Lawful Money Stops IRS Proposal

[lorne]

I would like to share my experience with the Saving To Suitors Club. The IRS said they'd get back to me about my lawful money tax return within 60 days, but they have not even allowing time for mailing. No response.

Made about $40k at job (W2) and about $28k at side business (1099) for the year. I put a minus $15k on Line 21 of the 1040 return (paychecks redeemed in Lawful Money). None of the side business income was entered on the return as it was all redeemed lawful money.
Tax return filed: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny1.jpg

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny2.jpg

It is likely the IRS computer finally detected the reported 1099 business income was NOT included on my 1040 return, and they sent this CP2000 proposal of $10k due: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_1.jpg

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_2.jpg

My letter back to them essentially said, no I don't agree with your proposal, the reported 1099 amounts were all redeemed lawful money and here attached are copies of the LM checks, front and back.

IRS response: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/LTR4.jpg

Since then: [crickets]

To be sure, I also requested and just received this Account Transcript showing a zero balance due on the account: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/Transcript724.jpg

This confirms David Merrill is correct. Lawful money is not neccesarily taxable income. Thank you.

You are quite welcome. Now 2018 and an important lesson is that the Withholdings amount should match the Claim. That is to say do not try to get a refund back that is any different that what is on account as withholdings. The 1040 Form is complicated even if you use it for reporting use of private credit like it is designed.

The only amount due for you to claim is the withholdings. So exemptions might be shown on the Form, but they are irrelevant for calculating the amount of the refund. The claim for a refund should match exactly the amount of the total withholdings on all the W-2's. Which should be considered like an account.

[allodial]

Thanks for sharing. Principal is not taxed. Interest is.

[Michael Joseph]

I would like to share my experience with the Saving To Suitors Club. The IRS said they'd get back to me about my lawful money tax return within 60 days, but they have not even allowing time for mailing. No response.

Made about $40k at job (W2) and about $28k at side business (1099) for the year. I put a minus $15k on Line 21 of the 1040 return (paychecks redeemed in Lawful Money). None of the side business income was entered on the return as it was all redeemed lawful money.
Tax return filed: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny1.jpg

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny2.jpg

It is likely the IRS computer finally detected the reported 1099 business income was NOT included on my 1040 return, and they sent this CP2000 proposal of $10k due: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_1.jpg

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_2.jpg

My letter back to them essentially said, no I don't agree with your proposal, the reported 1099 amounts were all redeemed lawful money and here attached are copies of the LM checks, front and back.

IRS response: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/LTR4.jpg

Since then: [crickets]

To be sure, I also requested and just received this Account Transcript showing a zero balance due on the account: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/Transcript724.jpg

This confirms David Merrill is correct. Lawful money is not neccesarily taxable income. Thank you.

I like that. The notes in circulation have trustees in place to understand. Any new credit created by fractional reserve banking practices requires an accommodation party. Thusly the signature on the back of the private financial instrument commonly called a cheque.

The experience shared by lorne has been my experience. Can you imagine what would happen if agents for IRS came back with a "yes you are exactly right, you got us. We give up". A response like that would spread almost instantaneously around the globe. No it is better for the business plan to just fall silent.

When they tried to levy a 10k friv. filing penalty - two letters and two phone calls and all I get is crickets....

I suppose it is the nature of curiosity that we have a need to feel vindicated at the end of the day as if we are not yet sure unless someone else tells us we are right. But at once that is an immediate trap. For if I come seeking judgment from you, then I have placed my trust in you and by my submission to you for judgment, I am now subject to your rulings. Silence is wonderful.

Smile and waive boys - just smile and waive. When told recently by a local attorney that I should be very afraid, I responded "you're not very smart are you." He actually brought up their poster boy "Wesley Snipes". I asked did you study his case? He responded no. I said "he tried to tap the stock of a bankrupt company." Like I say, when fear is gone there is no control mechanism left - save a gun.

Thusly is the importance of education. For the greatest in the Kingdom is the servant.

Make it a great day!
MJ


P.S. It looks like Maureen thinks he/she/it can give you an offer. Can he/she/it? I mean you don't have to do a thing, just sit back and relax while we determine your fate. Is that right? Is that what you will do? Is there not a cause whereof one should refuse such offer? Is your claim/demand valid or not? Only you can tell. Many may show, but only you can know. For it is your claim and your's alone. And therefore, only you know if the claim/demand is valid.

TAKE - implies abandonment.

[xparte]

fly on the wall all I get is crickets...if the Tax question is repeated refer to first decision from Internal affairs classafied silent service silence is golden

[lorne]

The experience shared by lorne has been my experience. Can you imagine what would happen if agents for IRS came back with a "yes you are exactly right, you got us. We give up". A response like that would spread almost instantaneously around the globe. No it is better for the business plan to just fall silent.

Exactly. The secret is out. Tell all your friends.

[itsmymoney]

I like that. The notes in circulation have trustees in place to understand. Any new credit created by fractional reserve banking practices requires an accommodation party. Thusly the signature on the back of the private financial instrument commonly called a cheque.

The experience shared by lorne has been my experience. Can you imagine what would happen if agents for IRS came back with a "yes you are exactly right, you got us. We give up". A response like that would spread almost instantaneously around the globe. No it is better for the business plan to just fall silent.

When they tried to levy a 10k friv. filing penalty - two letters and two phone calls and all I get is crickets....

I suppose it is the nature of curiosity that we have a need to feel vindicated at the end of the day as if we are not yet sure unless someone else tells us we are right. But at once that is an immediate trap. For if I come seeking judgment from you, then I have placed my trust in you and by my submission to you for judgment, I am now subject to your rulings. Silence is wonderful.

Smile and waive boys - just smile and waive. When told recently by a local attorney that I should be very afraid, I responded "you're not very smart are you." He actually brought up their poster boy "Wesley Snipes". I asked did you study his case? He responded no. I said "he tried to tap the stock of a bankrupt company." Like I say, when fear is gone there is no control mechanism left - save a gun.

Thusly is the importance of education. For the greatest in the Kingdom is the servant.

Make it a great day!
MJ


P.S. It looks like Maureen thinks he/she/it can give you an offer. Can he/she/it? I mean you don't have to do a thing, just sit back and relax while we determine your fate. Is that right? Is that what you will do? Is there not a cause whereof one should refuse such offer? Is your claim/demand valid or not? Only you can tell. Many may show, but only you can know. For it is your claim and your's alone. And therefore, only you know if the claim/demand is valid.

TAKE - implies abandonment.

Michael,

You obviously know your way around such things. I have not been so lucky...

I am currently faced with a CP15 'pay us 5k' letter for a 'frivolous' return. I have about 8 days to respond. I filed a 2013 sheeple return and was paid. I then filed a 1040x amended return with a LM deduction. I believe I should have started a LM deduction with the 2014 return of which the LM deduction was honored; however I'm sure I will see a CP2000 at some point for 'unpaid taxes'.

Their initial 3176C letter ('we have identified your return as frivolous') I responded to 3 months ago with a denial of any liability and simultaneously rescinded that amended return (the 3176C language states I may rescind and send a 'corrected' return). However, the 'corrected' return is actually the original return already refunded. They recently assessed the 5k penalty anyway, I presume because I was ALREADY paid a refund from the original 2013 return. They will do anything to steal your money.

There is not much recourse but I thought someone might have suggestions as to my response. I was rushed into the 3176C response due to a family illness and I may have lost my 'right of inquiry' window to stall them. The CP15 is an actual 'invoice' from their MFT 55 'penalty' module in the IMF system. Insidious, but there it is. However, I believe there is a 'mistake' statute that may come into play here. Doug555 mentioned it somewhere in this forum and I need to find it to see if it might apply - D555 if you have that statute handy please forward if possible.

Any other thoughts are welcome.

Thanks.

[Michael Joseph]

Michael,

You obviously know your way around such things. I have not been so lucky...

I am currently faced with a CP15 'pay us 5k' letter for a 'frivolous' return. I have about 8 days to respond. I filed a 2013 sheeple return and was paid. I then filed a 1040x amended return with a LM deduction. I believe I should have started a LM deduction with the 2014 return of which the LM deduction was honored; however I'm sure I will see a CP2000 at some point for 'unpaid taxes'.

Their initial 3176C letter ('we have identified your return as frivolous') I responded to 3 months ago with a denial of any liability and simultaneously rescinded that amended return (the 3176C language states I may rescind and send a 'corrected' return). However, the 'corrected' return is actually the original return already refunded. They recently assessed the 5k penalty anyway, I presume because I was ALREADY paid a refund from the original 2013 return. They will do anything to steal your money.

There is not much recourse but I thought someone might have suggestions as to my response. I was rushed into the 3176C response due to a family illness and I may have lost my 'right of inquiry' window to stall them. The CP15 is an actual 'invoice' from their MFT 55 'penalty' module in the IMF system. Insidious, but there it is. However, I believe there is a 'mistake' statute that may come into play here. Doug555 mentioned it somewhere in this forum and I need to find it to see if it might apply - D555 if you have that statute handy please forward if possible.

Any other thoughts are welcome.

Thanks.

Just stick to the facts and be unwilling to swerve from the truth. Simply put refuse to leave the battlefield of words. As such, there is no need to be alarmed at the clerks on the other end of the phone. In the end you will eventually come to see that "it is NOT your money".

Money is for the USE subject to the Statute. There exists trustees to understand the issue of money - but those who endorse fractional reserve banking accommodate that system. I have lost much in my struggle for truth but then too, I have gained much. The answer is simple - I demand lawful money and I refuse to understand any new private credit as surety or accommodation. The trust account held by United States whereof I have an Estate interest is not subject to the accommodation of "new credit" because I refuse to ORDER up new credit. My grant is to the United States and not the Federal Reserve Bank. Nevertheless it is my freewill choice.

Consider McDonalds. When you walk in what does the clerk ask you? "May I take your Order?" And for the consideration of your order you are billed for the service or thing delivered. Actually at McDonalds it is both. There is nothing new under the sun.

Have you called the clerks? Have you written the clerks explaining the causes upon which you must refuse their offer to charge the Estate? The government is truly upon your shoulders - will you undertake for the benefit of all? Should you remain silent then the Estate may be Latched - LACHES DOCTRINE.

Use of Money is Usufruct. For you, "itsmymoney", make a use of property that belongs to another.

In my opinion that is all that needs to be known regarding this matter. But only you alone can walk down into the Valley and face the Giant [Goliath].


Best Regards,
MJ

[itsmymoney]

Just stick to the facts and be unwilling to swerve from the truth. Simply put refuse to leave the battlefield of words. As such, there is no need to be alarmed at the clerks on the other end of the phone. In the end you will eventually come to see that "it is NOT your money".

Money is for the USE subject to the Statute. There exists trustees to understand the issue of money - but those who endorse fractional reserve banking accommodate that system. I have lost much in my struggle for truth but then too, I have gained much. The answer is simple - I demand lawful money and I refuse to understand any new private credit as surety or accommodation. The trust account held by United States whereof I have an Estate interest is not subject to the accommodation of "new credit" because I refuse to ORDER up new credit. My grant is to the United States and not the Federal Reserve Bank. Nevertheless it is my freewill choice.

Consider McDonalds. When you walk in what does the clerk ask you? "May I take your Order?" And for the consideration of your order you are billed for the service or thing delivered. Actually at McDonalds it is both. There is nothing new under the sun.

Have you called the clerks? Have you written the clerks explaining the causes upon which you must refuse their offer to charge the Estate? The government is truly upon your shoulders - will you undertake for the benefit of all? Should you remain silent then the Estate may be Latched - LACHES DOCTRINE.

Use of Money is Usufruct. For you, "itsmymoney", make a use of property that belongs to another.

In my opinion that is all that needs to be known regarding this matter. But only you alone can walk down into the Valley and face the Giant [Goliath].


Best Regards,
MJ

Michael,

Poor choice of words by me regarding 'lucky' and that was not my intent (meaning that you are more savvy at defeating this sort of thing). Also, everyone needs to 'get over' my username. In my opinion it is morally and ethically criminal to deprive one's pay for labor to provide for themselves and their family. Unalienable rights. In that regard, yes, IT'S MY MONEY. Legally it may be another story, but even then there are other factors and definitions applicable of which are ignored or dismissed in favor of all who take your 'money' from you.

I mentioned that yes, I did send an initial written response to their 3176C 'frivolous' letter. I rescinded the amended return per their instruction but they assessed the penalty anyway. I have failed in many respects to get away from these 'people'. An inherent flaw for sure. In the current instance I failed to 'ask questions' as to the charges, i.e. my 'right of inquiry' as such and all part of due process if there is any left. Phone calls rarely work once the TC240 penalty assessment is posted in the MFT 55 'penalty' module of 'your' IMF (Individual Master File). That's where we're at. So now I have received a CP15 which is the 'pay up' Notice. I've been thru this before and collection procedures are right around the corner.

You have stated that you have avoided such problems but you do not provide specifics regarding the IRS letters (for example, the 3176C above) and specific responses that were involved. This would be helpful to everyone, not just me in this situation.

Thank you.

[Michael Joseph]

Michael,

Poor choice of words by me regarding 'lucky' and that was not my intent (meaning that you are more savvy at defeating this sort of thing). Also, everyone needs to 'get over' my username. In my opinion it is morally and ethically criminal to deprive one's pay for labor to provide for themselves and their family. Unalienable rights. In that regard, yes, IT'S MY MONEY. Legally it may be another story, but even then there are other factors and definitions applicable of which are ignored or dismissed in favor of all who take your 'money' from you.

I mentioned that yes, I did send an initial written response to their 3176C 'frivolous' letter. I rescinded the amended return per their instruction but they assessed the penalty anyway. I have failed in many respects to get away from these 'people'. An inherent flaw for sure. In the current instance I failed to 'ask questions' as to the charges, i.e. my 'right of inquiry' as such and all part of due process if there is any left. Phone calls rarely work once the TC240 penalty assessment is posted in the MFT 55 'penalty' module of 'your' IMF (Individual Master File). That's where we're at. So now I have received a CP15 which is the 'pay up' Notice. I've been thru this before and collection procedures are right around the corner.

You have stated that you have avoided such problems but you do not provide specifics regarding the IRS letters (for example, the 3176C above) and specific responses that were involved. This would be helpful to everyone, not just me in this situation.

Thank you.

I will not share those letters in this open forum. I did that once before and many just copied them word for word absent understanding of what they were doing.

Also, the IRS went up to the point of notice of garnishment and were turned away. It is a fact that in one case the IRS called my wife's boss [human resources department] to begin garnishment and we were able to stop that garnishment and zero the account within thirty days. That only took one letter. Which explained their mistake.

I can testify to that fact with first hand factual evidence. They sent me all sorts of offers to settle the debt because they are operating in common law - but few actually observe that fact. The question arises is there a debt to settle or is there a mistake in presumption?

Knowledge will always rule ignorance, therefore with patience I have developed my deeply rooted beliefs. Simply put I just refuse to back off of my belief. When I am offered a new offer I write or call. I believe I owe no tax. That is the crux. I AM free of that burden in my belief. Therefore my will is in alignment with my emotion and thought such that my deed [child] is not duplicitous. My will is in alignment with Love. For I care for my brethren enough to not cause a burden upon their shoulders. We will rise or fall as One. It only seems that we are disconnected.

In my opinion, all that you need to know, regarding this matter, has been discussed in this Website and others. When someone makes you an offer in the form of a well dressed mandate, it still remains only an offer. An offer may be refused at anytime or accepted in silence or obedience.


Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


Once a revenue officer posted two business cards on the garage door. I viewed this simply as an offer to make me an offer. I did not wish to intercourse his business so I refused for cause his offer on the basis that I don't wish to engage his company.

I am already married [contracted] to another.

Even though the following is about consciousness and spirituality versus fleshly existence I also see it working out in engagements to State [children of the Married Lady] and Foreign Bank [children of the Desolate]. The children are the deeds performed.


Isa 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.


What makes me any more special than you? - NOTHING. You, dear reader are AWESOME - just realize it. Then go forward and help yourself and in doing so do not trespass upon your brethren. Even the ignorant brethren. I can be made a billion offers to contract the IRS and I will refuse them all. I will never act on their advice as I do not accept that I am subject to their Administration. A mistake in presumption has happened.

Those who understand Trust Law will at once see to see. I have not received a benefit of the Central Banking Scheme, therefore I am not subject to their Administration.

[itsmymoney]

I will not share those letters in this open forum. I did that once before and many just copied them word for word absent understanding of what they were doing.

Also, the IRS went up to the point of notice of garnishment and were turned away. It is a fact that in one case the IRS called my wife's boss [human resources department] to begin garnishment and we were able to stop that garnishment and zero the account within thirty days. That only took one letter. Which explained their mistake.

I can testify to that fact with first hand factual evidence. They sent me all sorts of offers to settle the debt because they are operating in common law - but few actually observe that fact. The question arises is there a debt to settle or is there a mistake in presumption?

Knowledge will always rule ignorance, therefore with patience I have developed my deeply rooted beliefs. Simply put I just refuse to back off of my belief. When I am offered a new offer I write or call. I believe I owe no tax. That is the crux. I AM free of that burden in my belief. Therefore my will is in alignment with my emotion and thought such that my deed [child] is not duplicitous. My will is in alignment with Love. For I care for my brethren enough to not cause a burden upon their shoulders. We will rise or fall as One. It only seems that we are disconnected.

In my opinion, all that you need to know, regarding this matter, has been discussed in this Website and others. When someone makes you an offer in the form of a well dressed mandate, it still remains only an offer. An offer may be refused at anytime or accepted in silence or obedience.


Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


Once a revenue officer posted two business cards on the garage door. I viewed this simply as an offer to make me an offer. I did not wish to intercourse his business so I refused for cause his offer on the basis that I don't wish to engage his company.

I am already married [contracted] to another.

Even though the following is about consciousness and spirituality versus fleshly existence I also see it working out in engagements to State [children of the Married Lady] and Foreign Bank [children of the Desolate]. The children are the deeds performed.


Isa 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.


What makes me any more special than you? - NOTHING. You, dear reader are AWESOME - just realize it. Then go forward and help yourself and in doing so do not trespass upon your brethren. Even the ignorant brethren. I can be made a billion offers to contract the IRS and I will refuse them all. I will never act on their advice as I do not accept that I am subject to their Administration. A mistake in presumption has happened.

Those who understand Trust Law will at once see to see. I have not received a benefit of the Central Banking Scheme, therefore I am not subject to their Administration.

Michael,

You are 'teasing me' with your knowledge of how you turned IRS away including the garnishment, which is amazing, actually. That is truly a feat and my congrats to you. I currently do not have the 'key' to unlocking the chains, as you have found. It is not thru ignorance, as I do quite a bit of research; however it's that 'key' part of the research and knowledge that I cannot seem to find. Although I acquiesced a bit in this current situation I am in, the 'terms' stated were to not assess a penalty. So they have lied. It's not surprising, but it is true. They do not say WHAT is 'frivolous'; never do.

So now I must try to stop collection. Surely I have not done enough or executed the correct actions (such as you did) in stopping previous threats. I would welcome a private correspondence with you if that is possible, but I respect your privacy and wishes. In lieu of that, perhaps you and others could suggest some specific STSC topics to research. I will start researching regardless.

Thank you for your time and input here. It is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
imm

[Michael Joseph]

Michael,

You are 'teasing me' with your knowledge of how you turned IRS away including the garnishment, which is amazing, actually. That is truly a feat and my congrats to you. I currently do not have the 'key' to unlocking the chains, as you have found. It is not thru ignorance, as I do quite a bit of research; however it's that 'key' part of the research and knowledge that I cannot seem to find. Although I acquiesced a bit in this current situation I am in, the 'terms' stated were to not assess a penalty. So they have lied. It's not surprising, but it is true. They do not say WHAT is 'frivolous'; never do.

So now I must try to stop collection. Surely I have not done enough or executed the correct actions (such as you did) in stopping previous threats. I would welcome a private correspondence with you if that is possible, but I respect your privacy and wishes. In lieu of that, perhaps you and others could suggest some specific STSC topics to research. I will start researching regardless.

Thank you for your time and input here. It is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
imm

imm,

What I am trying so hard to show you, absent teasing, is that you already have the answer. The fact is you don't trust yourself that you are correct. You wish to be justified by third parties. This is why Jesus said fish out of the Right Side of the Boat. And when they did they caught 153 (1 + 5 +3 = 9) GREAT FISHES. He was talking about consciousness.

I am saying the same thing to you. Look at a $1 Note. Look closely at Washington [the Alpha] do you see he is flanked by an Omega. Look carefully at his head. What is above his head? The answer is AN ALTER.

imm, you have the answer already. You know the remedy. You have apparently put your knowledge into action and have now been tested to see if you truly believe what you are doing or are you just following that which you discerned from without your being [what you read on the internet].

In my opinion, these letters are computer generated based on input parameters observed while scanning. You seem to have the key and you seem to have the understanding. The question begging to be answered is: does your will align with your thoughts and emotions? What is the intent of your deed? Is it based in self [greed and lust] whereof you may be easily manipulated in fear? OR is your deed based in Love whereof it is almost impossible to move you from your belief?

The answer lies in you. If it was me, every time I received a correspondence [issue] of the IRS, I would respond with a kind letter kindly explaining my position and kindly refusing to accept their offer to submit myself under their administration. But that is just me and you must find your own path. The remedy exists you know it exists - and how do I know that you know it exists? Because apparently you have put that remedy into use and clearly one who does such a thing does so with knowledge, right? Clearly one who acts does so with knowledge and full liability upon his own deeds, right?

Therefore the only thing left is do you believe yourself or not? Can you be forced to form a belief? Only you can answer that question. If you want me to say just refer to section xyz subsection abc of the such and such code, well you already know of which you draw your "water". Upon testing, now what?

I begged the IRS for a local sit down, actually pleaded for the opportunity to meet with a local agent over a cup of coffee. Can you believe the clerk actually said "we don't do that"? What she meant is they don't do that for those who are centered in will, emotion and deed. I cannot be moved from this internal rock.

Now consider carefully what you are reading in the following:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.


Now clearly God is a respecter of persons, right? I mean why the Jew first, then the poor miserable wretched Greek? Well lets look a bit deeper shall we?

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Can you be moved Moses [Reason]? Only you can know. For what is the causes which impelled you to act in the first place? Only you can know. The answer truly lies within you.


You can research all you want and you can read from other successes, but the remedy will only come when you begin to truly believe that you are right and you don't need any other party to justify you. For indeed Egypt is a shaky reed. Let me be a bit more blunt. Just because I am right, does not mean another will not challenge.

The external struggle of minds is projected first from the internal struggle in my mind. When my will, emotion and deed are all aligned then the struggle ceases - I believe, therefore I act. They were turned back from garnishment because they were made to see their "error in presumption".

Truly, the battle is not in flesh and blood it is in mind and beliefs. Become as the Jew [Judah] camping in the East toward the rising sun and begin to look inward and you shall find what you desire. I am telling you truth, I hope that you can receive.

Numbers 2:3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies....

and again,


Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Questions: What did you do? Why did you do it? Upon what understandings did you act? What are the errors in presumption? What is your intent? Where is your trust? What is the error?


=======================

The other day an associate called me and told me that human beings were absent free will. He too is experiencing problems with the IRS as he was duped into the "secured party scam" which is in effect trying to tap the stock of a corporation of which he has no beneficial interest. I responded simply "since you have no free will, then you should submit in totality to the IRS and go to jail if need be."

Needless to say he was not pleased. So what say ye? Do you have free will to choose which path you should walk?

Only you can know. But do take your six friends [who, what, when, where, how and why] with you on the journey.

To your success,
MJ

[itsmymoney]

imm,

What I am trying so hard to show you, absent teasing, is that you already have the answer. The fact is you don't trust yourself that you are correct. You wish to be justified by third parties. This is why Jesus said fish out of the Right Side of the Boat. And when they did they caught 153 (1 + 5 +3 = 9) GREAT FISHES. He was talking about consciousness.

I am saying the same thing to you. Look at a $1 Note. Look closely at Washington [the Alpha] do you see he is flanked by an Omega. Look carefully at his head. What is above his head? The answer is AN ALTER.

imm, you have the answer already. You know the remedy. You have apparently put your knowledge into action and have now been tested to see if you truly believe what you are doing or are you just following that which you discerned from without your being [what you read on the internet].

In my opinion, these letters are computer generated based on input parameters observed while scanning. You seem to have the key and you seem to have the understanding. What is left is does you will align with your thoughts and emotions. What is the intent of your deed? Is it based in self [greed and lust] whereof you may be easily manipulated in fear? OR is your deed based in Love whereof it is almost impossible to move you from your belief?

The answer lies in you. If it was me, every time I received a correspondence [issue] of the IRS, I would respond with a kind letter kindly explaining my position and kindly refusing to accept their offer to submit myself under their administration. But that is just me and you must find your own path. The remedy exists you know it exists - and how do I know that you know it exists? Because apparently you have put that remedy into use and clearly one who does such a thing does so with knowledge, right? Clearly one who acts does so with knowledge and full liability upon his own deeds, right?

Therefore the only thing left is do you believe yourself or not? Can you be forced to form a belief? Only you can answer that question. If you want me to say just refer to section xyz subection abc of the such and such code, well you already know of which you draw your "water". Upon testing, now what?

I begged the IRS for a local sit down, actually pleaded for the opportunity to meet with a local agent over a cup of coffee. Can you believe the clerk actually said "we don't do that"? What she meant is they don't do that for those who are centered in will, emotion and deed. I cannot be moved from this internal rock.

Now consider carefully what you are reading in the following:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.


Now clearly God is a respecter of persons, right? I mean why the Jew first, then the poor miserable wretched Greek? Well lets look a bit deeper shall we?

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Can you be moved Moses [Reason]? Only you can know. For what is the causes which impelled you to act in the first place? Only you can know. The answer truly lies within you.


You can research all you want and you can read from other successes, but the remedy will only come when you begin to truly believe that you are right and you don't need any other party to justify you. For indeed Egypt is a shaky reed. Let me be a bit more blunt. Just because I am right, does not mean another will not challenge.

The external struggle of minds is projected first from the internal struggle in my mind. When my will, emotion and deed are all aligned then the struggle ceases - I believe, therefore I act. They were turned back from garnishment because they were made to see their "error in presumption".

Truly, the battle is not in flesh and blood it is in mind and beliefs. Become as the Jew [Judah] camping in the East toward the rising sun and begin to look inward and you shall find what you desire. I am telling you truth, I hope that you can receive.

Numbers 2:3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies....

and again,


Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Questions: What did you do? Why did you do it? Upon what understandings did you act? What are the errors in presumption? What is your intent? Where is your trust? What is the error?


=======================

The other day an associate called me and told me that human beings were absent free will. He too is experiencing problems with the IRS as he was duped into the "secured party scam" which is in effect trying to tap the stock of a corporation of which he has no beneficial interest. I responded simply "since you have no free will, then you should submit in totality to the IRS and go to jail if need be."

Needless to say he was not pleased. So what say ye? Do you have free will to choose which path you should walk?

Only you can know. But do take your six friends [who, what, when, where, how and why] with you on the journey.

To your success,
MJ

Michael,

I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.

I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.

My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...

At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.

So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.

Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
imm

"Refusal for Cause"
"Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
"Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
"Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"

[doug555]

Michael,

I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.

I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.

My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...

At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.

So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.

Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
imm

"Refusal for Cause"
"Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
"Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
"Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"

Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!

[itsmymoney]

Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!

Doug555,

Coincidentally and perhaps divinely I have been listening to Marc Stevens videos for an hour before seeing your post! Yes, jurisdiction is apparently huge! Not to mention, I accepted conditional terms in their 'offer' in the 3176C so they have violated the terms, as far as I can see. The 'send the corrected return' they state in the 3176C letter is not specific to whether it must be a new or previously non-filed return, or one that was already filed as in my circumstances. Regardless, an attempt to correct my first return WITH EVIDENCE would not seem to be frivolous. Plus, where is it published in the code or manuals that my deduction demand is 'frivolous'? Nowhere, is the answer.

I will research the Marc Stevens links. Thank you so much!

Regards,
imm

[itsmymoney]

Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney...

Michael,

I'm grateful for your support, and I appreciate the references you cite as they are helpful and very inspiring.

I still need to form a CP15 response within about 8 days and it better be the correct one. I would like to render IRS silent altogether on this matter, or at least make them pause and consider their next action.

My Lawful Money Demand was initially registered as public record over 2+ years ago, with an addendum over a year ago. I believe this is considered part of my 'Evidence Repository' and is also considered a 'court of record', correct? I have not delivered this document or a similar letter to my bank, but they have been honoring LM checks for 2-3 years now so they surely cannot plead ignorance of this instrument. I have been reading the STSC topics below and trying to determine instruments applicable to my CP15 response. One is a LOR; another is a R4C. Perhaps both are applicable...

At this exact moment I do not have enough education to emphatically say that a R4C is an applicable response to the CP15, but I believe it could be. Also, is a R4C used within or in conjunction with a LOR? More reading needed. Yes, I know OF these instruments but I don't have specifics yet on how to employ them. For example, if a LOR is applicable can I put this together in 8 days or less?; If I employ R4C, do I include my court of record in the response as proof? This sort of thing.

So I will keep learning and hopefully make the proper CP15 response from my readings below and other links. If anyone wants to clarify these instruments to speed my course (I have about 8 days to mail my reply before defaulting) than I am happy and grateful to hear your thoughts.

Thank you for your time and your inspiring posts. And thanks to DM and this great forum.
imm

"Refusal for Cause"
"Federal Evidence Repository/Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files"
"Exactly what does the IRS agent think?"
"Cracking the Code Recovery - Fraud by Omission"

Response posted by Doug555...

Marc Stevens recently helped someone who had a success with the IRS, based on jurisdiction.

See: http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-...isdiction.html

Marc also had a "Notice of Mistake" at one time...

See: http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2014/06...able-word.html

I am not endorsing the above... only providing additional research and alternative.

Perhaps one could enhance the jurisdiction issue by incorporating the "lawful money demand record" as more substantive evidence of non-jurisdiction that would also need to be rebutted, as no FRN-based "usage" contract exists then either, which usage contract, as you know, is totally constitutional ("no law impairing obligation of contract" (Art 1.10)) but which the IRS cannot cite without "letting the cat out of the bag", and also, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the "code"! Tricky huh?!

My current response to this exchange...

After reviewing the excellent videos by Marc Stevens (I have seen some prior to now), I'm perplexed relative to Marc's question: where are the facts and evidence that the Constitution and the IRC i.e. "the code", apply to 'me'?

1) In a general sense, I can see why Marc is saying that the IRC does not apply to us (it only does thru coercion, fear, and corruption); but why does he mention the Constitution in the same breath with the IRC, as though they are tied together and cannot apply exclusively without each other? In other words, can I not fight the IRS without the Constitution? Do I need to reference the Constitution when simply stating that "the code" does not apply to me should suffice?

2) Relative to Marc's WINNING arguments regarding 'jurisdiction' and the lack thereof by the State, I have a conundrum with my current IRS situation.
Due to my hasty departure to visit my ill father, I agreed to a conditional acceptance of their proposal in the 3176C 'your frivolous!' notice. Granted, I wish I had not, but here we are. So it would seem that I entered their jurisdiction when I agreed to their conditional terms, but...

...THEY have violated those conditional terms. There are no stipulations that the 'corrected' return must be a previously non-filed return (see IRM 4.10.12.4 below). I had already filed, so the 'corrected' return was the original filed return. Further to this IRM statement... "The letter also gives the taxpayer the opportunity to submit non-frivolous returns or statements within 30 days of the date of the letter to avoid assessment of the penalty." ...simply DENYING the amended return is frivolous is NOT a frivolous statement! [italics, mine]. Not to mention they NEVER cite what is actually frivolous, probably for fear of taking a 'position' that they SO love to label us with. Is it not Lords and Servants with them?

And there it is.

4.10.12.4 (09-05-2014)
Case Processing
When the Service receives what it determines to be a frivolous filing under IRC Section 6702, the Service issues Letter 3176C. The letter 3176C informs taxpayers that their return is frivolous and subject to a $5000 civil penalty under Section 6702. The letter also gives the taxpayer the opportunity to submit non-frivolous returns or statements within 30 days of the date of the letter to avoid assessment of the penalty. Issuance of this letter is required before assessment of an IRC 6702(b) penalty. See IRC 6702(b)(3). Failure to issue the letter does not indicate an IRC 6702(1) penalty should be abated.