Treasury Letter from 1984

[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.