Treasury Letter from 1984

[David Merrill]

I feel that I should mention:


Update: The comic book from the NY Fed bank is not the attached pamphlet mentioned at the end of the 1981 Letter. I added that for explanation. - Just so you know...

[allodial]

Speaking of NY...

The deeded tracts were called patroonships and could span 16 miles in length on one side of a major river, or 8 miles if spanning both sides. In 1640 the charter was revised to cut new plot sizes in half, and to allow any Dutch American in good standing to purchase an estate. The title of patroon came with powerful rights and privileges. A patroon could create civil and criminal courts, appoint local officials and hold land in perpetuity. In return, he was required by the Dutch West India Company to establish a settlement of at least 50 families within four years on the land.[2] As tenants working for the patroon, these first settlers were relieved of the duty of public taxes for ten years, but were required to pay rent to the patroon. A patroonship sometimes had its own village and other infrastructure, including churches.

I believe this could be explained in the sense of patroonships--or rather manors or manrialism generally. The patroon (Dutch manor chief) didn't pay rent (another word for taxes). It was tenants of the patron that paid rent to the patroon. A patroonship could have cities, villages, courts, etc. If you say you live in U.S. patroonship or sub-patroonship or sub-patroonship whatever it might be, then what can the patroon expect of ya?

The largest and most successful patroonship in New Netherland was the Manor of Rensselaerswijck, established by Kiliaen van Rensselaer. Rensselaerswijck covered almost all of present-day Albany and Rensselaer counties and parts of present-day Columbia and Greene counties in New York State.

Albany's county seat happens to be the capital of the State of New York. The 50 States might be types of patroonships created by the United States (as contrasted with those which created the United States of America).

Ever notice any new construction projects where the owners are given a tax break for a period as an incentive to purchase property? (*nods*--quite common...even these days)

[JohnnyCash]

My replies, a few last questions, and a pasted sanitized text version of the letter sent to the Treasury and recorded at the County almost 2 years ago.

It's funny you went through the commotion of learning how to ATTACH and then you PASTED.

[allodial]

Adam/Eve submitted and consented to be governed by a created being. This is analogous to accepting a man-king - one we can perceive with our five senses - death. So we see the "tree marker" - the fig - marking transfer of government - yet there was consideration for the exchange - a future benefit - whether or not it has been received - I leave to you to acknowledge.

In private lectures/communications I have shared that it seems rather clear that the 'sin' in the garden of Eden was one of idolatry--that all 'sin' from the Biblical perspective might be idolatry. The statement "That which is not of faith is 'sin'." might translate into -> putting trusting in the carnal = idolatry. Children in Western countries are encouraged to become 'adults'--which is strangely a word reminiscent of 'adultery' which is a word that rhymes with idolatry. The serpent offered exaltation of the creature over the creator--to those who were made in the image of the creator. Jezebel was about exercising authority over men and over the affairs of men--"to be like gods".

It seems that the "meal ticket" offered by the "New Deal" food price fixing system comes with the siren call of submission to the creations of men. It seems that to redeem scrip for lawful money is to insist on the ship being upright (i.e. creator above creature) rather than upside down (i.e. creature above creator). Into view comes two extremes of types of trust consequences or relationships: [1] creator/grantor/creditor subject to the trust (creature); [2] creator/grantor/creditor remains superior to the trust (creature).

[itsmymoney]

It's funny you went through the commotion of learning how to ATTACH and then you PASTED.

Johnny, it certainly wasn't a 'commotion', it was just easier to paste it into the post. I duly noted how to attach a document in my notes, graciously provided by member 'ag maniac'.

Not sure why you made it a point to mention this.

[JohnnyCash]

You're not sure, but I know why you mentioned my mention of it. I notice things; little things; your tokens.

3) I executed RILF for every deposited check in TY 2013 and 2014 to-date.

Since you made your demand for lawful money, the bank cannot fractionally lend on those deposits & you owe no income tax on those deposits. You're all set. Thank you for helping us Run the Fed!

[itsmymoney]

You're not sure, but I know why you mentioned my mention of it. I notice things; little things; your tokens.

Since you made your demand for lawful money, the bank cannot fractionally lend on those deposits & you owe no income tax on those deposits. You're all set. Thank you for helping us Run the Fed!

Johnny, I'm still not sure what you are getting at. What do you mean by, 'I notice things; little things; your tokens'? Are you insinuating something?

Here's what I am getting at, the bottom line if you will:

1) I made a lawful money demand in 2013 (see Treasury Letter Affidavit below, recorded at County) of which references mostly if not all NET pay transactions.

2) I RILM every check for 2013 and 2014 with the standard 12 USC 411 novation on the back only.

3) Filing late for 2013 and current for 2014, I wanted to take the lawful money deduction for both years.

4) After posting to this thread with regards to the Supporting Schedule and how to 'fill it out', Doug555 mentioned that this might not be a wise idea, given my basically 'NET PAY' demand in my Treasury Letter (below). This is because the GROSS Pay is the payment for any taxable event, i.e. being an "employee" and earning "wages" (we're all coerced into that, but whatever). Bottom line: my demand was not for 'ALL transactions'.

5) You made a statement to the effect of (paraphrasing), "take your lawful money demand; the IRS won't want to deal with it". Your statement was posed in general, not in response to anything I posted or to me personally. However, I was curious that your statement was somewhat in conflict with Doug555's warning to me due to my 'empty' Affidavit demand (it does not demand lawful money on ALL transactions - i.e. GROSS and Net pay, withdrawals, etc).

So given my track record with 6702 penalties (i.e. 'tax protestor label'), I was wary in utilizing the lawful money reduction for 2013 and 2014, based on Doug555's warning. I have since filed 'normal' for 2013 (I had to, given other circumstances) and I am planning to do the same for 2014. Going forward, I will record my 'all transactions' Affidavit as soon as I see the recent deposit in my next bank statement. I will feel comfortable taking the deduction for 2015 when I file in 2016 because I am now using the 'all transactions' language on the FRONT of the check/deposit slip.

So my general question to you was, how do you feel about what Doug555 stated (it's 'iffy' to use the deduction relative to my situation) vs. what you stated in general ("go for it, they won't touch it"). I'm not asking for advice. I just thought there was some conflict there, especially from well-respected suitors where I thought comments from you would be beneficial to the discussion in this regard.

Regards,
imm

[JohnnyCash]

These hip waders need way more room in the crotchal area. Is it me, or are the fish just not biting today?

[David Merrill]

The difference between net and gross is essential because of the deductions and withholdings are of an insurance policy nature. In other words one should not demand premiums back, just because they did not make a claim. If you treat SSI like a tax, just because it is based on the amount of money you earn then you might more easily be presumed to owe that as a tax; rather than treating it like an insurance policy premium.


(Nibble, nibble...)

[JohnnyCash]

I agree.
Someone making $800 a week as a W4 worker would receive a year-end W2 like this: http://jesse2012.com/W2_2011.pdf
And if every paycheck was redeemed in lawful money their tax return might look like this: http://jesse2012.com/jtd1040.pdf
They'd get all of box 2 "Fed inc tax withheld" back as a refund.

[Chex]

So how do we deduct for obamacare if its insurance?

[doug555]

I agree.
Someone making $800 a week as a W4 worker would receive a year-end W2 like this: http://jesse2012.com/W2_2011.pdf
And if every paycheck was redeemed in lawful money their tax return might look like this: http://jesse2012.com/jtd1040.pdf
They'd get all of box 2 "Fed inc tax withheld" back as a refund.

Any TRANSACTION amount that is not demanded to be redeemed in lawful money creates a nexus/contract with FED because those amounts USED FRNs... IMO.

That tax return shows one is double-minded, and gives probable cause for being called "frivolous".

Please explain WHY you are NOT demanding lawful money for the GROSS wages amount?

I believe the State was giving a clue about this "GROSS" error in the excerpt below from post15868:

Originally Posted by Breneth

So, another update on this issue..

I received a check from the State (Iowa Department of Revenue) for about 10% of the amount on Tuesday. On Wednesday, I got an explanation letter from them. One form shows how they recalculated my taxes and completely disregarded my "Demand for Lawful Money Reduction". On another form, they put this:

Reason for Notice:
The gross income has been adjusted.
The taxpayers trust fund tax credit has been adjusted or denied.
Your refund claim has been partially denied.

I feel like I should send something back to them arguing that they are breaking the law, though as they as disregarded it already, I feel that I should take this elsewhere. A complaint to the State Treasurer, State Senator, Representative? Any suggestions would be most welcomed!

We had better pay attention to their letters... they may actually be trying to help us!

Then, to be consistent, each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS should also be demanded to be in lawful money.

Yes, I know that total amount of lawful money demands will then be greater that the actual GROSS wages amount, making the Adjusted GROSS to be a negative amount.

But isn't that legitimate?

Don't all of those amounts that were presumed to be in FRNs need to be adjusted back out, to reduce the national debt accordingly?

BTW: This 1040 accounting approach has worked for the past 3 years, so it is NOT just theory.

[ag maniac]

Any TRANSACTION amount that is not demanded to be redeemed in lawful money creates a nexus/contract with FED because those amounts USED FRNs... IMO.

That tax return shows one is double-minded, and gives probable cause for being called "frivolous".

Please explain WHY you are NOT demanding lawful money for the GROSS wages amount?

I believe the State was giving a clue about this "GROSS" error in the excerpt below from post15868:




We had better pay attention to their letters... they may actually be trying to help us!

Then, to be consistent, each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS should also be demanded to be in lawful money.

Yes, I know that total amount of lawful money demands will then be greater that the actual GROSS wages amount, making the Adjusted GROSS to be a negative amount.

But isn't that legitimate?

Don't all of those amounts that were presumed to be in FRNs need to be adjusted back out, to reduce the national debt accordingly?

BTW: This 1040 accounting approach has worked for the past 3 years, so it is NOT just theory.

So is this what you're saying for "W-4 workers" (using the above example) --> rather than putting 35,662 on line 21.....put 43,950.40 --> the total of 41,600 wages plus SS tax & medicare tax of 2350.40.....making the adjusted gross (2350.40)

If that is the case, why not just put 41,600 on line 21 for the lawful money deduction....doesn't that cover the other with-holdings then?

[doug555]

So is this what you're saying for "W-4 workers" (using the above example) --> rather than putting 35,662 on line 21.....put 43,950.40 --> the total of 41,600 wages plus SS tax & medicare tax of 2350.40.....making the adjusted gross (2350.40)

If that is the case, why not just put 41,600 on line 21 for the lawful money deduction....doesn't that cover the other with-holdings then?

NO.

Please, tell me, Why is TRANSACTION-BASED REDEMPTION so hard to grasp?

[ag maniac]

All right....the redemption for W-2 workers is on the gross weekly pay --> "ALL TRANSACTIONS".....that's not so hard to understand.....so -41,600 on line 21 is the way to account for "each of the derivative WITHHOLDING TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTS"

I was just attempting to reconcile your mention of a negative adjusted gross.


Lawful Money and full discharge is demanded on all transactions 12USC411, 95a(2)