Treasury Letter from 1984

[David Merrill]

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

I like StSC to be where people can find practical and theoretical merged into prosperity. Especially in the application process it does not go over well to say, I do not participate in Social Security.

[Chex]

I like StSC to be where people can find practical and theoretical merged into prosperity. Especially in the application process it does not go over well to say, I do not participate in Social Security.

I agree but it is a dammed if you do and a dam if you don't.

WHEN ADAM SENT ME THESE VICTORIES THE OTHER DAY FOR SHARING WITH YOU ALL, he included this note:

"I made a rookie error on my initial submission of the federal return by excluding Social Security and Medicare tax.
I corrected this with an amended form and received the remainder as a separate refund.
I figured this will be helpful for anyone who needs to address a similar mistake."

[JohnnyCash]

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/fo...te-hendrickson

It's possible that Famspear/Jay/jessejames/quatloser is telling us he's behind the Chex/doug555/itsmymoney logins. I suspect he is quite bothered by these real-world examples of IRS wins. In this example a family with about $109,000 in annual income for 2013 [47k+48k+14k] should have paid a minimum $16,000 in federal taxes (including Medicare & SS) had they been endorsing private credit. But thanks to redeeming lawful money ended up paying only $2100. [Deducted of (3200+3200+700) minus refund (5000) = $2100]. And it could have been even less with more lawful money redeemed! http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

All warfare involves deception. And this appears to be a replay attempt of what I've seen at other forums. The fake users will try to manufacture a debate, a controversy. I guess their hope is to somehow damage the targeted user (suitor), make it out like he is the source of the whole problem.

[David Merrill]

I agree but it is a dammed if you do and a dam if you don't.

WHEN ADAM SENT ME THESE VICTORIES THE OTHER DAY FOR SHARING WITH YOU ALL, he included this note:

"I made a rookie error on my initial submission of the federal return by excluding Social Security and Medicare tax.
I corrected this with an amended form and received the remainder as a separate refund.
I figured this will be helpful for anyone who needs to address a similar mistake."

Definitely noteworthy! Thanks for sharing that.

Johnny;

My perception of the Internet is that it is much larger than you think it is. However it would be flattering if Jay was so distressed by boredom as to troll around here. If you want to PM where you believe Jay is, and a Member moniker I can try to find out if they match up.

[Chex]

Is Anonymous Jayloser? Well Anonymous Jayloser I take the USC over your propaganda any day.

[itsmymoney]

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/fo...te-hendrickson

It's possible that Famspear/Jay/jessejames/quatloser is telling us he's behind the Chex/doug555/itsmymoney logins. I suspect he is quite bothered by these real-world examples of IRS wins. In this example a family with about $109,000 in annual income for 2013 [47k+48k+14k] should have paid a minimum $16,000 in federal taxes (including Medicare & SS) had they been endorsing private credit. But thanks to redeeming lawful money ended up paying only $2100. [Deducted of (3200+3200+700) minus refund (5000) = $2100]. And it could have been even less with more lawful money redeemed! http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

All warfare involves deception. And this appears to be a replay attempt of what I've seen at other forums. The fake users will try to manufacture a debate, a controversy. I guess their hope is to somehow damage the targeted user (suitor), make it out like he is the source of the whole problem.

Dude, you are f-ing comical. Seriously. Is EVERYONE who has a question about something or raises rational and practical questions, a dis-info quatloser? You were the person who originally referred me to STSC from another site. So why after some research, does Doug555 make more sense than you in explaining this? You are continually paranoid and obsessed with 'trolls'. I'm just trying to learn.

Why am I losing faith in what you say? You may be sincere, but your witch-hunt makes you look 'crazy' when many of us are sincere suitors trying to learn and overcome the BS that has been exacted upon us. You STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS posed by myself and Doug555. If your way is working for you, then I applaud you. But for you to dismiss GROSS PAY as the starting point of RILM (and the delineation of the withholding transactions that come from that) just because you have been successful doing it your way, is ignorant and irresponsible to others trying to educate themselves. I'm trying to look at everything, including the methods and insights that you have provided, along with Doug555's, David's, etc. Simple as that.

It is what it is, dude.

imm

[David Merrill]

You are continually paranoid and obsessed with 'trolls'. I'm just trying to learn.

I have noted that too. I recall Potapaug (I teased him - Pollywog) registered and was getting along fairly well. As things degraded there on the "Q" website, and quite frankly it became so boring I read discussion about bringing me back into the forums, I banished him. He was getting bolder about bashing remedy and I got tired of watching him.

I too wish that Johnny would stop policing so closely for Q-trolls.

[JohnnyCash]

Actually you never answered my questions of December 16th here: http://www.codebusters.org/lawful-mo...ance-t444.html

I love Q-trolls!

[itsmymoney]

Actually you never answered my questions of December 16th here: http://www.codebusters.org/lawful-mo...ance-t444.html

I love Q-trolls!

You just go round in circles with your BS paranoia, running around site to site, gathering 'intel' on people to 'expose them'. You really exposed me above with those gems below. I know, it's SO CONTROVERSIAL that I didn't answer them at that time...

Not sure what you mean by "Since I am withheld at 0," Zero withheld or zero exemptions on the W4? or are you a 1099 worker? Or neither?

Answers: I claim 0 on my W-4 to get the most withheld so I won't be surprised at year end; I'm an employee, not 1099.

I'm sure everyone here couldn't wait for that! You're the evasive one. Answering questions with questions. I posed valid points there and here. You just see it as an opportunity to render your paranoid BS on everyone. Despite your knowledge, you are whimsical and crazy.

If you don't have anything good to add to a discussion except for calling people out, then you are not being helpful. I like when suitors back up theories and methods with facts and law; plus pose questions that perhaps others have not thought of. I won't respond to your posts unless they're instructive. Why don't you come up with another clever Beverly Hillbillies theme?

David Merrill, I apologize for this drivel but I'm insulted by this guy and I had to defend myself.

[doug555]

You just go round in circles with your BS paranoia, running around site to site, gathering 'intel' on people to 'expose them'. You really exposed me above with those gems below. I know, it's SO CONTROVERSIAL that I didn't answer them at that time...



Answers: I claim 0 on my W-4 to get the most withheld so I won't be surprised at year end; I'm an employee, not 1099.

I'm sure everyone here couldn't wait for that! You're the evasive one. Answering questions with questions. I posed valid points there and here. You just see it as an opportunity to render your paranoid BS on everyone. Despite your knowledge, you are whimsical and crazy.

If you don't have anything good to add to a discussion except for calling people out, then you are not being helpful. I like when suitors back up theories and methods with facts and law; plus pose questions that perhaps others have not thought of. I won't respond to your posts unless they're instructive. Why don't you come up with another clever Beverly Hillbillies theme?

David Merrill, I apologize for this drivel but I'm insulted by this guy and I had to defend myself.

David has the original copies of my returns and refunds... for the past 3 years, which I provided in private so he would know that I am NOT a troll.

With that said, I want to post the below scenario AS A WARNING ABOUT A POSSIBLE TRAP FOR StSC MEMBERS.

Let's just take JC for an example, since he is so obsessed with "trolls"... perhaps from spending too much time on those dis-info sites... it rubs off on its readers, getting them sucked into the "control dramas" as the "Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield so aptly describes, and away from substantive on-point discussion of issues.

Suppose JC was a plant from the very beginning, at the worst, or else just a ignorant novice, at the best.

Both types are DANGEROUS, because the IRS would use their examples of temporary successes to TRAP more followers and set precedents in order to muddy the water and eventually, through fear and intimidation, discredit the whole lawful money demand remedy that is in 12 USC 411.

It is VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A FIRM LOGICAL ACCOUNTING FOUNDATION for the WAY we are implementing the Federal Reserve Act Remedy codified at 12 USC 411 so that we can easily rebut any outrageous claims and allegations thrown at us who are using it.

I have tried to present that LOGICAL ACCOUNTING FOUNDATION.

Look at any W-2. Is there any box on that form that says "Net Income"?

Anyone who is taking that approach, or that "0" income approach that Chex cites (and no where shows a demand for lawful money) is headed for big trouble!

Anyone who does not demand lawful money for GROSS pay/wages on a W-2 is in contract with the FED. It is that simple. It is contract law.

Anyone in that position better amend that in-correct 1040 ASAP. IMO.

Anyone avoiding that issue is a dis-info agent in-fact, even if unwittingly.

The HIGHER LAW governing this issue is Mt 22:21

Whose side are you on?

You are not going to be allowed to co-mingle those funds, or you will get in big trouble.

Make sure you demand lawful money for ALL transactions - especially the GROSS PAY transaction!

This is CRITICAL!!!

Perhaps this is WHY dis-info agents do NOT want to answer that question!

It is the KEY transaction !

LISTEN - If we at StSC do not make a firm stand on that KEY transaction, it very well could discredit the entire remedy David has discovered.

Wake up!

Most of us are W-2 Wage earners!!!

This is a BIG ISSUE.

Do NOT let anything else take away our focus from this BIG ISSUE.

Just imagine how many struggling families could use a 30% increase in their take home pay RIGHT NOW!

Do we realize how many people the StSC could help if we would get our act together?

And get rid of witting and unwitting dis-info agents, who promote fear, sarcasm, allegations, distractions, etc.

And build a core support group for David's discovery.

[David Merrill]

My teaching on this is do not react, do not defend. When you are on to the truth there is not need for either.

I have requested the same from every Member. Even if you believe there are "Q" trolls, please be respectful of the feelings of others.


P.S. My take on this:

Whose side are you on?

Is that the Emergency activating War and Emergency Powers was lifted in 1976 - but left Trading with the Enemy Act provisions to protect peoples' right to endorse private credit from the Federal Reserve.

[itsmymoney]

David has the original copies of my returns and refunds... for the past 3 years, which I provided in private so he would know that I am NOT a troll.

With that said, I want to post the below scenario AS A WARNING ABOUT A POSSIBLE TRAP FOR StSC MEMBERS.

Let's just take JC for an example, since he is so obsessed with "trolls"... perhaps from spending too much time on those dis-info sites... it rubs off on its readers, getting them sucked into the "control dramas" as the "Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield so aptly describes, and away from substantive on-point discussion of issues.

Suppose JC was a plant from the very beginning, at the worst, or else just a ignorant novice, at the best.

Both types are DANGEROUS, because the IRS would use their examples of temporary successes to TRAP more followers and set precedents in order to muddy the water and eventually, through fear and intimidation, discredit the whole lawful money demand remedy that is in 12 USC 411.

It is VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A FIRM LOGICAL ACCOUNTING FOUNDATION for the WAY we are implementing the Federal Reserve Act Remedy codified at 12 USC 411 so that we can easily rebut any outrageous claims and allegations thrown at us who are using it.

I have tried to present that LOGICAL ACCOUNTING FOUNDATION.

Look at any W-2. Is there any box on that form that says "Net Income"?

Anyone who is taking that approach, or that "0" income approach that Chex cites (and no where shows a demand for lawful money) is headed for big trouble!

Anyone who does not demand lawful money for GROSS pay/wages on a W-2 is in contract with the FED. It is that simple. It is contract law.

Anyone in that position better amend that in-correct 1040 ASAP. IMO.

Anyone avoiding that issue is a dis-info agent in-fact, even if unwittingly.

The HIGHER LAW governing this issue is Mt 22:21

Whose side are you on?

You are not going to be allowed to co-mingle those funds, or you will get in big trouble.

Make sure you demand lawful money for ALL transactions - especially the GROSS PAY transaction!

This is CRITICAL!!!

Perhaps this is WHY dis-info agents do NOT want to answer that question!

It is the KEY transaction !

LISTEN - If we at StSC do not make a firm stand on that KEY transaction, it very well could discredit the entire remedy David has discovered.

Wake up!

Most of us are W-2 Wage earners!!!

This is a BIG ISSUE.

Do NOT let anything else take away our focus from this BIG ISSUE.

Just imagine how many struggling families could use a 30% increase in their take home pay RIGHT NOW!

Do we realize how many people the StSC could help if we would get our act together?

And get rid of witting and unwitting dis-info agents, who promote fear, sarcasm, allegations, distractions, etc.

And build a core support group for David's discovery.

Doug555,

I agree with you, as seen below in my prior post (partial, from post #104). Even from the small sample size of your posts that I've seen, you state facts, law, accounting practices - 'stuff' that evidences your theories/methods. Why would anyone not back it up with EVIDENCE? As you stated here, the W-2 has various transactions that must be accounted for in the IRS ledger. Thus, the ALL transactions verbiage when RILM. And, where I believe you cited law to that effect, i.e. 'transactions'. My 'simple logic' example quoted below would seem to corroborate your theory/method. It all starts with GROSS PAY.

Via an addendum here (edit post), think about this: if I was a "troll", why would I do the following?:

Redeem my checks for the past 2 years (2013, 2014) ONLY on NET PAY, based on the pasted-within-this-thread letter sent to the U.S. Treasury I recorded at the County 2 years ago (w/o first doing extensive-enough research on the overall methods, law, and concepts - including the vital GROSS PAY/All-transactions method); THEN, just recently, ask for guidance on STSC on how to 'fill out' the Supporting Schedule to recover that money for those years, THEN, have Doug555 explain to me that a 'NET PAY' RILM was dangerous and educated me about 'all transactions' and RILM on GROSS PAY, THEN, look at what JohnnyCash has done (NET PAY reduction only) and THEN, ULTIMATELY decided from Doug555's explanation and warning that I have missed the GROSS PAY/All-transactions element, therefore deciding NOT to go ahead with a RILM 1040 Return for 2013 and 2014? So basically, 2 years of wasted RILM because of my misguided 'NET PAY' RILM procedure and hasty entry into this new endeavor. I'd rather be safe than sorry. I have over 20K in 6702 penalties including 1/2 of that in a wage levy to prove the hurt I have endured going with the PH CTC 'method'. I will gladly upload all that crap if needed, to prove my words.

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.

[David Merrill]

You might find it in about any Rules book around Rule 803, Rules of Evidence. There is really no way to prove your words without leading people to your doorstep from anywhere in cyberspace.

You might sanitize up a few images for us instead?

This is something I have been observing for quite some time. People are ready for remedy or not. Some that are not will be after a few more things click into place. I have seen some extraordinary cases where I simply imposed my metaphysics on a suitor and that has held abatement for over a decade, but speaking with the suitor about remedy makes me quite impatient and agitated because they still live in a two-dimensional plane of paranoid delirium and I wonder if them keeping their estate intact was worth the stunted development - the addiction to me to keep applying my metaphysics year after year?

I wonder if you can get why I am inserting this here...

[Chex]

Doug555, I agree with you, Gross Pay everything is gross pay from your first home to you last automobile

I'd rather be safe than sorry. I have over 20K in 6702 penalties including 1/2 of that in a wage levy to prove the hurt I have endured going with the PH CTC 'method'. I will gladly upload all that crap if needed, to prove my words.

This what I am talking about making someone responsible:

She also blasted the IRS for failing to put in place measures that hold employees accountable, recommending for example that managers approve tax liens and that IRS employees be required to put their names and contact information on audits.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3OpqHg9AM

[itsmymoney]

You might find it in about any Rules book around Rule 803, Rules of Evidence. There is really no way to prove your words without leading people to your doorstep from anywhere in cyberspace.

You might sanitize up a few images for us instead?

This is something I have been observing for quite some time. People are ready for remedy or not. Some that are not will be after a few more things click into place. I have seen some extraordinary cases where I simply imposed my metaphysics on a suitor and that has held abatement for over a decade, but speaking with the suitor about remedy makes me quite impatient and agitated because they still live in a two-dimensional plane of paranoid delirium and I wonder if them keeping their estate intact was worth the stunted development - the addiction to me to keep applying my metaphysics year after year?

I wonder if you can get why I am inserting this here...

David,

From your words I believe you are saying that some people never 'take the leap' to RILM. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. If I am correct, then for myself, and based on Doug555's GROSS PAY explanation of the actual taxable event and WHAT is to be redeemed in lawful money, then I am willing to wait until 2016 to properly RILM on my 2015 earnings based on the just-learned novation method ('all transactions' language on the front of check/slip) and the soon-to-be-County-recorded AFFIDAVIT supporting this method (i.e. 'RILM all transactions').

If I were to proceed with JohnnyCash's 'method' (only stating NET PAY on the 1040), then I believe this to be technically/lawfully incorrect for the reasons stated by Doug555. Despite the claims by JC that he has received his full income tax refund all these years, I believe he may be 'lucky' in the grand scheme. I could be wrong. However, the GROSS PAY is surely the starting point of any discussion when it comes to 'taxable event' and tax deductions. So as Doug555 stated, WHY would I ignore the starting point of any deductions from my GROSS PAY? As I stated before, if legally/lawfully it was up to me (instead of employer) to send in the deductions to the IRS, then why wouldn't I RILM on the GROSS PAY that I was paid? Is only the NET PAY that I've calculated to keep, taxable? NO!!! If the taxable event is on "wages", then THAT event is on the GROSS PAY. Your employer does not take your deductions/taxes from your NET pay, right?

I will gladly upload sanitized versions of whatever you'd like to see (I'm assuming you'd like to see the wage levy at the least). I will also upload RILM checks/slips that I have made over the past 2 years. You already have the copy/pasted 'Letter to the Treasury' of which I feel is 'empty' because it only states 'NET PAY-like' transactions in the demand. However, I'll try to find the County receipt/certification of this and also attach the original file. If my real name is exposed in any of the Properties of the doc, so be it. I'm not well-versed in knowing if that sort of thing will 'show up' in the upload. I'll sanitize as much as possible.

imm