Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
The FRE Hearsay Exception Rule 803(6)(B) is critical to record formation for defending one's position. One MUST understand this BEFORE doing anything. IMO, one MUST create admissible evidence to successfully rebut legitimate and often outrageous diabolical presumptions. The Matrix runs on records.

IMO, any "letter" is NOT evidence. Sorry.

IMO, since the Gross Pay transaction was not in your demand, then that entire amount remains in FRNs, and you owe for that total FRN usage. IMO, the tax is transaction-based, and based on a taxable event - FRN Usage. You may want to share your redacted "Demand Letter" so others do not make this same mistake.

Your comment above raises a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE & LESSON.

IF the above was coming from disinformation agent, would it not be fairly easy to charge one with tax evasion if one commingled funds by claiming "Net Pay" was NOT using FRNs?

Can you see how such a question posed above could easily be a TRAP if anyone espoused such a position?

See Mt 22:18-21 for the Divine Law against commingling of Caesar's and God's money. This account is the "red line in the sand" that is the enforcement behind 12 USC 411, IMO, at least for His bondservants who keep His Word, and claim its protections in His Name.

BTW, I have already more than once provided you with "examples to get it right".

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

Is there a reason this example is not clear?

I realize that I am the only one on this site requiring this exact wording... perhaps you are seeking confirmation from others on this site?


IMO, the "the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter" is NOT evidence, and can be completely IGNORED.

IMO, you cannot use the Schedule at all. Sorry. That would involve commingled funds given your scenario above.

If I may ask, where did you get that "ill-advised Treasury letter"?

Doug555,

I understand the Hearsay Exception Rule is important. I just meant that the wording is tricky and can be confusing if not thought out well. FWIW, my 'Treasury letter' was recorded at the County Recorder's office, so it's not like there is no 'on-the-record' evidence of my demand even though now I realize it's an 'empty' demand. I will post it for review however I'm not sure of the method of attaching a Word document here - if someone can give a quick instruction on attaching I'd be happy to post it. Also FWIW, I was paraphrasing 'Net Pay events' when stating: "It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money". I never actually stated 'Net Pay' in my letter as you will see when it's posted. However, it READS that way based on the language I used.

I found an example from the various links you have posted regarding the 'all transactions' Affidavit demand (after my prior post so my apologies for not researching more before posting). I'm surmising that with a new recorded Affidavit I cannot 'retroactively' demand 'all transactions' back to Jan 2013 (when I started restricting my signature) to effectively 'supersede' my original recorded demand letter. So 2 years of 'incomplete/empty' demands for lawful money. If I cannot retroactive the new demand, at least it will be in effect for Jan 1, 2015 as I intend to get it recorded ASAP for start of 2015. If that's the best I can do going forward, then a harsh and disappointing lesson learned.

My question about RILM on 'Net Pay' ('commingling funds') based on my original 'Treasury letter demand' was sincere, if not misguided and ignorant. I now realize the taxable event is on the Gross Pay of which I failed to realize upfront - and you can't RILM the Gross Pay until after the fact with your novated paychecks/deposit slips via the 'Net Pay' of which is what you are given, and, is the evidence of the demand on the Gross Pay based on the 'all transactions' language. If I am misunderstanding this still, PLEASE correct me. I hope this clears any confusion up for you. I most certainly DO NOT want to put misinformation out there. I'm trying to learn and I ask a lot of questions, some of them perhaps 'impatiently' without first more study, of which I apologize for that. I have studied here many times, but I'm feeling quite foolish at the moment for not enough study and better comprehension. But my intentions are sincere about learning and 'doing it right'.

The 'ill-advised Treasury letter' was drafted by myself based on information over 2 years ago from this site (STSC) and another site of which was visited by a well-known Suitor here, where that Suitor provided some information on that other site and directed me and others here at STSC. Obviously I did not study enough back then and thought that the RILM deposits themselves were the only necessary demand to be made (i.e. not recognizing Gross Pay nor the necessary 'all transactions' demand).

I welcome your replies.

IMM