1st Return Redeeming Lawful Money

[Chex]

You both have different scenarios.

[froze25]

I can certainly see the need to bash Lawful Money, to make it look like it doesn't work. Not my cup of tea but someone must play that role; understood. The banksters can't have thousands of taxpayers filing Lawful Money tax returns - they work TOO WELL!

Just to be clear I am not bashing, if anything I am trying to prepare to make the Lawful Money deduction execute as I intended. I wish to do this so that I can enjoy the fruits of my labor.

[JohnnyCash]

IRS refund sent!



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.

http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_1.jpg

http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_2.jpg

http://ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_3.jpg

http://ctcwarrior.com/status1.jpg

http://ctcwarrior.com/status2.jpg

http://ctcwarrior.com/status3.jpg

Culminating in the refund to bank account on March 25th:

http://ctcwarrior.com/refund2013.jpg

THANKS EVERYONE!

[David Neil]

Congratulations.
I have just begun. I have redeemed lawful money on 3 paychecks. I did not sign my name anywhere on the check just the demand. They have all been credited to my account. Now I just need to wait for next year. In the mean time I procrastinate filling in this years return

[EZrhythm]

Why are you waiting for next year? Why not demand lawful money "nunc pro tunc" this year and years past and collect those refunds!

[froze25]

I have still not received the letter from the IRS as they indicated on their website. Has anyone else gotten this from the IRS, if so how did you respond?

[David Neil]

Why are you waiting for next year? Why not demand lawful money "nunc pro tunc" this year and years past and collect those refunds!

I am not sure of this mechanism. I have not set up a repository/court. I have also read posts that this was done successfully in the past but the IRS is no longer obliging this type of return.

Any recent success stories regarding "nunc pro tunc" on a return that has no precedent of actual demand for that tax year?

[froze25]

Ok, I got the letter from the IRS, Here it is suggested replies?

Temporarily Deleted

[Moxie]

One part of the letter says, "your position has no basis in law, IRC bla bla bla" which of course is not true law.

So I wonder if it's a matter of passing the "hot potato" back to them with a rebuttal letter?

And the word "may" as in "may file a bla bla bla against you" seems to imply a possibility, but no real commitment, like the obnoxious yapping neighborhood dog that barks at every little thing but never attacks, never catches the squirrel, etc..

[David Merrill]

Suitors with an evidence repository have had success by adding to the Clerk Instruction (Refusal for Cause):



I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money that I am doing.

But that is with a Libel of Review for an evidence repository and properly refusing for cause the FrivPen warning letter.

May I suggest:

Your letter postdated April 5, 2014 stating that I have filed a frivolous Tax Return confuses me. I have been making demand for redeemed lawful money most of the tax year 2013 and therefore should be getting nearly a full refund of all withholdings. Additionally I have examined the citations you have included in your letter and there is no connection with the process of redeeming lawful money that I am doing. Please explain exactly where on the Memorandum of 40 Frivolous Arguments you find the Remedy I am using and respond immediately BEFORE charging me a $5,000 Frivolous Penalty.

[Michael Joseph]

Ok, I got the letter from the IRS, Here it is suggested replies?
[ATTACH]1596[/ATTACH]
Temporarily Deleted
[ATTACH]1598[/ATTACH]

froze do not listen to those who would tell you to NOT respond to this as it is just gobbygook. The IRS has convened a common law court in Admiralty and the matter is being heard RIGHT NOW. If you do not respond within 30 days, THEN you will be considered to be in default. And judgement is a matter of Res Judicata. You bring judgment in your silence. Therefore do not remain silent.

I have no idea what you sent them however you are now at a cross roads. If it was me I would write the agent to find out WHY the filing was frivolous - BECAUSE according to your records you deem it to be fine. They made a Claim - and if you remain silent their claim stands. So you write back - Counter Claim. In fact you are the accommodation party in this contract IF you have been endorsing the Federal Reserve System. So as such, it appears that you have an obligation. so what is it?

Are you or are you not? If you have kept your records, then maybe you send the agent a copy of front/back of check from beginning, middle and end of year cycle. Shows sustained performance. But read carefully - if you remain silent then you bring judgment on your own head.

Don't get wrapped around the axle - they beleive you to have an obligation - which you may or may not have. In trust law the trustee is PRESUMED guilty and must show his innocence. So are you righteous or not? If so you had best write back and prove it from within your Court of Record!


THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECENT CORRESPONDENCE - I HAVE EXAMINED IT VERY CAREFULLY AND FOR THE LIFE OF ME I CANNOT FIND WHERE MAKING A DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411 IS A FRIVOLOUS POSITION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER, I HAVE ATTACHED A SAMPLE OF DEMANDS FOR YOUR CONTEMPLATION - IF I CAN BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE - PLEASE ADVISE.

shalom,
MJ

P.S. I just saw David Merrill's post and I am in agreement.

[froze25]

froze do not listen to those who would tell you to NOT respond to this as it is just gobbygook. The IRS has convened a common law court in Admiralty and the matter is being heard RIGHT NOW. If you do not respond within 30 days, THEN you will be considered to be in default. And judgement is a matter of Res Judicata. You bring judgment in your silence. Therefore do not remain silent.

I have no idea what you sent them however you are now at a cross roads. If it was me I would write the agent to find out WHY the filing was frivolous - BECAUSE according to your records you deem it to be fine. They made a Claim - and if you remain silent their claim stands. So you write back - Counter Claim. In fact you are the accommodation party in this contract IF you have been endorsing the Federal Reserve System. So as such, it appears that you have an obligation. so what is it?

Are you or are you not? If you have kept your records, then maybe you send the agent a copy of front/back of check from beginning, middle and end of year cycle. Shows sustained performance. But read carefully - if you remain silent then you bring judgment on your own head.

Don't get wrapped around the axle - they beleive you to have an obligation - which you may or may not have. In trust law the trustee is PRESUMED guilty and must show his innocence. So are you righteous or not? If so you had best write back and prove it from within your Court of Record!


THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECENT CORRESPONDENCE - I HAVE EXAMINED IT VERY CAREFULLY AND FOR THE LIFE OF ME I CANNOT FIND WHERE MAKING A DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411 IS A FRIVOLOUS POSITION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER, I HAVE ATTACHED A SAMPLE OF DEMANDS FOR YOUR CONTEMPLATION - IF I CAN BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE - PLEASE ADVISE.

shalom,
MJ

P.S. I just saw David Merrill's post and I am in agreement.

Michael if you look at the earlier posts I made in this thread you can see exactly what I sent them. I have posted everything in my process here. Check page 1 and 2 of this thread. Thank you for your response I do agree with you to rebut the presumption.

[froze25]

Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2008-4.

On the letter that was sent to me it states "review the enclosed Publication 2105 (Why do I have to pay taxes)". Publication 2105 was not included in the letter but I went on irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf

[David Neil]

I am not sure of this mechanism. I have not set up a repository/court. I have also read posts that this was done successfully in the past but the IRS is no longer obliging this type of return.

Any recent success stories regarding "nunc pro tunc" on a return that has no precedent of actual demand for that tax year?

Based on the travails of froze25 and the documents he cited I found this:


I will therefore not use this for my current tax year. I will make a valid lawful money deduction based on my evidence repository.

Froze25:
Did you include your affidavit "In Support of Lawful Money". If so I wonder if they are using that document to qualify for "other document submitted to the Service" That affidavit uses the term "nunc pro tunc"?

[froze25]

Based on the travails of froze25 and the documents he cited I found this:


I will therefore not use this for my current tax year. I will make a valid lawful money deduction based on my evidence repository.

Froze25:
Did you include your affidavit "In Support of Lawful Money". If so I wonder if they are using that document to qualify for "other document submitted to the Service" That affidavit uses the term "nunc pro tunc"?

David Neil, I did not sent that in with my return so they do not have a document with "nunc pro tunc"