Supporting Schedule for the 1040 Form

[EZrhythm]

Can't wait until next year when I can claim all my income as Lawful Money.

Next year? Why wait when you may claim "lawful money" on all "income" this year? I would file an amended return and claim all funds as "lawful money". I would add "nunc pro tunc" if I felt the desire to do so or issue Notice of Claim of Lawful Money that indicates my claim dating back as far as I see fit. I would even go back three years and file a return for all such funds contributed as said "tax".

[Chex]

There you go, that's the way to do it.

[doug555]

Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form

Above example is obsolete. Use new TEMPLATE at:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8...URWel9RTDJFOVk

[doug555]

Next year? Why wait when you may claim "lawful money" on all "income" this year? I would file an amended return and claim all funds as "lawful money". I would add "nunc pro tunc" if I felt the desire to do so or issue Notice of Claim of Lawful Money that indicates my claim dating back as far as I see fit. I would even go back three years and file a return for all such funds contributed as said "tax".

IMO, "nunc pro tunc" is a flagged keyword for labeling a return as "frivolous".

That money has already been ratified as FRNs by your not timely posting the redemption of it on the 1040 form for that year.

One cannot claim fraud when the remedy was always there in the Federal Reserve Act, in HJR 192, and in 12 USC 411 in plain sight.

[Michael Joseph]

IMO, "nunc pro tunc" is a flagged keyword for labeling a return as "frivolous".

That money has already been ratified as FRNs by your not timely posting the redemption of it on the 1040 form for that year.

One cannot claim fraud when the remedy was always there in the Federal Reserve Act, in HJR 192, and in 12 USC 411 in plain sight.

Exactly. I can't tell you how many folks I have had to help out of the hole they dug for themselves with this nunc pro tunc stuff. I have no problem signing things nunc pro tunc as long as it only affects me but once third parties are affected by my actions I refrain from such. This is the nature of "being thy brother's keeper". If my brother has eaten and enjoyed upon his table based upon my deed who am I to annul my deed after the fact - that seems to me the opposite of equity.

I am in accord with you regarding claim of fraud for one claiming fraud who is complicit in the game points the finger at himself. Seems like a house divided to me.

The following is my opinion only: Once the Use is exercised - even in ignorance - then the obligation inures upon the User. Since the Use transferred to a grantee/trustee the Cestui Que Use requires of its trustees to give account [once a year] of the benefit. Folks around here call that a return. Since the notes a private credit instruments 3rd party to the State, the collection is also INTERNAL to that Trust. The State stands surety for the entire game just as 12USC412 tells us.

Consider now if one endorses said 3rd party central bank then one becomes Trustee. Now consider for a moment what happens when Trustee contracts with Trustee. Who do you think has the rule? See how we Re-VENUE ourselves into Overlay Districts wherein we may no longer claim certain protections? For at once the Constitution wars against us at Article I Section X. With choice most, including myself, choose death. But no longer. I choose Life - I choose to fish out of the RIGHT SIDE of the Boat. For look closely at Washington's head. See he is the Alpha and he is flanked by an Omega. And upon his head is an Alter.

And guess what dear reader - do you Sacrifice upon that Alter and of which Boat do you fish - Left or Right? In other words - I have no further than to look in the mirror for it was My Sacrifice.

Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

Lev 5:3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.

And Jesus said - it does not defile a man what goes into his mouth [Mind] it defiles a man what comes out of his mouth [Mind]. Thusly it is our deeds which defile us - and of course our deeds are predicated upon Mind. For Mind was before Matter.

Hogslop in tends to bring Hogslop out. Thusly is the MIND reformed and transformed. And I give thanks to the School Teacher in money for before I understood it kicked my rear end - but now I know - I am my brothers keeper. I serve him and her with my choice. I choose life. For me and you!


Shalom,
MJ

[David Merrill]

Experience as intelligence nexus for the brain trust, the nunc pro tunc approach of declaring fraud worked well for about three years. Then no longer at all.

I agree with Michael Joseph. Or as I have been saying, the bankers have been banking on your signature. It is like they remembered the old addage; Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[Bentley]

Has anyone had experience making 12 USC411, 95a(2) claims of Lawful money demands on funds paid out via a 433-D agreement forced upon someone so as to avoid a levy? Is it reasonable to conclude that monies deposited during the year via lawful money deposited in an account that the IRS draws from to satisfy the 433-D agreement can be re-claimed via la lawful money demand on the following year's filing of the 1040?

Thanks, Bentley

[David Merrill]

These signature agreements are taken quite seriously. That seems to be a big point, and point of contention as I have two trusts where beneficiaries go into dishonor, and the court system will only uphold the banker's side of agreements. The court system is vacant bonding because there are not valid oaths of office. [This is being hashed in more depth on www.lawfulmoneytrust.com where we can regulate the education value more precisely.]

Get a look at the Form.

It would be great if somebody has this experience you wish to seek learn from. Please don't let my interjection stop people from chiming in.

[ag maniac]

I'm gonna chime in about a minor adjustment to making claims to 12USC95a(2)

12 USC 95a is now omitted.....

....and found again at 50 USC 4305 (b)(2).

[David Merrill]

Thank you.

I point out too, that it would seem to be a graduate student at Cornell Law School who made the change. If it were Congress then it would show up in the Notes as an amendment or repeal.

[ag maniac]

Quite right DM......it still shows @ gpo.gov

[David Merrill]

Thank you for that. This is interesting... legislating from a law school website.

What next!


This really makes me wonder if the grad student IT guy or gal is reading here? I wonder if I should report this to Cornell!

[David Merrill]

P.S. I got email addresses from this Page. The Subject is "Breach of Trust".

Which is to presume that Cornell Law is a trusted website to begin with.

I find it a bit disturbing that, let's presume for now an IT grad student is presuming to legislate for Congress... by "Omitting" statutes from the US Code.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a

Please note that Congress has not omitted that statute.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title12/USCODE-2011-title12-chap2-subchapIV-sec95a

It started bothering me enough to mention it. Please keep the law you display on your website coherent with the actual law.


Thank you.
David Merrill.

[Bentley]

David,

Yes, the 433-D is an 'Installment agreement' with the IRS but there are multiple issues with this form, and the IRS for that matter.

1. The form says "Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service" but this clearly violates Treasury Order 150-06. Treasury Order 150-06, issued in 2005,
cancelled the Internal Revenue Service designation over 10 years ago. The T.O. issued in 2005 cancelled the order of 1953 which renamed The Bureau of Internal Revenue to the Internal Revenue Service. Now it is just an 'entity' as the treasury order plainly states. Perhaps IRS agents should be called Entity agents. See https://www.treasury.gov/about/role-.../to150-06.aspx

2. Treasury Order 150-02, https://www.treasury.gov/about/role-.../to150-02.aspx relating to the current Organization and Functions of the Internal Revenue Service, was also cancelled. This occurred in 2006. It cancelled the treasury order issued in 2001 that defined the existing Area structure we find today. None of the IRS organization should be in existence, but it is. Here is but one example, that of the SB/SE Area. https://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-01_IRB/apd.html

3. The IRS as we know it does not have a valid charter. The last one on file was signed in 2010 by Commissioner Shulman. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/irpa...al_charter.pdf

For these reasons, and others too numerous to list here, renders the 433-D form (and ALL 1040s) a fraudulent document, in violation of 26 USC 7207. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7207

Perhaps Americans should protect themselves by employing this technique found here: http://www.newstruth.co.uk/how-to-si...ing-liability/

Regards, Bentley

[David Merrill]

Well, we found 95a. I have not heard back from Cornell Law staff.

What kind of claim were you thinking of drafting? I am thinking if you demand lawful money though, you would leave it to the IRS to deduct the refund off the settlement agreement.