Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: Generic Notice and Demand - $350 civil suit

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Hi Bentley;


    That is a fascinating post. I cannot help but wonder though if the basis of fraud is incorrect considering the remedy espoused on this website?
    Hi David,

    The fraud exists because the T.O. was cancelled in 2005 by Secretary O'Neill. The designation for the 'entity', as the treasury order itself refers to the organization formerly known as BIR/IRS was lawfully cancelled. Usage of the designation since then, it can be argued, violates 31 USC 333. We should start referring to them as the 'entity.'

    Moreover, Public Law 105-206, known as RRA98,at section 3445 is violated by the 'entity' as that section requires the district director or assistant district director to authorize, by personal approval, certain levies. This requirement is codified at 6334 of U.S.C. 26 but totally ignored by the entity because they claim the position has been cancelled. Internal Revenue districts are another matter illustrative of violation. i'll post a document in the future relating to this.

    I like your notice and demand and will confront the National Taxpayer Advocate with it. What do you think?

    Bentley

  2. #12
    Oh, I forgot to mention, every 1040 form printed and used since April 2006 is fraudulent before the first drop of ink is applied to it and in violation of 31 USC 333 because of T.O. 150-06.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Bentley View Post
    Freed,

    Thanks for the explanation. I like the thought of suing the federal government for fraud and all it's transgressions. I think everyone should spend the $350 to do it. Maybe then we'll see some positive, freedom achieving results. I've recently opened up a case with my congressman based on illegal activities of the 'entity.' (See treasury order 150-06) The whole system's fraudulent. I am cogitating on sending the notice and demand to my congressman for presentment to the National Taxpayer Advocate stating that I will file when they agree to refund in lawful money. What's your thoughts on that? Can you explain why bank transactions, after this notice, are outside of Title 26?

    B.
    David, can you explain the last statement about bank transactions being outside Title 26?

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Bentley View Post
    David, can you explain the last statement about bank transactions being outside Title 26?

    I am supposing you want me to cut a new path here. Something along the line that I remarked that there may not be fraud in light of remedy, to the post you quoted.

    I like the way your mind worked its way to the question if I am understanding you correctly. In other words this post may just be the way my mind works and a complete misinterpretation of your post; I just like where you led my mind.

    The Social Security in itself is a valid income tax and you cannot (in all my experience) ever have a bank or credit union account without a SSN. We start there. However, like you have heard me say, I have no SSN and therefore do the math; I have no bank account. So we work from there and as you know I consider the SS System an insurance company - elderly and other disability insurance. I paid premiums and when I have a use for that SSN I might write to the SSA for a reminder by Card what that sequence of numbers is on my insurance policy.

    So if I had that much use for a bank account, like all you do, then I might do the same and establish the sequence of digits so I could open and use an account.

    In my mind however, the SSN on the account would have nothing to do with the insurance policy that it is for in my mind. Now we arrive at the contemplation by the bank that I provided the SSN for income tax purposes - as a Taxpayer ID #. I did not. But I can just bet that since my bank account has nothing to do with me being old or disabled that the bank is requiring the SSN because they are.

    In this situation I would add verbiage to defeating the SSN presumption on my Notice and Demand served on the Fed, recorded in the USDC and served on the bank.

    Thank you!

    I think you just improved the Notice and Demand template. I am always looking for stuff like that.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  5. #15
    Words and ideas bounce around inside minds in different ways. To Bentley, Title 26 establishes an excise tax on the use of Federal Reserve Notes (debt obligations). When you loan Federal Reserve credit (notes) to the bank, by endorsing your checks, the bank loans your credit onward, and the IRS taxes you for the privilege of being a state bank, ie, dealing in Federal Reserve securities. By demanding redemption of FRN's for lawful money, your transactions now avoid the excise tax, thus, no IRS, no duty to report income. For David, the question comes down to the SS tax, which is also an excise tax (not within the authority of the Constitution, but a contract with a corporation: the IRS), and which is also prescribed in Title 26, uses the same income reporting data to calculate the SS tax as it does to calculate the income tax. Line 69 of this year's Form 1040 is where you would ask for a refund of excess Social Security tax paid. If you notice your bank of your demand for lawful money, you can then file a Form 1040 and ask for a refund of all your income tax paid. You can also ask for a refund of all (or some of) your Social Security taxes paid. Any refund would have the effect of reducing your reportable income for SS purposes, ie, it would reduce the amount of income upon which you paid SS tax; this would have the effect of reducing your eventual SS benefits. By refunding all your SS taxes paid, you reduce your reportable income to zero for SS purposes, such that you are not accumulating the '40 quarters' of payments into SS required to qualify you for eventual benefits (which may not be much of a loss, seeing where the Fed's unpayable debts are headed).

    Freed

    ps edit: I am sure that the requirement for a SSN for a bank account is due to the desire by the IRS to track all income for (both) tax purposes. It is also a way to force everyone to file a return, in order to demand refund of taxes withheld. Since SS tax is withheld by 'employers', presumably the proper defense there is with the filing of the proper W-4, or refusal to file a W-4 (a W-8 would make you a non-resident alien, exempt from SS tax, ie, not a party to the SS contract). F
    Last edited by Freed Gerdes; 03-27-13 at 09:14 PM.

  6. #16
    By demanding redemption of FRN's for lawful money, your transactions now avoid the excise tax, thus, no IRS, no duty to report income.

    I love how remedy can be stated in so many different ways and still make perfect sense.

  7. #17
    I don't equate the two. I believe that we've been hit with so much lawbreaking over the last hundred years (http://blog.independent.org/2013/03/...united-states/) there is probably many more than one remedy, but I love how you approach this and I want to learn more and be proficient in all possible remedies. There is a fellow named Dave Myrland who's filed a criminal complaint with congress as an example of another way to kill the beast with a thousand cuts. http://www.werus.us/Dave/01fMEMORANDUM-58pg.pdf

    Bentley

  8. #18
    Actually Freed, I've never even considered that it is an excise tax on the use of Federal Reserve notes. I don't believe a private sector employee is liable for any income tax anyway, (but the feds are: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111) regardless of what bucket it is put in. Only the employer is liable for income tax, (see attachment-Liberty for Dummies) and I believe that employer is the federal government. Income tax is being unconstitutionally applied to everyone when it should only apply to Federal employees.

    Bentley
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #19
    Actually Freed, I don't establish an excise tax on the use of Federal Reserve notes. I don't believe a private sector employee is liable for any income tax, (but the feds are: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111) regardless of what bucket it is put in. Only the employer is liable for income tax, (see attachment-Liberty for Dummies) and I believe that employer is the federal government.

  10. #20
    David,

    I have my original SS card which says "Not to be used for ID purposes". So, Of course, someone decided to change that over the years to enslave the people. Crap like this makes want to 'tar and feather' all the political animals, save a few, i.e., Ron Paul and that ilk.

    Bentley

Posting Permissions

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