If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. If you would like to post in these forums please send a PM directly to David Merrill.
All transactions on PayPal and elsewhere are demanded to be redeemed in lawful money as found in Section 16 of the Fed Act and at Title 12 USC 411.
Thank you so much for enjoying StSC! If you are getting popups please try clearing your browser cache.
Hmm, just wondering -- because the Suitor is no longer endorsing private credit, how can they still be a taxpayer? Isn't the whole idea to avoid paying the user fee for private credit and get the tax refund?
Would be nice to read more of EZ's view about the nunc pro tunc he mentioned.
It's easier to fool people than to convince people they've been fooled. ~ Mark Twain
My take here is that "froze25" has conspired to slur lawful money redemption. A setup from the get-go to portray REDEEMING LAWFUL MONEY in a bad light. This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.
Beautiful example of a LAWFUL MONEY Federal Income Tax Return filing for 2013. Note that a matching Form W2 was attached. Also, filer received a Form 1099 for the year with an amount in the tens of thousands but none of it was entered on the 1040.
My take here is that "froze25" has conspired to slur lawful money redemption. A setup from the get-go to portray REDEEMING LAWFUL MONEY in a bad light. This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.
Stonefree, what I'm trying too do is get a full refund after receiving a semi threatening letter from the IRS, believe it or not that is what I am doing. With some luck this thread will help others to do the same even with threatening letters. That is why I'm attempting to document my experience. Can you show some examples of yours?
Froze, here is your explanation in full for the IRS. You may find some or all of it useful in your reply.
I am an American Citizen by being born within the territory of the Union States (jus soli), and born to parents who were also American Citizens (jus patria). As an American Citizen I have certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the ownership of property. Just because the United States of America Corporation (federal government) issued a transmitting utility for me (YOUR FULL NAME) for my use in participating in the public trust, I never voluntarily and knowingly surrendered any of my unalienable rights for a commercial contract (see eg, NCGS 25-1.308 of the UCC), a practice deplored by the United Nations International Covenant on Enforcement of Individual Civil Rights (the ICEICR, now adopted by 176 nations). And since citizenship is a First Amendment right, I chose this past tax year to keep some of the fruits of my labor, which cannot be taxed by the IRS, as the living man has an unalienable right to earn his living through his labor. The use of lawful money is a formal way to rebut the presumption that I have agreed to be a debt slave to the corporate government. Since lawful money is issued by the US Treasury more or less in accordance with the Constitution, it is outside the purview of the IRS, which can only collect a privilege tax on monies gifted to the public trust through the transmitting utility, with endorsement of Federal Reserve credit (sight notes of zero maturity), and thus dealing in private securities, being the privilege. There is nothing frivolous about asserting my rights to retain the fruits of my labor. After all, paying income taxes is voluntary, as is participation in the public trust, and thus volunteering to commit all my property and labor as surety for the onerous national debt.
Yeah, and I forgot to include the matching W2. As an eyewitness to the events, I can testify that redeeming lawful money works. Saw the original untouched documents myself. So here is the full example of 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money from a W2 taxpayer:
Yeah, and I forgot to include the matching W2. As an eyewitness to the events, I can testify that redeeming lawful money works. Saw the original untouched documents myself. So here is the full example of 1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money from a W2 taxpayer:
Congratulations on your success, was the 3 page of your return, the one that shows other income one of the IRS's forms or did you make it yourself? That is the only fundamental difference I see between your 1040 and mine. Also I see you only attached one check, I sent all of mine.
Ok, I got the letter from the IRS, Here it is suggested replies?
[ATTACH]1596[/ATTACH]
Temporarily Deleted
[ATTACH]1598[/ATTACH]
I have to agree with Micheal Joseph that you must re-butt their proposal within 30 days or else you lose by default.
I appears that there have sent a proposed NEW contract to your all capitals Strawman in the hopes that you answer the letter, which in reality would be an acceptance to contract with them, which binds you back into their Jurisdiction.
Remember, they can not prosecute you outside of their Jurisdiction
It seems to me the best thing you could do is write across their letter in big bold red letters:
THAT'S NOT ME
REFUSED FOR CAUSE
Then get it Notarized and send it back registered mail receipt requested for your records
I may be wrong with my thinking so hopefully others on here can chime in
I have to agree with Micheal Joseph that you must re-butt their proposal within 30 days or else you lose by default.
I appears that there have sent a proposed NEW contract to your all capitals Strawman in the hopes that you answer the letter, which in reality would be an acceptance to contract with them, which binds you back into their Jurisdiction.
Remember, they can not prosecute you outside of their Jurisdiction
It seems to me the best thing you could do is write across their letter in big bold red letters:
THAT'S NOT ME
REFUSED FOR CAUSE
Then get it Notarized and send it back registered mail receipt requested for your records
I may be wrong with my thinking so hopefully others on here can chime in
This not legal advise, it is only my opinion
I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).
I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).
What would you expect them to say about it?
Remember, they are willing to lie to you in order to get you into their Jurisdiction
Like I said, hopefully others [like DM or MJ] will chime in
I agree with what you are saying but that kinda implies the existence of the Straw-man (that I believe to be true). In their own documents they list that as a flag for frivolous filings. In other words it may be too much truth for them. So I will stick to my letter that does rebut their proposal while still working towards resolution (not arguing).
This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.
How does one discern between an "agent sent to dissuade" and a student making innocent comments or innocent mistakes in their learning process?
And I wonder how many innocent people have been driven away from these forums in the midst of their studies, never to return, all because some assumed them to be an agent based on the above. This is tragic. Even shameful.
It's easier to fool people than to convince people they've been fooled. ~ Mark Twain
This indicates David Merrill is dangerously correct and the malicious (banking) element has sent agents here to dissuade the public. Very encouraging! And the JohnnyCash example adds some weight with the matching "55" shown on the return.
How does one discern between an "agent sent to dissuade" and a student making innocent comments or innocent mistakes in their learning process?
And I wonder how many innocent people have been driven away from these forums in the midst of their studies, never to return, all because some assumed them to be an agent based on the above. This is tragic. Even shameful.
It's easier to fool people than to convince people they've been fooled. ~ Mark Twain
Agreed, you MUST respond. Having seen multiple copies of this letter (thanks Pete/CTC), it's imperative you write, notarize, registered mail w receipt to Ogden. Once you receive the receipt, CALL and follow up w Odgen. Load Skype and an MP3 recorder that records automatically when a call is placed w Skype. Get names, ID #s, etc. Follow w another letter to the one you spoke with (again, notarize, registered mail w receipt) about your phone conversation. Even this may not be enough to stop a letter from Maureen Green, charging the penalty. However, you have a "name" to pursue if it becomes necessary. The key is stop the train before the ACS (Automated Collection System) kicks in.
BTW, it's documented (by others) that the frivpen is actually a "User Fee" based on their own codes. Credit to "woody" on that one.
Tweet
Comment