Treasury Letter from 1984

[itsmymoney]

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.

Doug555,

Based on explaining your reasoning earlier in this thread, I thought the same thing regarding the W-2/1040 examples presented by Mr Cash. I believe one can presume that if GROSS PAY (every dollar you were paid) is lawful money given the chance to redeem it as such, then the NET pay and withholding transactions deducted from GROSS PAY must also be lawful money. This is demanded retroactively when you novate your check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. It's the only way to include the withholding transactions in your demand, because they're already deducted by employer.

If I'm reading this correctly, here's another way to look at it...

Suppose your employer pays you in GROSS pay, $500 a week. You take that check to your bank and deposit it into your account, novating the check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. So now you have $500 Lawful Money in that account. But now it's your duty to deduct the withholding transactions from your account and pay them to the Fed and the State. However, those deductions can easily be proven to be sourced from lawful money by that restricted $500 deposit. The only difference between this example and the real-world operation is that we the payee (W-4 employees) are not authorized to handle the deductions. Therefore since we have a statutory right and claim to redeem in lawful money, the only way to do this is by means of your retroactive-to-GROSS-pay 'all transactions' demand on the NET paycheck. Plus, your County-recorded 'on the record' Affidavit enforces your demand with public evidence.

[doug555]

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.

41,600 + 3588 + 1747.20 + 603.20 = 47538.40

So line 21 has (47538.40)
and Line 22 has (5938.40)

IMO.

IF, you had this demand on record for the entire tax year:

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


NOTICE, however, you are only asking for and getting a refund of the FITW,,, namely, 3588.

[doug555]

Doug555,

Based on explaining your reasoning earlier in this thread, I thought the same thing regarding the W-2/1040 examples presented by Mr Cash. I believe one can presume that if GROSS PAY (every dollar you were paid) is lawful money given the chance to redeem it as such, then the NET pay and withholding transactions deducted from GROSS PAY must also be lawful money. This is demanded retroactively when you novate your check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. It's the only way to include the withholding transactions in your demand, because they're already deducted by employer.

If I'm reading this correctly, here's another way to look at it...

Suppose your employer pays you in GROSS pay, $500 a week. You take that check to your bank and deposit it into your account, novating the check and deposit slip with the 'all transactions' language. So now you have $500 Lawful Money in that account. But now it's your duty to deduct the withholding transactions from your account and pay them to the Fed and the State. However, those deductions can easily be proven to be sourced from lawful money by that restricted $500 deposit. The only difference between this example and the real-world operation is that we the payee (W-4 employees) are not authorized to handle the deductions. Therefore since we have a statutory right and claim to redeem in lawful money, the only way to do this is by means of your retroactive-to-GROSS-pay 'all transactions' demand on the NET paycheck. Plus, your County-recorded 'on the record' Affidavit enforces your demand with public evidence.

I don't follow your scenario... it's getting too late tonite.

Here's the thing, as "Monk" would say...

The TRANSACTIONS on the W-2 were all in FRNS, by default. You don't have a chance to demand lawful money redemption BEFORE those TRANSACTIONS occurred. Those TRANSACTIONS are on the books no matter what you did with the bank afterwards.

Those past events/TRANSACTIONS must be included on 1040 so THEY can make the accounting adjustments on an annual basis, so lawful money can be "1040 RETURNED" to the people and the national debt reduced.

[itsmymoney]

Originally Posted by 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.
41,600 + 3588 + 1747.20 + 603.20 = 47538.40

So line 21 has (47538.40)
and Line 22 has (5938.40)

IMO.

IF, you had this demand on record for the entire tax year:

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


NOTICE, however, you are only asking for and getting a refund of the FITW,,, namely, 3588.

ag maniac,

The net result of 'income' is the same in the 1040 PDF example and Doug555's example, however (as I'm understanding it) ALL transactions must be accounted for in the calculation to get there. This is because every one of those transactions is initially presumed to be paid or deducted in FRN's. So, one (i.e. IRS) could argue that in the 1040 PDF example, the NET pay deduction ($35,662) is being claimed as lawful money but the withholding deductions are not. But they both come from the same payment (Gross Pay). Upshot: you can't have one part of the Gross Pay be lawful money and another part not. However, many suitors appear to be using the '1040 PDF example' to much success. I can't argue with the success of that, but Doug555 makes a strong case that it could be interpreted as 'incorrect' to some degree.

Doug555's example appears to mimic a general ledger-type accounting, where all transactions must be accounted for in the overall balancing. The higher-than-Gross but negative Line 21 value is the sum of ALL transactions redeemed in lawful money, as Doug555 has shown. The 'income' is the net result (the withholdings) after subtracting the Gross Pay.

[David Merrill]

I believe that this situation cannot be resolved by debate. As I read and verified the Social Security Act went into place in 1933 as an income tax, simply because it is premium based and those premiums are set by the amount of income we earn. The Supreme Court verified that as stated in the 1984 Article (Opening Posts). My interpretation of the SSI premiums as premiums is set in antiquity (admiralty), that the origins of insurance are bottomry and leaving the premiums based in income percentage does not change the nature of an insurance policy to a tax.

[allodial]

I believe that this situation cannot be resolved by debate. As I read and verified the Social Security Act went into place in 1933 as an income tax, simply because it is premium based and those premiums are set by the amount of income we earn. The Supreme Court verified that as stated in the 1984 Article (Opening Posts). My interpretation of the SSI premiums as premiums is set in antiquity (admiralty), that the origins of insurance are bottomry and leaving the premiums based in income percentage does not change the nature of an insurance policy to a tax.

The word "contribution" (in FICA) says it all--thusly, not an 'income tax'. Although, it seems and "smells like" VAT (for services) on the Federal level. The SSA was designed to be failure proof, is solvent (or should be) and is one of the most significant creditors to the United States.

[doug555]

I believe that this situation cannot be resolved by debate. As I read and verified the Social Security Act went into place in 1933 as an income tax, simply because it is premium based and those premiums are set by the amount of income we earn. The Supreme Court verified that as stated in the 1984 Article (Opening Posts). My interpretation of the SSI premiums as premiums is set in antiquity (admiralty), that the origins of insurance are bottomry and leaving the premiums based in income percentage does not change the nature of an insurance policy to a tax.

What the funds are used for is irrelevant.

What the funds are is what matters.

FRNs incur a usage fee no matter where the funds go.

[David Merrill]

The word "contribution" (in FICA) says it all--thusly, not an 'income tax'. Although, it seems and "smells like" VAT (for services) on the Federal level. The SSA was designed to be failure proof, is solvent (or should be) and is one of the most significant creditors to the United States.

I was inspired to find the photos I took from American Jurisprudence 2d. I cannot find them but did find some interesting documents.

[allodial]

Even in circumstances I've seen were a payroll check was cut and 000-00-0000 was the SSN for someone who didn't have an SSN but provided a US Passport or some other ID, FICA was still deducted though withholding for income tax wasn't. The W-4 from what I recall was filled out in a way to assert exemption lawfully.

It is IMHO worth noting that the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Social Security Administration are totally separate. However, one common factor is that they both rely on the Bureau of the Fiscal Service or Financial Management Service of the Department of the Treasury for banking and financial services.

[JohnnyCash]

[banjo]
People lemme tell ya 'bout a con named Jay
poor tax attorney couldn't get the time o day.
Then one day he was auditing the bank
when he stumbled on the truth, the source o that stank
Banker pulls him over say: 'It's the worlds best scam.
Now you work for us Jay, stop your runnin' on the lam'

Next thing you know ol' Jay's a millionaire,
His kinfolk say, 'Jay, move away from there!'
Mimic patriots on the 'net, This is what ya oughta do'
so he started up the webstie, called it quatloo
loos, that is, fictional money, private credit.

Well now it's time to say goodbye to Jay and all his kin.
They would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin' in.
You're all invited back next week to this locality
To have a heapin' helpin' of their disinfo-tality

Agents that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.

Y'all come back now, y'hear?

[itsmymoney]

[banjo]
People lemme tell ya 'bout a con named Jay
poor tax lawyer couldn't get the time o day.
Then one day he was auditing the bank
when he came across the truth, the source o that stank
Banker pulls him over: 'It's the worlds best scam.
Now you work for us Jay, stop your runnin' on the lam'

Next thing you know ol' Jay's a millionaire,
His kinfolk said, 'Jay, move away from there!'
Be a mimic on the net, This is what ya outta do'
so he started up the webstie, called it quatloo
loos, that is, fictional money, private credit.

Well now it's time to say goodbye to Jay and all his kin.
They would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin' in.
You're all invited back next week to this locality
To have a heapin' helpin' of their disinfo-itality

Agents that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.

Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Johnny, VERY creative! Kudos to you!

[JohnnyCash]

Patriots win again

Taking a Line 21 Lawful Money deduction for more than your earnings? Must be Famspear's new math. I believe they call that driving the train past the station. I don't think such a filing would end well for the filer. I'd venture to say you're likely to get a civil penalty for that. For filing what Ms. Weaver calls clearly unallowable deductions. I am witness to several lawful money IRS filings but none claimed more than earnings. All of them successful, none penalized and no CP letters afterward. Here's one of them:

Primary filer with $47xxx. in reported W2 income.
Secondary filer with about $48k in reported 1099 income http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg yet none of it entered on the 1040.

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

[doug555]

Taking a Line 21 Lawful Money deduction for more than your earnings? Must be Famspear's new math. I believe they call that driving the train past the station. I don't think such a filing would end well for the filer. I'd venture to say you're likely to get a civil penalty for that. For filing what Ms. Weaver calls clearly unallowable deductions. I am witness to several lawful money IRS filings but none claimed more than earnings. All of them successful, none penalized and no CP letters afterward. Here's one of them:

Primary filer with $47xxx. in reported W2 income.
Secondary filer with about $48k in reported 1099 income http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg yet none of it entered on the 1040.

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

Clearly, you do not understand fractional reserve banking, whereby new money is created by the additional derivative transactions...

You still did not answer my question: Why don't you demand lawful money for GROSS income?

Perhaps the fear you are projecting stems from your mistake of not demanding lawful money for GROSS income on your returns, making yours frivolous?


BTW: personal attacks are a classic tactic of dis-info agents, avoiding the issue at hand. You really should stop obsessing about other websites' faults... and what about your position that the IRS would never touch ANY return demanding lawful money?

NOTE: Lawful money demands are NOT "deductions". Beware of using that FRN term, or it will be frivolous. LMDs are a reduction.

NOTE: The "OPERATION OF LAW" is also TRANSACTION-BASED!

[itsmymoney]

Clearly, you do not understand fractional reserve banking, whereby new money is created by the additional derivative transactions...

You still did not answer my question: Why don't you demand lawful money for GROSS income?

Perhaps the fear you are projecting stems from your mistake of not demanding lawful money for GROSS income on your returns, making yours frivolous?


BTW: personal attacks are a classic tactic of dis-info agents, avoiding the issue at hand. You really should stop obsessing about other websites' faults... and what about your position that the IRS would never touch ANY return demanding lawful money?

NOTE: Lawful money demands are NOT "deductions". Beware of using that FRN term, or it will be frivolous. LMDs are a reduction.

NOTE: The "OPERATION OF LAW" is also TRANSACTION-BASED!

JohnnyCash and Doug555,

This is quite the debate. I believe I tried to understand Doug555's explanation with my own response to member 'ag maniac' (see bottom, quoted), of which Doug555 did not dispute. Therefore if true, perhaps I am understanding his theory/explanation of RILM as the IRS accounting would have it. However, JohnnyCash claims 7+ years success with his interpretation/method (taking a NET pay 'deduction' which satisfies the difference from Gross). I do find it odd to come up with a number greater than the starting Gross Pay, however it makes accounting sense if this is in fact a valid accounting method. I'm not well-versed enough in accounting overall, but I know that you DO have negative sides of a ledger to balance the other side. It would be nice if the IRS would specifically tell us but that will never happen.

I tend to believe you must account for the GROSS PAY in this (all transactions) because of this simple logic: if your employer paid you but did not make ANY deductions from your pay, but YOU had to make the deductions yourself and send them in, then the 'taxable event' is emphatically upon the GROSS PAY that you were paid. You would 1) RILM the GROSS PAY, and then 2) send the deductions in. I just don't see it happening on the NET pay alone. But there is 'NET pay success' out there, or as claimed, so go figure; but, does the 'NET pay success' make it technically correct? I tend to think not. Though I do believe Doug555 and his math relative to Gross Pay and the 1040, I'd like to verify the 'greater than gross pay' number from an accountant in a general accounting sense.

Johnny, I too wondered why you are so obsessed with others and their 'dis-info'. You made it a point on another website after many weeks of not posting, to ONLY point out another's 'dis-info' and not really addressing the topic at hand on that site. And I asked you previously in this thread (as Doug555 has above), to respond to my question as to why you thought the IRS would NEVER touch ANY return demanding lawful money. By your silence, you deferred. What is the basis for that view? Your own success (if valid)? You won't answer the questions, is my point. And I think Doug555 is asking this as well.


imm

The net result of 'income' is the same in the 1040 PDF example and Doug555's example, however (as I'm understanding it) ALL transactions must be accounted for in the calculation to get there. This is because every one of those transactions is initially presumed to be paid or deducted in FRN's. So, one (i.e. IRS) could argue that in the 1040 PDF example, the NET pay deduction ($35,662) is being claimed as lawful money but the withholding deductions are not. But they both come from the same payment (Gross Pay). Upshot: you can't have one part of the Gross Pay be lawful money and another part not. However, many suitors appear to be using the '1040 PDF example' to much success. I can't argue with the success of that, but Doug555 makes a strong case that it could be interpreted as 'incorrect' to some degree.

Doug555's example appears to mimic a general ledger-type accounting, where all transactions must be accounted for in the overall balancing. The higher-than-Gross but negative Line 21 value is the sum of ALL transactions redeemed in lawful money, as Doug555 has shown. The 'income' is the net result (the withholdings) after subtracting the Gross Pay.

[Chex]

So the law doesnt lie.....Social Security (Employment and/or self-employment) means "gross income".
So the earnings from participation of Social Security are in essence "gross income" as computed under subtitle A?
So if you dont participate in Social Security then the earnings are not derived from "employment" or "self-employment" (aka Social Security) and therefore do not fall under subtitle A's "gross income"...........NOT TAXABLE INCOME!
They are not considered "income" for the purpose of Title 26.
But I already knew this! http://www.community.defendindepende...t=605&start=10

a job that is statutorily exempt from Social Security

A Section 218 Agreement is a written voluntary agreement between a State and the Social Security Administration to provide Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) or Medicare coverage only for employees of State and local governments. This agreement is authorized under Section 218 of the Social Security Act. Employees covered under a Section 218 Agreement have the same coverage and benefit rights as employees in the private sector. All States have a Section 218 Agreement, but the extent of coverage varies. http://www.ssa.gov/slge/faqs.htm#a0=0

http://stormthunder.com/#axzz3OWkvRkMZ

Case Law & Public Documents. http://www.codebusters.org/case-law-...uments-f4.html

Complaint Review: Jay Adkisson. http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/jay-ad...rusts-t-356944