IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?

[doug555]

A great approach Douglas Raymond.

I believe that exercising the available remedy from all obligation and liability for the NAME requires both 12USC411 and 12USC95a(2). The reason for this belief is that demanding lawful money alone doesn't include assignment of all interest; it removes the first lien from the foreign Federal Reserve Bank but it does not address whether or not we are still making adverse claims of ownership in the NAME.

This is where 12USC95a comes in. I believe that a Notice of Assignment - a formal acknowledgment of what is already true - should be executed for the record. It should be presented to the Secretary of the Treasury along with verbiage which demonstrates one's pledge to each other of: one's life, one's fortune and one's sacred honor as did the original signors of the Declaration. This is the consideration offered for use of the NAME in the public realm with full indemnity. Any and all use, whether it be debits or credits, benefits the United States public trust - we neither gain nor reserve any interest of anything in the NAME. All use benefits the public trust. We only exercise our interest in the beneficial use as protected purchaser by agreement - our pledge in exchange for use.

Since all title and property has been seized and all money has been appropriated by the United States via the occupying military force, the peaceful inhabitants must be provided for since the ability to own or pay has been removed - a breach of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee under Article 1 Section 10 impairing the obligation of contracts. 12USC95a(2) is the remedy and "new contract" in order for the United States to remain absent culpability of said Constitutional breach creating involuntary servitude.

Once enough time has passed, the Notice of Assignment stands as accepted and acknowledged - unless they choose to proactively deny remedy and subvert the code which is binding upon public officials. One then notifies the Comptroller of the Currency of the acceptance and acknowledgment of assignment and requests the available alternative to FRNs so as to satisfy all bills, charges and requests for payments in the NAME. Since we are no longer participating as belligerents in the ongoing commercial warfare being waged, an alternative manner and method to operate in the public realm must be provided to those who choose to minister to the public trust peacefully and assist the wounded and injured on the "battlefield" of commerce.

Thanks Anthony Joseph... I really appreciate that! Below is more info for discussion...

For me, this interest is the equitable title to the reversionary interest of the labor value attached to INFANT since the birth event, as evidenced by the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) of the INFANT.

The holder of this COLB must create a Proof of Life record to regain control of this equitable title from probate so that this reversionary interest can re-vest to the INFANT who has been proven “alive”.

This re-vesting must occur on the record BEFORE said interest can be legitimately re-assigned or transferred to anyone else.

Then a decision must be made whether said interest should be assigned:
1) PARTIALLY - on a recurring transaction basis using signed bill-money-order instruments as tender of payments, or
2) COMPLETELY - on a final closure basis by a formal Notice of Assignment of the entire interest remaining in all of the INFANT’s commercial accounts.


At the moment, I prefer partial assignments, consisting of turning all BILLS into MONEY ORDER INSTRUMENTS as tender of payments, signing them to effect the equitable title transfer, and then sending them to the IRS as the agent for the US Treasury, with copies of same to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) as supporting evidence to create/amend a formal TIGTA Complaint requesting an investigation and monitoring of the handling of these instruments, and to file, if necessary, a later Tort Claim.

All bills truly are CREDIT VOUCHERS awaiting assignment by the INFANT’s signature, which thereby converts them into MONEY ORDER INSTRUMENTS that merge both the equitable and legal titles on that one piece of paper, enabling the holder thereof capable of performing the “full discharge” provision of 12 USC 95a(2).

Any refusal of these instruments invokes State enactments of UCC 3-603(b), which effectively makes the refusing holders thereof liable for said obligations, and at the same time fully discharges the INFANTS for same! A Tort Claim would demand a receipt as formal substantive evidence of this full discharge for the INFANT, under the laws that govern simple contracts (UCC 3-603(a)) for these tender of payments.

And indeed, these truly are PAYMENTS - not promises to pay – because they are based on lawful money demands, which is effectively-connected to and transfers the equitable title to our asset labor value which is the real consideration and substance behind the credit of the nation, and held in trust at the US Treasury since 1933.

Douglas Raymond