Treasury Letter from 1984

[doug555]

IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

IMO, a "letter" does not fit the Hearsay Rule Exception (6)(B).

IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

Nothing from the Corporations is "paid in Lawful Money". They all offer only FRNs. We must always redeem all of that after those transactions occur. IMO, that is what the annual 1040 "accounting" is for. Gross Pay must be demanded in lawful money -- NOT Net Pay. Do NOT also include Net Pay in your total... to me that would be "double-dipping" IMO.


IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

YES. IMO, those Employment Taxes amounts were rightly presumed to be FRNs and should be redeemed. Don't you agree?

But you cannot expect a refund of that because you are contracting to get its benefit, aren't you?

If I am wrong on this, please, everyone on this blog, raise your objections.

Listen, if you do not understand this, you will be easy picking for anyone to come along and trap you into admitting you committed a "crime" when you actually didn't.

Just read George Orwell's 1984... 2+2=5. Right?