expressed in "Dollars" below their $BOX.

    2. You have ordered the payment of this check/draft to be made in U.S. situs based lawful money of value in units of "Dollars", and not foreign/private FRN bills of credit evidencing a debt.

    3. You have described the purpose of this check/draft as being the actual payment (not discharge) of a consumer transaction in value.

    4. You have made your compliance with 12 USC 411 "By demand:" known as the maker of this check/draft. (transacting absent accommodation is authorized per U.C.C. 4-205)

    5. No fractional reserve fabrication of additional debt is allowed resultant to your "non-accommodation" of their private-credit FRN instruments.


    What are your comments/questions in relation to the above approach in building your administrative record for such lawful money offsets on your annual tax return(s)?

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by American_National View Post
    Their U.C.C. operating procedures may be helpful in this regard as well (I'm thinking in written form here) . . .

    U.C.C. Section 3-114: If there are contradictory terms on a check, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.

    So how do we use their own operational parameter rules to our favor in making our demand for the payment of our check/draft medium of exchange in lawful money of value ONLY?


    Try this: (my poor attempt at trying to recreate the face of a personal check/draft)


    Pay to the order of: ABC Company _________________. $[See Below]

    One hundred and no/hundredths U.S. issued lawful money of value in units of Dollars
    This is a Title 12 USC §411 described lawful
    money of value consumer transaction
    For: described in UCC 3-103(a)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . .By demand: your autograph, maker (UCC 3-103(a)(7))


    Analysis:

    1. Per the 4 corners [ ] rule, you have eliminated them establishing an exchange ratio for purposes of this transaction between their $[### ] "FRN's" and the long-form written value expressed in "Dollars" below their $BOX.

    2. You have ordered the payment of this check/draft to be made in U.S. situs based lawful money of value in units of "Dollars", and not foreign/private FRN bills of credit evidencing a debt.

    3. You have described the purpose of this check/draft as being the actual payment (not discharge) of a consumer transaction in value.

    4. You have made your compliance with 12 USC 411 "By demand:" known as the maker of this check/draft. (transacting absent accommodation is authorized per U.C.C. 4-205)

    5. No fractional reserve fabrication of additional debt is allowed resultant to your "non-accommodation" of their private-credit FRN instruments.


    What are your comments/questions in relation to the above approach in building your administrative record for such lawful money offsets on your annual tax return(s)?

    IMO, the DEMAND in 12 USC 411 has to do with the REDEMPTION, and not ISSUANCE, of lawful money.

    The presumed and legitimate default currency in USA is FRN Fiat Notes.

    Redemption of same can only occur in the after-the-fact usage of same.

    Therefore, I believe we cannot demand payment in lawful money, per se.

    However. we can state that "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" so that we can redeem these same amounts on a subsequent 1040 Form on line 21.

    Make sense?

    Last edited by doug555; 07-03-16 at 11:27 PM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,415
    doug,

    That makes perfect sense. A demand for lawful money is a lawful claim upon a Trustee. In other words, one is requesting relief and the trustee must consult the bylaws to see if relief can be granted. The claimant makes a demand and this demand is not the act of redemption - rather it is a request FOR redemption.

    To go Scriptural - we confess sins before the Mercy Seat of Christ but we cannot forgive our trespass upon the Divine. Free will is upheld in Choice. So when I have a choice, I choose life. But I must give another the same choice I had and have.

    Best regards,
    MJ
    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!

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post

    IMO, the DEMAND in 12 USC 411 has to do with the REDEMPTION, and not ISSUANCE, of lawful money.

    The presumed and legitimate default currency in USA is FRN Fiat Notes.

    Redemption of same can only occur in the after-the-fact usage of same.

    Therefore, I believe we cannot demand payment in lawful money, per se.

    However. we can state that "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" so that we can redeem these same amounts on a subsequent 1040 Form on line 21.

    Make sense?

    Thank you for your thoughts and feedback . . . Great thought process and good verbiage above.

    I can see a version of the above working to fully discharge/remove accommodation party status for the holder/payee in transacting the check/draft "medium of exchange" to keep it payable on the U.S. Treasury side of the house, but where would you, as the maker of any check/draft - place such payment restrictions on the face of the above working example of our check when it is labeled as - "Pay to the Order of: _ABC Company___ ?

    The payee could place the following form of non-endorsement in writing on the back of the check/draft before transacting it to accomplish our goal:

    **********************************************
    Payee orders payment made in lawful money of the
    United States and full discharge of accommodation
    status is demanded for all related transactions.


    transacting absent accommodation is authorized in U.C.C. 4-205
    Auth: ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251-275; Title 12 U.S.C. §411, §95a(2).

    **********************************************

    Or alternatively - an autograph could be placed below the payee order like the example shown below:

    **********************************************
    Payee orders payment made in lawful money of the
    United States and full discharge of accommodation
    status is demanded for all related transactions.

    By: _______________________________________, Payee
    Auth: ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251-275; Title 12 U.S.C. §411, §95a(2).

    **********************************************

    Maybe the maker of the check/draft could place their demand in the For or Memo: ______________ field on the front of the check???

    Maker requires payment to be made in lawful money of the
    United States ONLY and full discharge for accommodation
    status of parties in all related transactions is demanded.
    Auth: ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251-275; Title 12 U.S.C. §411, §95a(2).


    Any better or more precise/concise thoughts on how the maker can remove any remaining ambiguity restrict the transacting and payment of their check/draft to "lawful money" of the United States and keep their business affairs on the U.S. Treasury side of the house?
    Last edited by American_National; 07-05-16 at 04:36 AM.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    That makes perfect sense. A demand for lawful money is a lawful claim upon a Trustee. In other words, one is requesting relief and the trustee must consult the bylaws to see if relief can be granted. The claimant makes a demand and this demand is not the act of redemption - rather it is a request FOR redemption.

    To go Scriptural - we confess sins before the Mercy Seat of Christ but we cannot forgive our trespass upon the Divine. Free will is upheld in Choice. So when I have a choice, I choose life. But I must give another the same choice I had and have.

    Best regards,
    MJ
    Thanks MJ . . .

    You had said: A demand for lawful money is a lawful claim upon a Trustee.

    Agreed. . . Fiscal/Depository agents of the Federal Reserve system act in "trustee" capacity on behalf of the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury. . .

    The Federal Reserve system and their affiliated member banks serves as a fiscal and depository agent for the United States Government. In this role, the Reserve Banks perform a variety of services for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, other Federal Agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.

    You had said: In other words, one is requesting relief and the trustee must consult the bylaws to see if relief can be granted.

    Agreed . . . Their operating-agreement bylaws and duties/obligations are detailed within ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251-275, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as lawfully amended. Their bylaws and authority to provide such relief upon demand by any maker, holder or payee are currently found within (Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, Sec. 16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, Sec. 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, Sec. 203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)


    You had said: The claimant makes a demand and this demand is not the act of redemption - rather it is a request FOR redemption.

    Agreed . . . Holder/Payee fulfills the "on demand" conditional requirement for giving notice of their right to avoid contracting themselves into accommodation/surety of debt instruments "servitude" and exercise their right to use "lawful money" of the United States in their transactions as specified within Section 16(par.) of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, et. seq.

    You had said: To go Scriptural - we confess sins before the Mercy Seat of Christ but we cannot forgive our trespass upon the Divine.

    Thomas 7:8 Jesus said:
    Whoever blasphemes against the Father, it shall be forgiven him, and whoever blasphemes against the Son, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either on earth or in heaven.

    Exactly! Forgiveness of trespass/sin is a two part process: First, there must be a positive act of regret/repentance on the part of the transgressor/sinner - and then an act of forgiveness can occur for such transgressions/sins.

    repent (v.)
    c. 1300, "to feel such regret for sins or crimes as produces amendment of life," from Old French repentir (11c.), from re-, here probably an intensive prefix (see re-), + Vulgar Latin *penitire "to regret," from Latin poenitire "make sorry," from poena (see penal). The distinction between regret (q.v.) and repent is made in many modern languages, but the differentiation is not present in older periods. Also from c. 1300 in Middle English and after in an impersonal reflexive sense, especially as (it) repenteth (me, him, etc.).

    1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also The Law: for sin is the transgression of The Law.

    1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

    1 John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

    You had said: Free will is upheld in Choice. So when I have a choice, I choose life. But I must give another the same choice I had and have.

    Joshua 24:14 Now therefore fear the "I AM", and serve Him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the "I AM".
    24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the "I AM", choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the "I AM".

    Last edited by American_National; 07-05-16 at 06:03 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
  •