Tweet
Getting ready to file my income tax return. I've been redeeming lawful money since January of 2012. Per David's instructions I never changed my withholding's at my employer so as to not involve my employer in my redemption process. I'm just not sure how to go about filling out the 1040 form indicating I've been redeeming lawful money. Does someone have a sanitized example that they could post, or e-mail? If I can get it figured out, I'll write up a How To to post here and add to the knowledge base so that it can help others.
-
-
WARNING: See https://1040relief.blogspot.com/Re: 1040 Help
The link for this post:
post10099
Income Tax - A Legitimate Usage Fee
How Banks Work
Example 1040 Form - Do NOT use - GROSS PAY missing
Guest-Speaker-Pages-Info.html#anchor_317
Form_1040-2010-DLM_Example-08-25-2011.pdf
1040 LM Schedule:
post21758 - Schedule for partial year; also see post15706 below
post10417 - 1040 Other Income Supporting Details for Line 21
post12244
post15695 - Other Income Details attachment + partial year example
post15700
post15702
post15706 - Only FITW is requested for REFUND
post15771
post15773
post15786
post15790
DEMAND IS TRANSACTION-BASED
post10380
post10386
post10397
post10401
post10405
post10406
post10437
post10439
post10440
post10442
post11358 - no corresponding CFR regulation for 12 USC 411!
post11372 - Proof in actuality
post12164 - No CFR for 12 USC 411
post12168 - TRANSACTION-BASED REDEMPTION
post12180 - Mt 13:30
post15689 - avoid upsetting banks and employers
post15713 - "Operation of Law" is also transaction-based!
post15884 - WHY 1040 Line 22 will be a NEGATIVE AMOUNT!
post15908 - GROSS PAY demand for lawful money
post15933 - GROSS PAY is the KEY TRANSACTION!
post15984 - "mistakes" notwithstanding
INDORSEMENT - WIN/WIN approach
post14959
Answering Challenges:
post16043
IMMUNITY
post14247 - 12 USC 95a(2)
post10734
post10738
post10754
Refunds
post10818
post8885
post8915
post8907
post13458 - 2013 Refund
post14389
post13542
post15527
IRS Attorney remark (hearsay)
post879
post8182
Articles:
Public Money vs Private Credit - by David Merrill
Federal Reserve Act Remedy - by David Merrill
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/3/XII/411
Audios:
David Merrill and Michael Joseph on Lawful Money
John Henry Doe Audio Archive | Episode 124 | 9/1/2011
Public Money vs Private Credit
Federal Reserve Act Remedy
Videos:
Federal Reserve Act - Remedy
Feedback:
"...the soup to nuts version of Lawful Money" - Thanks MJ !!!
The New Lawful Money Currency:
post 15076
NOTICE: 1040 Help is only 1/3 of the remedy
The 3 Remedies (post12242) -
THANK YOU!!!!
That is extremely helpful.Comment
-
-
1040 supporting schedule
indeed, thank you Doug555. this is of great help. a question though, in looking at the supporting schedule, there is a line for a before tax deduction and an after tax deduction. everything else makes sense except for these two entries. what are they for?
thank you
jason davidComment
-
Originally posted by doug555 View PostThe link for this post
John Henry Doe Audio Archive | Episode 124 | 9/1/2011 John shared what he had learned from David Merrill and Michael Joseph (above) The Non-Endorsement
Example 1040 Form
Demand for Lawful Money Schedule (OLD)
David Merrill and Michael Joseph on Lawful Money
Public Money v. Private Credit
Supporting Schedule for the 1040 Form (NEW)
Make Demand At Treasury - Both the debt and the reduction are TRANSACTION-BASED
12 USC 95a(2) insurance policy
Refunds
Research Articles:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/3/XII/411
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/946...eview52012.pdf
Thank you DOUG555 for this resource. I appreciate your work - this just did not compile by itself.The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.
Lawful Money Trust Website
Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST
ONE man or woman can make a difference!Comment
-
Indeed I have spoken to several people lately who have made quite a study of this website. When people are interested, it sticks.Comment
-
Correcting the Record
If an account is ongoing, that is the books are not settled and closed, a reconciliation and correction of the record is an election any interested party may notice and demand from the accountants administering the books. If there is a mistake in the books, a mistake of ledger, that mistake can been corrected under the Law of Mistake. The intent of the principal party or a party in interest or a creditor, or accounting for the debtor can be properly expressed and the books corrected until the account is closed (death certificate) and final probate.
Where the account in the NAME is yet ongoing (with annual probate #24 and not final probate #26), correcting accounting, even back to the beginning, appears to be an option.
A post at this site noted below asserts a limited effectiveness to an immediate yearly period
I am electing to use Title 15 debt collection statutes to compel the mere debt collector IRS to account, which accounting will be sComment
-
The Rosetta Stone
Hey doug,Originally posted by doug555 View Post
I just wanted to say thank you for your hard work and efforts in putting this together. It is a great bare bones skeleton outline that allows one to "flesh out" more of the details. While all students don't have the same learning styles (some are visual and absorb what they read like a sponge, some are auditory learners and do better at listening, and still others learn better with a hands on approach, which in this area could be quite...shall we say punitive..), I have been able to navigate my way through the cornfields. I have always learned much more quickly and retained it better by listening while taking notes and applying what I learned in practice later on my own. I have noticed a lot of "lingo" very much exclusive to this journey that I did not understand that includes many anacronyms that I did not learn until much later when I stumbled on the origin or meaning in another post or thread at a later time, which makes comprehending what your are reading quite difficult at times. For example R4C...however, I just finished reading this gem in one of David Merrill's posts that is nothing more than a link in the post:
After reading the two PDFs in the zip file behind the first link suddenly much of what I have read over the past week or so began to click. Posts I didn't understand before were translated at once. R4C made sense. Some of MJ's posts in "Teacher mode" where he asks questions and I had no idea what he was talking about (and I felt like a kid being scolded - no offense MJ, because I have always liked teachers that set my brain to work by asking me for the answer through phrasing the question properly so that when I found the answer, I would know it was exactly what I was seeking.) I just wanted to toss this in here because I know these PDFs were like a Rosetta stone that helped me start pulling some important pieces together that were not here in what you had listed. Thanks to the community here for all their efforts, it is greatly appreciated...and liberating too!Comment
-
Elegant!Originally posted by BigBlueOcean View Post
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.Comment
-
-
Originally posted by shikamaru View Post
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, 03:09 PM.Comment
-
Can you provide a link to that thread please David? THANKS!Originally posted by David Merrill View PostComment
-
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!Comment
-
Yes, correct. Good question!Originally posted by PilgrimPublisher View Post
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.Comment
Comment