Make Demand At Treasury

[doug555]

Each individual transaction that uses FRNs generates more debt BECAUSE each one is a PROMISE to pay, an IOU-based transaction because it is based on liability (PROMISE) instruments. Each one of these needed to be backed-out by a corresponding REDUCTION entry!!! AWESOME!!!

One is actually helping to PAY debts and thereby reduce the national debt. One is helping correct the mistake THEY made by PRESUMING that FRNs were being used in such transactions. These must include all withholding-based transactions as well, since both the debt and the reduction is TRANSACTION-BASED! THIS IS S KEY CONCEPT THAT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD! Each transaction that assumes FRN usage must be backed-out (reversed) to settle the national debt.

One could easily prove each FRN transaction increases the national debt by auditing any check deposits at any bank and see if these funds are included in the reserve required for fractional reserve lending. One can see the multiplier effect in the diagram at that website, and also see why bank employees get fired for not respecting demands for lawful money, because all of the multiplier "ripples" of mistakenly-created and un-bonded debt that has to be backed-out/reversed!

By following FRCP 803(6) rule of hearsay exceptions, one is making a substantive record on documents used in the normal course of business. By writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all commercial instruments (deposit slips, checks, etc), one enables the equitable title transfer of the credit (labor) held by the the United States Treasury via the Federal Reserve Banks since the April 5, 1933 Executive Order 6102 of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which transfer then enables the Trustee to setoff the national debt to that extent.

This reduction therefore, in effect if not in essence, constitutes FOR-GIVENESS of the national debt. It is applying the prepaid labor credit of the people loaned to the corporations that enabled them to pro-duce goods and services for the people.

The Beneficiaries have NOT been doing their duty of authorizing the application of lawful money to PAY debts, by demanding lawful for all transactions. Using FRNs is only a PROMISE to pay, and each such PROMISE is fractionalized, as well as each derivative transaction from the prime transaction which mainly is one's GROSS PAY-check.

[Keith Alan]

This reduction therefore, in effect if not in essence, constitutes FOR-GIVENESS of the national debt. It is applying the prepaid labor credit of he people loaned to the corporations that enabled them to pro-duce goods and services for the people.

The Beneficiaries have NOT been doing their duty of authorizing the application of lawful money to PAY debts, by demanding lawful for all transactions. Using FRNs is only a PROMISE to pay, and each such PROMISE is fractionalized, as well as each derivative transaction from the prime transaction which mainly is one's GROSS PAY-check.

Doug555, I had not thought of it that way. Thank you for pointing out that a person is actually forgiving the debt when he makes his demand. This is a new concept for me, so I will think about what it means to me. The idea of paying down the debt was one of my motivations for considering making demand at Treasury.

But now I'm seeing that, instead of paying it down (as a surety for the state) a person can actually forgive the debt!

[David Merrill]

By following FRCP 803(6) rule of hearsay exceptions, one is making a substantive record on documents used in the normal course of business. By writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all commercial instruments (deposit slips, checks, etc), one enables the equitable title transfer of the credit (labor) held by the the United States Treasury via the Federal Reserve Banks since the April 5, 1933 Executive Order 6102 of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which transfer then enables the Trustee to setoff the national debt to that extent.

This reduction therefore, in effect if not in essence, constitutes FOR-GIVENESS of the national debt. It is applying the prepaid labor credit of the people loaned to the corporations that enabled them to pro-duce goods and services for the people.

The Beneficiaries have NOT been doing their duty of authorizing the application of lawful money to PAY debts, by demanding lawful for all transactions. Using FRNs is only a PROMISE to pay, and each such PROMISE is fractionalized, as well as each derivative transaction from the prime transaction which mainly is one's GROSS PAY-check.

Wonderful contribution - thank you! I had not thought about checking for the law curing 30 days after the Bankers' Holiday. I think the Note in my Public Papers and Addresses book might help shed light. Image attached.

You also bring to light why this Schedule was refunded in full. - GROSS Paycheck.

[Chex]

and a newspaper cliping http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/48423796

[Robert Henry]

You also bring to light why this Schedule was refunded in full. - GROSS Paycheck.

David Merrill, it seems perhaps I have misunderstood. I was under the impression that attempting to get a refund for ALL deductions (Fed + State SDI/Med in addition to actual TAXES withheld) was asking for trouble. After all, i'm assuming these don't get paid to IRS (or do they?) so why would IRS be expected to re-imburse for them? Also, would effectively "opting out" of SS in this fashion negate the ability to claim the benefits that have already been paid in to the system from half a life of being ignorant of redemption?

Any clarification you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

[ManOntheLand]

David Merrill, it seems perhaps I have misunderstood. I was under the impression that attempting to get a refund for ALL deductions (Fed + State SDI/Med in addition to actual TAXES withheld) was asking for trouble. After all, i'm assuming these don't get paid to IRS (or do they?) so why would IRS be expected to re-imburse for them? Also, would effectively "opting out" of SS in this fashion negate the ability to claim the benefits that have already been paid in to the system from half a life of being ignorant of redemption?

Any clarification you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

I can't speak for David Merrill, but I will give you my two cents worth: I have observed that claiming refund of FICA on a tax return often leads to your return being routed to the "frivolous" department in Ogden Utah, simply because they are confused by the numbers and think you are claiming more refund than you paid in tax.

IRS is responsible for issuing refunds of FICA tax where appropriate. The Form 843 can be used to properly request a refund of "erroneously collected" FICA and is not subject to being declared "frivolous" under IRC 6702.

As for SSA benefits: under current rules, you are vested after 40 qualifying financial quarters of making contributions. The only advantage to continuing to contribute to FICA might be to increase your eventual (and very theoretical at this point) retirement benefit amount, as they base your benefit amount on your highest 40 quarters of earnings.

[doug555]

David Merrill, it seems perhaps I have misunderstood. I was under the impression that attempting to get a refund for ALL deductions (Fed + State SDI/Med in addition to actual TAXES withheld) was asking for trouble. After all, i'm assuming these don't get paid to IRS (or do they?) so why would IRS be expected to re-imburse for them? Also, would effectively "opting out" of SS in this fashion negate the ability to claim the benefits that have already been paid in to the system from half a life of being ignorant of redemption?

Any clarification you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

See post #31

See post #32

The above relays the logic and rationale based on law.

The proof in actuality is the confirmation of the above by 2 state governments and the federal government for the past 2 years, at least for me.

However, my situation and status may be one special profile that is being honored. The only thing "different" about me is that I have never registered to vote, and I have registered in the county a Proof of Life and a Solemn Act and Deed. And this is so, even though there is currently in place an Installment Agreement for back taxes, which by the way, is being paid with Lawful Money as well. And I am NOT a financial broker or in banking profession.

But I believe others on this site are getting refunds without proof of life or other declarations. I believe making a clear public record that creates substantive evidence of all transactions demanding lawful money is the key, all done in good faith reliance on 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2), AND on the Father and His Son, and the red line in the sand they commanded to be observed by all parties (including Satan) in this issue, namely Mt 22:21.

Beware of becoming an unwitting tool of the Adversary by undermining and doubting the remedy provided by the Creator that He promised to provide to His People in 1 Cor 10:13.

Remember the words given to Joshua in Joshua 1:9, and to Peter by the Messiah in Mt 14:31.

So claim this promise of remedy. Be courageous. Have faith!

Peace.

[Richierich]

See post #31

See post #32

The above relays the logic and rationale based on law.

The proof in actuality is the confirmation of the above by 2 state governments and the federal government for the past 2 years, at least for me.

However, my situation and status may be one special profile that is being honored. The only thing "different" about me is that I have never registered to vote, and I have registered in the county a Proof of Life and a Solemn Act and Deed. And this is so, even though there is currently in place an Installment Agreement for back taxes, which by the way, is being paid with Lawful Money as well. And I am NOT a financial broker or in banking profession.

But I believe others on this site are getting refunds without proof of life or other declarations. I believe making a clear public record that creates substantive evidence of all transactions demanding lawful money is the key, all done in good faith reliance on 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2), AND on the Father and His Son, and the red line in the sand they commanded to be observed by all parties (including Satan) in this issue, namely Mt 22:21.

Beware of becoming an unwitting tool of the Adversary by undermining and doubting the remedy provided by the Creator that He promised to provide to His People in 1 Cor 10:13.

Remember the words given to Joshua in Joshua 1:9, and to Peter by the Messiah in Mt 14:31.

So claim this promise of remedy. Be courageous. Have faith!

Peace.

Doug, as you can see I'm doing some digging and first want to thank you for your contributions here! I wanted to see if you could share with me more information on the Proof of Life and a Solemn Act and Deed and how to properly file these ?