Yes, there is one effective defense -- MIS-TAKE.Originally Posted by itsmymoney
The mistake being that you did not understand LMD was TRANSACTION-BASED!
So you do have a defense for past conduct. But now that you know the facts, you cannot claim the Mistake defense from this point on.
Thank you for this insight. I do not plan to take any 'net pay' deduction going forward since I have court-recorded a demand for all transactions. However, I discussed (via emails) LM with someone fighting for others who are fighting the IRS in non-lawful-money situations. He is well versed in law, but this person did not even know about LM. However, he stated that as long as you earn "wages" (statutory via the coercion of signing a W-4) AND you state a 0-FITW liability that they will 'most certainly come after you' in the future. Well, my 'net pay' deduction did not render a 0-FITW liability but greatly reduced it. With 'all transactions', there is now a 0-FITW liability. I still believe the 1040 LM demand is a slippery slope but I have stepped into the fire if there is one to be lit.
Doug, I have a question for you specifically. You have received your full demand for what, 3 years now? Would you mind disclosing whether those refunds were based on a 1099 or 1040? Other?
A general question: Has anyone received a refund from a 1040 LM return for at least 3 years running?
These are important questions, with many potential consequences at stake if the beast decides as such. This is why I ask.
Thank you.
imm
Last edited by itsmymoney; 04-18-15 at 06:54 PM.
VERY good questions... I have received refunds for over 3 years now, Federal and 4 different States, due to my living on land in one state, working on land in another state and being paid by yet another state, due to W-2 claims by third parties.
Now, what do you suppose that kind of evidence track record avails us as a defense?
Look up "estoppel in pais" and "estoppel" and equitable estoppel".
Now, the bigger question is:
WHY is the Matrix honoring LMD's?
It is more than just 12 USC 411.
That statute was a result of HJR 192 of June 5, 1933.
And HJR 192 was a result of McFadden's charges of theft and treason against FRS and Treasury Officials, on May 23, 1933.
But what prompted the exact wording of HJR 192?
Why did they have to provide a "remedy" for the people of the Birthright?
I believe it is directly connected with creating probable cause to trigger Holyday 2 -- the Miraculous Deliverance of God's People so that they may gather together and fulfill Holyday 3.
If the equitable title to the Birthright is stolen, then God would intervene just as He did in Egypt. Notice the issue was about title then too: "Let my people go!"
The exact Divine line in the sand is in Mt 22:21
This is WHY we must demand lawful money. We must demand our birthright.21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
If they ever stop honoring LMDs, then they know what will happen next, even if we don't!
Last edited by doug555; 04-18-15 at 10:08 PM.
D555, I briefly researched all that you have provided here (I was aware of the term 'estoppel' but not 'in pais' and 'equitable' - it is lawyer-wordy but I get the basic drift). Including HJR-192 of which I would like to comment via these findings (from http://www.educationcenter2000.com/legal/HJR_192.html)...
HJR-192 automatically extended the privilege to renege on debts to every person using the Federal Reserve banking system; however, never forget that when you operate on a privilege, you have to respect the ruler of the giver of that privilege. Furthermore, in the case of Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, the court said: "The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits."
So I believe the above is stating that I can legally opt-out of using the FRS if properly executed, correct? i.e. 'HJR-192 automatically extended the privilege to renege on debts to every person using the FRS'.
Thus, if you avail yourself of any benefits of the public credit system you waive the right to challenge the validity of any statute pertaining to, and conferring "benefits" of this system on the basis of constitutionality.
BUT, if you 'avail yourself' (use, profit from, get an advantage from) of this system, then you are not protected from the privilege of using it (the FRS).
Quite telling. Apparently the opt-out vehicle (statute) is USC 411 (don't want to use FRS system) and also 95(a)(2) - (you can't hold me to the 'debt' and must 'discharge the obligation' that I WOULD have had if I chose to 'avail yourself of any benefits of the public credit system'). Please clarify the above if I am misunderstanding the legalities or operations thereof.
Forgive me here because you weren't completely clear (perhaps by design which I respect your right to do so), but I have to presume that you DID file at least one 1040 for one of those years due to your 'W-2 claims by third parties' comment. Unless of course you were able to circumvent a 1040 despite the 'W-2 claims'. I'm not asking for full disclosure from you but it would be nice to hear from you specifically that 'yes, at least one of those years I filed a 1040'. The 'LM 1040 return for 3-years running' question is relative to the 3-year ASED for assessing a deficiency or additional taxes. Another observation...
There appears to be a conflict between the legal standing by the Supreme Court that "wages" (statutory kind, albeit coerced) is "income", yet the lawful money demand on the 1040 offsets the "wages". The only thing I can think of where these two are tied together regarding taxation is that "wages" is based on "Federal privilege" and "income" is a gain or profit from certain activities and privileges and "Federal income" in this instance (income tax) would seem to be the 'gain and privilege' of using the private currency of the FRS as funneled through the U.S. Treasury. In that regard, anyone using FRN's incurs an excise tax (it can't be a direct tax or it would be Un-Constitutional) of which is a debt obligation.
Now I have mentioned this before on this site: I found it illuminating that you/others here have stated that using FRN's incurs a USAGE FEE. Well, in fact, the 6702 penalties (frivolous return/position) in my IMF from 2008 are listed as a USER FEE. Many of us at Codebusters uncovered this and could not make the connection between what is posted in the official IRS records and how that applied to a 0-wages 1040 return. It now seems to make sense that the 6702 penalty is actually a VALID one as posted. They doctor their records all the time but in this instance it may be legit, i.e. it IS frivolous to say that I had no "wages" because the "wages" were received as FRN's and NOT lawful money. It is still deceptive and non-disclosed, but it would appear to be legit in that sense.
The "wages" thing still bothers me a bit (i.e. 'trumping' and superseding a LM deduction) but when looked upon as I have explained above (if I'm interpreting the "privilege" aspect correctly relative to "wages") then I can see where IRS will kindly move along with 'nothing to see here'.
Thanks for the info you provided, and I'd appreciate a comment on all of the above if you so please.
imm
Pleas
Last edited by itsmymoney; 04-18-15 at 11:03 PM.
1040s were filed for the past 4 consecutive years, as I state on http://1040relief.blogspot.com/
IMO, ALL IRC terms apply only if FRNs are/were being used.
So, do NOT use any of those terms relating to LMD transactions, and derivatives thereof.
I have read your 1040-blogspot many times before but did not refer to it prior to my post, so my apologies for that. Otherwise I would have recognized the filing method (1040) for FOUR years running! Wow. If you were not aware of the ASED (Assessment Statute Expiration Date) relative to your filings (assuming TY 2014 was 1040-filed) then you are free and clear for any non-assessed 'income' taxes (if due) for your 2011 tax year (filed 2012, i.e. 3 years post would be April 15 2015 assuming you filed on time in 2012). So IRS had THREE YEARS to assess that 2011 TY return (and the years following, filed in the same LM-demanded manner) and has fallen silent. That is VERY telling evidence.
Here is how I see it relative to 1040: "wages" is "Federal income" based on "income" defined as gain or profit from certain activities and privileges where the "privilege" is the usage of FRN's that incurs an excise "income tax". If you opt out of the FRS, there is no "privilege" gained or profited from...thus, no "income" therefore no "income tax".
I know my prior post was lengthy, but I'm curious if you agree with my interpretation of HJR-192? (the blue responses).
As always, the education is priceless. Thank you for helping all of us. Bless you.
imm
Last edited by itsmymoney; 04-19-15 at 03:00 AM.
Thanks for your insight about ASED. I was not aware of that. That nails down estoppel, it seems.
As to HJR 192, that article totally leaves out "discharge upon payment" (option 2). Payment here means "paid" to me.
Which means discharge is payment.
Delay of payment (using FRNs) mean no payment/discharge.
Option 2 HAD to exist, otherwise it would impose involuntary servitude, and thereby triggered Divine Intervention in 1933 for their stealing of the Birthright.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote