Diminished Money Counterclaim

[David Merrill]

I believe those questions are answered in the thread here.

[ManOntheLand]

I believe those questions are answered in the thread here.

A suitor may be entitled to FICA refund, but I think it will likely cause problems with Auntie if you claim it on a 1040. I would leave that off a 1040 and use a Form 843 if you want to claim refund of FICA.

When I used to file CTC returns, Hendrickson's method called for the FICA withholding to be included with "income tax" withholding on the line for "federal tax withheld". The reasoning is that it is all federal tax anyway. However, including FICA withholding in the total federal tax withheld on a 1040 is a good way to get your return sent to Ogden (frivolous return program) as it will appear to the IRS return processor that you are demanding more income tax back than was withheld. When I showed a former IRS attorney one of my successful CTC returns, even he was stunned that I actually got a refund of FICA.

According to the 1040 instructions, the "excess FICA" line is intended only for those who worked multiple jobs and ended up having more FICA withheld than would be normal. It is not intended for you to treat all FICA withholding as excess.

I understand that 1040 returns with an LMR deduction actually acknowledge payment of wages (unlike CTC returns) and do not claim zero income per se. But even if IRS accepts your 1040 with an LMR deduction to zero out your taxable income, they will probably have a problem with you claiming a FICA refund on 1040.

Form 843 is the proper form for making a refund claim of FICA, and all they can do is give it to you or refuse it--843 forms are not subject to frivolous penalties. According to the 843 instructions, you are supposed to ask your employer to refund the FICA first, then file 843 if they refuse. I suppose you could skip dealing with the employer and explain on Form 843 that you were not comfortable approaching your employer about it.

After two years of successfully getting FICA refund from my CTC 1040 returns, I finally had a return that was rejected and determined to be frivolous--but later I submitted the same return with only one difference--I did not include FICA amounts in the total tax withheld. That return was accepted and processed.

[David Merrill]

I think you are disingenuous.

[ManOntheLand]

I think you are disingenuous.

Here we go again. How have I offended you this time? Perhaps we can more efficiently work through ideas here if we refrain from attacking each other's motives and focus on the ideas. Or is it just easier to attack me? How are you any better than the Quatloos folks when you resort to such tactics?

What is it you disagree with exactly? The suggestion to use an 843 to claim FICA refund? Or the idea that a suitor is entitled to a refund of FICA in the first place?

I am not sure if a suitor is entitled to refund of FICA or not. But I am pretty sure it is a bad idea to claim such a refund on 1040. I don't want to find out I am not entitled to FICA refund by getting hit with a frivolous return penalty. Thus the 843 suggestion. To be honest, I have not tried it myself. I can tell you that an otherwise frivolous return suddenly became not a frivolous return to IRS when I removed the claim for FICA refund.

I believe you have expressed your position that FICA is a legitimate tax, so maybe that's the problem?

My mental model is this: I believe FICA is legitimate only to the extent there is a transfer with respect to "employment" i.e. a trade or business within the U.S. Based on what I have learned here, other than payment from the employer being a transfer of FRN's, how would a private sector job be a "trade or business within the U.S."?

The employer is liable for the employment taxes. Employer pays half of it, and withholds the other half from your paycheck. On the employer's end, he is taxed for the transfer of FRN's to the employee. On the employee's end it is a tax based on the amount of FRN's being received. If the suitor redeems all such payments for lawful money, then the suitor has not in fact received any "wages" that would subject the suitor to FICA tax.

In any case, I cannot be compelled to participate in FICA. I cannot even be compelled to give the employer a SSN. He may be required to ask for one. He cannot be penalized if I do not provide one. He may be required to withhold FICA regardless. But if I did not provide a number it is pretty clear I am not trying to contribute to SS, and I have every right to a refund of those amounts. Am I missing something?

I really am here to learn. And to share my experiences and conclusions. If you object to what I said, I am all ears.

[David Merrill]

I think it might behoove you to read the thread again.

This new method also builds the suitor into position of the court of record. This is accomplished through building an evidence repository. Pete does not stand on the law and therefore even if he did use an evidence repository all that would do is indict the taxpayer.

[John Howard]

Pete does not stand on the law...

Maybe my interpretation is not quite right. Pete says to the effect wages are earned by those people over there. I opened up my trusty 1983 copy of the Internal Revenue Code and read where it says wages are earned by those people over there. Perhaps I should interpret it to mean wages are earned by everyone, without exception, plus those people over there.

[ManOntheLand]

Maybe my interpretation is not quite right. Pete says to the effect wages are earned by those people over there. I opened up my trusty 1983 copy of the Internal Revenue Code and read where it says wages are earned by those people over there. Perhaps I should interpret it to mean wages are earned by everyone, without exception, plus those people over there.

The Code is written deceptively, no doubt. But based on what I have learned here, it is the transfer of FRN's that confers an actual "trade or business within the United States" nexus to otherwise private sector employment. Pete does not recognize this nexus (in fact he has disparaged this idea) and therefore Pete is left to conclude that the tax scheme as applied to private sector workers lacks any real legal basis, and depends entirely on false paperwork the worker is forced to sign to create the illusion he is working in the public sector. It turns out everybody being paid wages in FRN's is receiving "wages" under IRC 3401 and 3121. The argument about what "includes" means becomes irrelevant if you realize that you are actually one of those "people over there" due to the FRN's.

[John Howard]

Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established.

I have been searching for the red line, which Auntie IRiS can not cross for thirty years. I thought I had found it in Pete's books. I thought I had found it previously. Only for the last two years has Auntie been nice to me. I think I found the red line.

[David Merrill]

Now Pete's wife is indicted - but for contempt of court. A slam-dunk that has nothing to do with the merits of Cracking the Code.

Pete's method depends exclusively on the Right to be Heard - the inverse of denying access to the courts in an administrative setting. The IRS re-assesses based on a 1099 or W-4 Form. There is no law behind any defense. Pete's defense is to banish anybody who attempts to warn others from his Lost Horizons website. There are gobs of people in trouble who would like to remove their Treasury Check Refund from his website who cannot.

[John Howard]

What a shame. She is to be punished for NOT committing perjury. The feds should be required to say " you are wrong in your testimony, and here is why." But then the cat would be out of the bag.

[David Lyn]

It is disgusting. Provide testimony you don't believe or go to jail

[Chex]

P.S. There might be another reason this suitor does not have standing to sue. All the Libels of Review are dismissed out as gibberish but if one reads Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph VINING it is revealed that one coming to court in his or her true name lacks standing except as a class action.

I have been toying with the idea that people (suitors) who know their names and redeem lawful money might salvage this case as a class?

Which is why it is so frustrating that the cowardly judge will not generate the Order. What shows up on PACER is nothing but a clerk generated rumor.

There you go (Two) people, Legal Identity and true name.

How many people are needed to bring a class action? By: LawInfo
A single person who has been injured may bring a class action on behalf of everyone who has been harmed. It is common, however, after the action has been started for many other injured people to join the class suit. In some situations, there may be a minimum number of class members specified by law in order for the lawsuit to proceed as a class action. http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/lega...a-class-a.htmlas the key element is the jurisdiction that the court has over the defendant.

The ancestor of the class action was what modern observers call "group litigation," which appears to have been quite common in medieval England from about 1200 onward.[10] These lawsuits involved groups of people either suing or being sued in actions at common law.

These groups were usually based on existing societal structures like villages, towns, parishes, and guilds. What is striking about these early cases is that unlike modern courts, the medieval English courts never questioned the right of the actual plaintiffs to sue on behalf of a group or a few representatives to defend an entire group.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 addresses these concerns. Coupon settlements may be scrutinized by an independent expert before judicial approval in order to ensure that the settlement will be of value to the class members (28 U.S.C.A. 1712(d)).

Further, if the action provides for settlement in coupons (LOL Federal Reserve Notes ), the attorney must take a corresponding part of his fee in coupons (i.e. More Federal Reserve Notes). 28 U.S.C.A. 1712(a). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action

Good advice: Send notices to all potential plaintiffs of the class action suit. You (and your attorney) are responsible for doing this in a timely manner. The defendants must provide any names and addresses you request. Ask your legal team to publish your notices in national publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal so you can reach more potential plaintiffs. http://www.ehow.com/how_7697816_star...n-lawsuit.html

Punitive damages are a form of punishment for the company committing the illegal acts, or causing harm. Punitive damages in large lawsuits can be particularly high, when it is demonstrated the company has shown great disregard for the health, safety or emotional well being of the plaintiffs. http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-cl...on-lawsuit.htm

[David Merrill]

Thanks for this research. It agrees with my source on it, another perspective; Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph VINING.

I proposed this to the brain trust but was not very encouraging about it. For years I have considered myself (in brain trust with hundreds of suitors) to be regulating carefully controlled release valves for the highly compressed information infrastructure called "money". Debt has no value but what you can fool people into believing it has. If the paper were backed like US notes allegedly still are then that myth would have a little redemption value. If everybody found out and would give it some consideration - that debt through endorsement is the only value of the money system globally - then the entire thing would collapse, implode, overnight.

That would be thrilling for me to watch, world events coinciding exactly with my/our orchestrations but I do not want to be prodded into it by my fascination about the power. There is also the factor how we see what we are expecting and that is not very scientific so I want to try this when there are enough stable controls in the system that I can be confident it is indeed suitor class action at play.

This bill of exchange is still going unchallenged, even though it came to judgment on September 11, 2001 after 30-Day Default. Even so, this claim on the original estate serves only as a crutch (Step 3: Instructions at the end) until the suitor begins to understand a little more about the transfer of authority (metaphysics).

[ManOntheLand]

Perhaps a lawsuit for fraud could be made against the United States for using the word "dollar" on its notes, when the dollar is defined in federal law as a given weight of gold, and U.S. Notes by law cannot be redeemed for gold?

You would have to ask the Secretary to give you "dollars" i.e. gold corresponding with the amount of United States "dollars" on the bills you present, and sue for fraud if they refuse to give you "dollars".

The Federal Reserve seems to define a "dollar" as nothing more than a dollar U.S. Note. But the U.S. defines a dollar even today as a given weight of gold.

[David Merrill]

There is probably a long history of denials of culpability on many such cases. I think mainly that there is no definition for "money of account" by Congress - something of that sort.