Supporting Schedule for the 1040 Form

[JohnnyCash]

The question of how much evidence of "redeeming lawful money" to attach to a Form 1040 filing is an interesting question. Should one attach none, one, some, or all? For TY2008 I attached none; just entered the correct amount of federal income, which was much lower than amounts deposited in the bank, and I've had no issues.

Personally, I think you could succeed with any of those options. Now let's say you redeemed lawful money only part of the year but took a full LM deduction as if you did it all year, and stood your ground on that. Make them prove their claim. What man from the IRS will step forward and bring forth a claim that some deposits were private credit of the Fed and not lawful money? Yeah, that's not gonna happen in public, in open court. That'd mark the beginning of the end for the tax scam. Once they know .. that you know, that you're aware of the scam they're running and likely have copies of redeemed lawful money paychecks in your possession, it seems fairly obvious to me they'll let you go in favor of easier prey.

[createvalue9]

What is the procedure for signing the signature card at a bank or credit union? Do I sign the front or back. Also I don't want to get my employer involved but they only do direct deposit. So is setting up the signature card at the bank where the direct deposit occurs enough?

[doug555]

What is the procedure for signing the signature card at a bank or credit union? Do I sign the front or back. Also I don't want to get my employer involved but they only do direct deposit. So is setting up the signature card at the bank where the direct deposit occurs enough?

See: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ll=1#post12164

[Chex]

See: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ll=1#post12164

As doug555 stated. Make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand. Remember, by making one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, it does not matter what the signature card has on it or not. The account does not matter - BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR DEMAND TRANSACTION-BASED -

I know you want the signature card your way, but why do you want dwell on it createvalue9?

Let someone challenge you on "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)" and they will loose, if not the press would be happy to entertain the idea the laws of congress is frivolous.

Like AJ stated in #72

your claim is without merit until Mr. or Mrs. "state" comes forward and verifies a claim of property by speaking it on the record; are you authorized to speak, and make claims, for "state"?

- harm to a man
- injury to a man's property
- breach of a valid and lawful contract

Good link doug555.

[EZrhythm]

...but if you signed a W-4 you have already agreed to be an employee. Then you still need to file a return to get your refund.

Unless one rebuts/voids the W-4! ;-)

[John Howard]

Void enough?

[Chex]

In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings. Question which arises is: ...........

http://www.bing.com/search?q=HAWKINS...onversationid=

[doug555]

In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings.

Question which arises is:
SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM

In above, "realname" is referring to this post which contains this image below:



The above bold and italic statements by realname regarding the suitor and this Schedule are NOT correct.

The suitor was NOT "attempting to recover" said "other withholding amounts" -- Only the FITW amount was requested to be refunded.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW).

Again: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW)

All the other of withheld amounts are valid amounts that you must pay because of the services being received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

These other amounts, along with FITW, are added to the schedule because these other amounts, which are rightly presumed to be FRNs, must also be REDEEMED -- yet not be REFUNDED!

Only the FITW amount is to be REFUNDED -- because this "tax" is a really an FRN USAGE FEE and you did NOT use FRNs -- you used and demanded by law USNs per 12 USC 411.

This REFUND is easy to misunderstand from just looking at the above Schedule, but I hope it is clear now. If not, please reply.

In rebuttal to realname's statement below, one CAN explicitly redeem ALL transactions, IF that is how you made your demand for same for "ALL TRANSACTIONS", and is ON THE RECORD as such, ie. "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)":

"SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM."

Thanks to Chex for his recent post re: Hawkins v. FTB, excerpted below. One's understanding of this Schedule and WHY you are submitting it is crucial to prove your INTENT to REDEEM FRNs - not to EVADE TAXES.

Hawkins v. FTB

Summarized by: Nicole Morrow

Date Filed: 09-15-2014
Case #: 11-16276
Circuit Judge Thomas for the Court; Circuit Judges Kleinfeld and Rawlinson
Full Text Opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5/11-16276.pdfthe term willful was to be narrowly construedthe willful attempt requires the specific intent to evade the tax. The government must establish that the debtor took the actions with the specific intent to evade the tax debt

Do you see now that YOU must be clear in your INTENT when you submit a 1040 Return with Line 21 as the total amount of FRNs that require REDEMPTION based on your demands for lawful money, to the best of your knowledge and belief (INTENT)?

Does not a substantive non-heasay record exist in your bank with your lawful demands on your checks and deposit slips that constitute admissible evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, your INTENT to comply with 12 USC 411 in redeeming FRNs for lawful money, and NOT to evade taxes?

And if you are using the below wording in your demands, you are also protected from court action by 12 USC 95a(2).





http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...-immunity.html





NOW...

"What do you have in YOUR wallet?"

I have USNs!!! And I can PROVE it!

Also see this post about the Schedule.

[Chex]

comply with 12 USC 411 in redeeming FRNs for lawful money, and NOT to evade taxes?

Here is what Criminal Tax Manual 8.00 -- ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX has to say about Attempt To Evade.

I find it interesting; In Daniel, the defendant argued that there was no tax deficiency since no assessment or demand for payment had been made. The court rejected this reasoning, holding that a tax deficiency arises by operation of law on the date that the return is due if the taxpayer fails to file a tax return and the government can show a tax liability.


Operation of law . The manner in which an individual acquires certain rights or liabilities through no act or cooperation of his or her own, but merely by the application of the established legal rules to the particular transaction.

Also on that same page is this ...........

A certificate of assessments and payments is prima facie evidence of the asserted tax deficiency, which, if unchallenged, may suffice to prove the tax due and owing.

[doug555]

Here is what Criminal Tax Manual 8.00 -- ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX has to say about Attempt To Evade.

I find it interesting; In Daniel, the defendant argued that there was no tax deficiency since no assessment or demand for payment had been made. The court rejected this reasoning, holding that a tax deficiency arises by operation of law on the date that the return is due if the taxpayer fails to file a tax return and the government can show a tax liability.


Operation of law . The manner in which an individual acquires certain rights or liabilities through no act or cooperation of his or her own, but merely by the application of the established legal rules to the particular transaction.

Also on that same page is this ...........

A certificate of assessments and payments is prima facie evidence of the asserted tax deficiency, which, if unchallenged, may suffice to prove the tax due and owing.

Did you notice that?! The "OPERATION OF LAW" is TRANSACTION-BASED!


Remember my post12164 on 12-15-2013?

"Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, to wit:

"lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)"

Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a custom-made 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!!

Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? 12 USC 411 does NOT specify any wording requirement or transaction frequency, and there is no corresponding CFR regulation that requires anything.

One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract!

Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper left-hand corner of the document. This then stands nunc pro tunc (now for then), thereafter and forever, as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) governing exceptions to hearsay evidence, and is unrebuttable.

This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!

And David's reply post12168 on 12-16-2013?

Thank you! That is why I did not get your point - I misunderstood. Transaction-based redemption. That sinks in.

Thanks again Chex!

This is WHY this exact wording is used on my demand:
"lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)"

See: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html

[salsero]

In above, "realname" is referring to this post which contains this image below:

[ATTACH]2078[/ATTACH]

The above bold and italic statements by realname regarding the suitor and this Schedule are NOT correct.

The suitor was NOT "attempting to recover" said "other withholding amounts" -- Only the FITW amount was requested to be refunded.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW).

Again: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW)

All the other of withheld amounts are valid amounts that you must pay because of the services being received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

These other amounts, along with FITW, are added to the schedule because these other amounts, which are rightly presumed to be FRNs, must also be REDEEMED -- yet not be REFUNDED!

Only the FITW amount is to be REFUNDED -- because this "tax" is a really an FRN USAGE FEE and you did NOT use FRNs -- you used and demanded by law USNs per 12 USC 411.

This REFUND is easy to misunderstand from just looking at the above Schedule, but I hope it is clear now. If not, please reply.

In rebuttal to realname's statement below, one CAN explicitly redeem ALL transactions, IF that is how you made your demand for same for "ALL TRANSACTIONS", and is ON THE RECORD as such, ie. "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)":



Thanks to Chex for his recent post re: Hawkins v. FTB, excerpted below. One's understanding of this Schedule and WHY you are submitting it is crucial to prove your INTENT to REDEEM FRNs - not to EVADE TAXES.



Do you see now that YOU must be clear in your INTENT when you submit a 1040 Return with Line 21 as the total amount of FRNs that require REDEMPTION based on your demands for lawful money, to the best of your knowledge and belief (INTENT)?

Does not a substantive non-heasay record exist in your bank with your lawful demands on your checks and deposit slips that constitute admissible evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, your INTENT to comply with 12 USC 411 in redeeming FRNs for lawful money, and NOT to evade taxes?

And if you are using the below wording in your demands, you are also protected from court action by 12 USC 95a(2).


[ATTACH]2079[/ATTACH]


http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...-immunity.html

[ATTACH]2080[/ATTACH]



NOW...

"What do you have in YOUR wallet?"

I have USNs!!! And I can PROVE it!

Also see this post about the Schedule.

Doug can you be more clear on the issue of receiving a 1099 where all the checks have been redeemed in LM either by actually demand per 12 USC 411 OR with this phrase: Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable federal reserve notes of face value - 12 USC 95a, By John Doe. I believe both the actual statute 12 USC 411 OR the Deposited for credit .... of face value equal the same over all idea of not accepting FRNs. Thanks

The question remains, that both a W2 and 1099 are tax class 5 forms - for estate and gift tax classification.

[Brian]

Be careful not to confuse different types of income taxes. 12USC411 may prevent the Springer Income Tax. It will not prevent 16th amendment (Pollock) or Flint v. Stone Tracy income taxes.

[doug555]

Doug can you be more clear on the issue of receiving a 1099 where all the checks have been redeemed in LM either by actually demand per 12 USC 411 OR with this phrase: Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable federal reserve notes of face value - 12 USC 95a, By John Doe. I believe both the actual statute 12 USC 411 OR the Deposited for credit .... of face value equal the same over all idea of not accepting FRNs. Thanks

The question remains, that both a W2 and 1099 are tax class 5 forms - for estate and gift tax classification.

12 USC 411 specifies the wording as "redeemed in lawful money on demand".

We must only make the demand, in present tense, IMO.

The Trustees must perform the redeeming, as they deem fit.

The other wording you mention appears to be presuming something has already happened, and is impinging on their domain. Let them alone to do their duty in their own good time, IMO.

[David Neil]

I just wish to thank all of the participants at Saving To Suitors Club for the great debates, shared experiences. I had to wade through a lot of information to gather all the nuggets but I believe I have just successfully completed and submitted my 2014 1040, reducing my tax burden by the Lawful Money Reduction I took on line 21. Can't wait until next year when I can claim all my income as Lawful Money.

[Chex]

Don't forget to protect it