Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: Supporting Schedule for the 1040 Form

  1. #61
    Check this: Jump to 50 usc 4305 You will find 95a there.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Bentley View Post
    Check this: Jump to 50 usc 4305 You will find 95a there.
    Thanks! I have been using and trusting in Cornell Law for years:

    Name:  Redeemed Lawful Money Stamp Pocket.jpg
Views: 85
Size:  102.1 KB

    So I prefer they stop "omitting" the banking code just because it is found in the military code. It is the Trading with the Enemy Act and is an important building block in understanding redemption in general.


  3. #63
    The agreement would not be willful. I would precede my signature with the initials, V.C., an abbreviation for the Latin term, Vi Coactus, which means signed only under threat of force. This would allow me to legally object to the seizure, and leave open the demand a return of lawful money seized, on the 1040 return.

  4. #64
    It is not a seizure, as I understand it. The banks are required to report cash transactions paid cash of over $10K. I have done this myself and cannot see any way to convince the bank that they do not actually have to...



    Lately I have also mentioned some things about Creation and Ownership; and how they are so closely interrelated. It delights me to get a suitor on the brain trust encouraging Michael Joseph and me.

    David & MJ,

    I rarely, (about never) speak to the dialog(s) and discourse undertaken by & among yourselves, but just want to say "Thanks" for stimulating the gray matter, and prompting a process of growth & inquiry.

    As I look to travel up the mountain I see numerous trails. Some I've learned were switch backs, others dead ends. But, herein there is always meat & drink. I frequently labor to digest, but such is the nature of this adventure.

    Keep it up.
    I believe that encouragement has arrived at the very moment I can concisely describe how and why it seems confusing some times, whether to choose retaliation or forgiveness. From my previous broadcast:

    This is an important mathematical Key comprehending foundations of priestcraft. In context of Passages and the visiting lecturers I noticed David Lyle JEFFREY. PhD, FRSC Baylor University while lecturing about Beauty in the Bible, making this substitution and so mentioned this to him. His reply: I very much appreciate this note, and the important distinction you articulate. I think that you’ll be correct in assuming that the reflexive association of Ruah with neshemah in someone like myself owes to a teaching tradition. In my case that is evangelical rather than Catholic, and to some degree Jewish as well, since I reflect on chumash and read Talmud quite often. So thanks for this—you have prompted me to look into the matter further.
    This is as big a Key as Redemption, and could be argued is exactly the same thing. It is also the Key to Ownership, whether you consider yourself redeemed by God, or as being instilled with God's Mind, yourself as Creator. And if you ever find yourself angry or even attacking another for being at peace, please take a breath and consider that this is likely you always find yourself on the wrong side of the Trading with the Enemy Act. In other words if you find it easy to point your finger at somebody who considers themselves God and Creator of the entire universe, maybe you should try it yourself some time. If you include everybody and everything into the Mind of God, instilled into you, then it is no threat whatsoever.

    What got me to this breakthrough is waiting for the staff at Cornell Law School to correct a private website omission of the Trading with the Enemy Act (1917). As I pointed out:

    Name:  Title 12 USC 95a Omitted from Cornell Law.jpg
Views: 81
Size:  81.9 KB

    However, according to Congress there is no such "omission". Cornell's notes describe the reason to omit the Trading with the Enemy Act from the Bankers' Code (Titles 12 and 31) is because it is found repeated in Title 50, the Military Code. Congress is a legislative body and Cornell is a law school - mission: education.

    So I wrote to the staff at Cornell Law School:

    SUBJECT: Breach of Trust

    Which is to presume that Cornell Law is a trusted website to begin with.

    I find it a bit disturbing that, let's presume for now an IT grad student is presuming to legislate for Congress... by "Omitting" statutes from the US Code.

    Please note that Congress has not omitted that statute.

    It started bothering me enough to mention it. Please keep the law you display on your website coherent with the actual law.

    Thank you.
    David Merrill.

    I got one reply, that she would not be answering her messages until after the holiday weekend. So I know the emails arrived okay. Now I have silence leaving my imagination to wander all over reasoning why to "Omit" the TWEA from the mind/education of the public, especially within the scope of it affecting banking. I might give it a couple more days. It truly does not seem a big thing, to just correct it back the way it was or maybe just write me a short explanation why they feel at Cornell Law School, they do not need to repeat repetitive codes.

    Surely it would not be that the TWEA has nothing to do with banking. It is the heart and soul of the Secretary and/or the President being able to declare a Bankers' Holiday. It was Americans 'hoarding' gold that justified FDR declaring war on the Great Depression.

    David Merrill.

    P.S. Let's say you keep going back to the bank every day for $9,990.00. I believe they are instructed to report you anyway.

Posting Permissions

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