IRS recognizes Redeeming Lawful Money - Yes!!!

[David Merrill]

I have been busy but when the second testimony came in this morning I just had to take time to share:



Crosstalk:

I am pleased to point out that two suitors (at least) among us have had full refunds paid to back taxes. This tells us two important things.

1) the IRS attorneys have pondered the validity of our fraud by omission accusation and assessed the risk
2) they are definitely recognizing the validity of redeeming lawful money!

From this posting:

Good Morning

An update to LM return. I received a letter from our friends. They used return money (from 2011 return sent in oct) to pay off money owed from 2007. Now after doing that they sent a release of Lien for 2007 to me and the county. Now here is the kicker. I have paid off 2005 back taxes over a year ago (before LM) and have yet to receive a release of lien of that year (they filed liens on every year). It maybe that they are under watch by TIGTA and I believe they are getting rid of the evidence (lien) as quickly as possible once paid with LM. My point is I have not seen them perform this quickly when using fed credit. They know if you don't account for it right you will be looking for another job.

Bless You and Thank You LORD for hearing my prayers and giving me Your divine guidance. I am in awe of Your Might. What I struggled and flailed with for so long is nothing more then a flick of Your Pinky. This is my testament to Your Greatness. All is done in Your Name. Amen.

Think about it now.

The IRS is using the refunds to pay off back taxes and release federal tax liens.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Treefarmer]

While that is undoubtedly a joyous event for the poor taxpayer, it does not guarantee that the IRS will not be sending notices and bills for frivolous filing penalties some time down the road. It is simply too early to draw any conclusions yet.

I hope this will never happen, but I just cannot shake the nasty feeling that "redeeming lawful money" means nothing to the IRS.

Reading old statutes, court cases and laws does no good in figuring out anything about government anymore, because government is not based in public or constitutional law anymore, but in private Roman law, implemented by secret treaties and executive orders, and administered by unelected bureaucratic agencies (IRS, FDA, EPA, FBI, DEA, FTC, to name only a few) who rule by tyrannical decree.

Since we don't know when some private Roman law becomes ratified by each STATE of the US, and the old statutes and laws don't seem to get repealed, only superseded, we cannot know what the rules are which are being applied by "government" at any given time.
This makes it so we have to always hire CPAs, tax preparers and attorners just to get by in life, which is more than likely by design.

[stoneFree]

The IRS, the attorners, and many professionals would like you to believe redeeming lawful money means nothing. They are mostly silent on it. The attorney's response to my LoR made no mention of "private credit of the Fed" nor "lawful money." Fortunately, the actions of the IRS towards everyone who redeems lawful money shows it means a great deal. From my own experience and from watching numerous others, I've witnessed complete success when the IRS is presented evidence of REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY for the time period involved. And that goes for corporations too. 100 percent success. I challenge you to find anything defined "frivolous" in IRS documentation about how we are redeeming lawful money.

This indicates we really do have 2 forms of money (FR money & public money), and unless shown evidence you're using the non-excise kind, the IRS assumes you're using their money, cartel money, and continues running the scam.

Sounds like their slur campaign has been somewhat successful with you, Treefarmer. Do not let the seeds of doubt take root. You have expressed some knowledge of the power of propaganda in history. Conditioning is strong but it can be overcome.

[shikamaru]

Something else to consider:

Government takes the money it receives and invests a portion.
Over time, government has significant assets over and above their operational budget.
Right now, your city, county, State, and federal governments have a cumulative trillions of dollars in assets.

You can get more information via Walter Burrien and each administrative unit's CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report).

[David Merrill]

While that is undoubtedly a joyous event for the poor taxpayer, it does not guarantee that the IRS will not be sending notices and bills for frivolous filing penalties some time down the road. It is simply too early to draw any conclusions yet.

I hope this will never happen, but I just cannot shake the nasty feeling that "redeeming lawful money" means nothing to the IRS.

Reading old statutes, court cases and laws does no good in figuring out anything about government anymore, because government is not based in public or constitutional law anymore, but in private Roman law, implemented by secret treaties and executive orders, and administered by unelected bureaucratic agencies (IRS, FDA, EPA, FBI, DEA, FTC, to name only a few) who rule by tyrannical decree.

Since we don't know when some private Roman law becomes ratified by each STATE of the US, and the old statutes and laws don't seem to get repealed, only superseded, we cannot know what the rules are which are being applied by "government" at any given time.
This makes it so we have to always hire CPAs, tax preparers and attorners just to get by in life, which is more than likely by design.

That the remedy is available and has been since 1913, being amended instead of abolished or repealed in 1933-34 is contrary to that sentiment. That the IRS processes a refund and applies it to past tax assessment is not a proof. The IRS can simply subtract that off the account later and rebill. But it shows an additional level of contemplation. Not only that but on the second suitor example the IRS released a lien.

[David Merrill]

Something else to consider:

Government takes the money it receives and invests a portion.
Over time, government has significant assets over and above their operational budget.
Right now, your city, county, State, and federal governments have a cumulative trillions of dollars in assets.

You can get more information via Walter Burrien and each administrative unit's CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report).

I have looked about and found the CAFR's online. No CAFR that I have looked at shows any sign that BURIEN's theories have any merit. What I am looking for is a link showing on a CAFR, that is not presented by BURIEN, that backs up this theory of immense wealth that is not liquidated?

Could you please show us that?

[shikamaru]

I have looked about and found the CAFR's online. No CAFR that I have looked at shows any sign that BURIEN's theories have any merit. What I am looking for is a link showing on a CAFR, that is not presented by BURIEN, that backs up this theory of immense wealth that is not liquidated?

Could you please show us that?

Burien looks at the forest or rather all the CAFRs of all the governments and agencies out here.

If we take the aggregate of the over 50,000 governments; bureaus; agencies; and others in composite, it is quite substantial.

Granted reviewing a CAFR will take some knowledge of accounting and maybe even forensic accounting.

[David Merrill]

I am just asking somebody to please find it and show us.

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/dfp/sco/cafr/cafr.htm

[Treefarmer]

The IRS, the attorners, and many professionals would like you to believe redeeming lawful money means nothing. They are mostly silent on it. The attorney's response to my LoR made no mention of "private credit of the Fed" nor "lawful money." Fortunately, the actions of the IRS towards everyone who redeems lawful money shows it means a great deal. From my own experience and from watching numerous others, I've witnessed complete success when the IRS is presented evidence of REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY for the time period involved. And that goes for corporations too. 100 percent success. I challenge you to find anything defined "frivolous" in IRS documentation about how we are redeeming lawful money.

This indicates we really do have 2 forms of money (FR money & public money), and unless shown evidence you're using the non-excise kind, the IRS assumes you're using their money, cartel money, and continues running the scam.

Sounds like their slur campaign has been somewhat successful with you, Treefarmer. Do not let the seeds of doubt take root. You have expressed some knowledge of the power of propaganda in history. Conditioning is strong but it can be overcome.

Time will tell for sure.
Meanwhile, my gut feeling tells me that the IRS does not see LM in the same way that some folks here do.
My gut feeling has a great track record, so I'm going with

[Treefarmer]

While I have serious doubts about the "IRS recogniz[ing] Redeeming Lawful Money", I know what the IRS does NOT recognize:
The IRS does not recognize as "taxpayers" some people I've known who have never filed any paperwork with the IRS in their entire lives, who work only for lawful money, and who have bank accounts, credit cards, DLs, BCs, insurance policies, and SSNs, and one even has a mortgage.

[David Merrill]

I spoke with a suitor who said effectively, I think the IRS is looking for a template like the LoR that they can attack and make it look as though Redeeming Lawful Money is bogus.

Most certainly that was Wserra's - Wesley SERRA - objective on Quatloos recently. I think that is quite possibly an objective but Congress says differently. If you contract with the Congress-created jurisdiction of the Fed, it would seem things get arbitrary fast. However if you stay out in the original cognizance of the Judiciary Act (1789 'saving to suitors') we find that the Memorandums are resorting to a term in context of the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION to attempt slurring LM redemption.

So maybe your gut is sensing the IRS desire more than the IRS ability to slur remedy?

[shikamaru]

I am just asking somebody to please find it and show us.

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/dfp/sco/cafr/cafr.htm

Take a look at FY2011, page 6:



That's 13,393.1 million or 13.3 BILLION dollars. That's just the remainder after the State of Colorado subtracts its assets from liabilities.

There are 50 States. How much in total assets do you think the 50 States have? We would be approaching a trillion dollars.

This doesn't even cover the counties, municipalities, districts, agencies, bureaus, federal, etc.
This doesn't cover the various funds that each of these governments have setup for pensions, insurance, institutional funds, etc.

Take the composite, the aggregate, the sum, of all of those and where do you think we'd wind up?

Perhaps this clears things up a bit?

[shikamaru]

Bump. Read my previous post again .....

That's 13 BILLION from taxpayer money ....

So, when government starts whining about their budget, you may want to go to the books to see exactly what's what.

[David Merrill]

While I have serious doubts about the "IRS recogniz[ing] Redeeming Lawful Money", I know what the IRS does NOT recognize:

The IRS does not recognize as "taxpayers" some people I've known who have never filed any paperwork with the IRS in their entire lives, who work only for lawful money, and who have bank accounts, credit cards, DLs, BCs, insurance policies, and SSNs, and one even has a mortgage.

I have amended some of this Crosstalk so as to keep this suitor's identity concealed. FIRST MIDDLE LAST is most commonly the trust company in most people's minds when they become aware that their parents named them First Middle. - Like with this Massachusetts Trust.

I can only testify regarding my own affairs. My latest experience:


Ten checking accounts were closed on Monday this past week by way of Notice to Quit. Meaning the banking agreement says they can Quit for any cause.

So we paid the bank a visit to see if we could determine the reasoning for the Notice. It turns out that the bank had been doing some recent accounting of the books and it turns out that they were not very pleased to find out that their front line manager had not picked up on the fact that we had been making a DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411 regarding all instruments touching said accounts.

From what we gleaned from said Manager he and his staff were reamed and people lost their jobs. I BELIEVE that said bank was upon the practice of Fractional Reserve Lending touching instruments that were Redeemed. As such, said bank was in desperate need of balancing the counterfeit book entries.

So today we decided to walk in and with draw 9.5k because you know - WHY NOT, right? So as usual we made a demand for lawful money on the withdrawal ticket - to wit:

1. The teller upon RECOGNIZING said disclaimer launched herself from her seat and quickly moved to the banking managers office; and,

2. The banking manager, upon being awakened, [I jest] asked us to enter his office; and,

3. We had a discussion whereupon we informed him that we had informed his predecessor that we intend to remain without the Federal Reserve Districts and Cities and we do not use Federal Reserve Credit; and,

4. he informed us that we could not use that disclaimer; and,

5. not to be egotistical but I informed him that he was NOT going to give us legal advice as we did not ask for it and that he was going to accept our disclaimer as this was the business he chose and he was going to take the good with the bad and we were not going to be told by some banking manager how to sign a record; and,

6. he said that his bosses told him he was not to accept any withdrawal or check with that disclaimer to which I said, Call Legal now.; and,

7. He called and put us on speaker phone; and,

8. Unbelievably we entered into a three-way conversation - usually legal will only speak to their client; and,

9. I asked if they were trying to FORCE account holders to execute a Record without legal capacity; and,

10. I asked if they were aware of Art I - Sec 10 and were they trying to make a policy that would impair the obligation of an existing contract?; and,

11. In deadpan voice, counsel said, Do it!; and,

12. We got a huge grin on our faces and said manager went and counted out the hundreds; and,

13 Afterwards, he invited us back into his office and said he was directed to ensure that the accounts closed; and,

14. It was obvious to everyone in the room that said manager had recently gotten his rear end chewed on extensively; and,

DON'T TELL ME that something IS a certain way. Maybe for you, but not for me. I have spoken to banking managers in the past five years and without exception they ALL know what I am up to. In fact, I have had some very interesting responses.

Regarding the IRS we have now had CONSISTENT returns of 100 percent even with with-holdings returned - even though we did not ask for them. We tried to GIFT the withholdings - but they were returned to us 100%. So today we went to another bank and opened up all new accounts - and the manager just smiled as we executed the Agreement in FULL DISCLAIMER.

I can remember the first time I walked up to a teller to cash a check drawn on that bank with the following disclaimers:

NAME OF TRUST COMPANY, by its Agent, Me, absent individual capacity, absent individual liability assumed, absent surety, absent accommodation, absent recourse, without prejudice, and principally and perpetually made subject to the terms of conditions of NAME OF TRUST COMPANY and demand is made for lawful money per 12U.S.C.411: signature

6 font text - you can get this on the back of a check within the allowed space - without problem.

I thought the red/blue lights would start flashing as my heart raced - no one was there to help me or to give me words in case things did not go my way - and to my great surprise the teller said - "What the heck is all of this?" To wit, I responded, perhaps you should speak to your manager. Upon her return she said "I learn something new everyday".

Egypt is a reed shaken in the wind - but the children of the King are free.

Hopefully, my report will encourage some of you. Trust in God. But Faith absent Deeds is dead. I in every event always prayed over the event prior to attempt - the victory was mine before I left my car. I walked it out as a WITNESS to the Glory of God.

This testimony is very revealing. Early on, so early that we were using the non-negotiable verbiage a suitor deposited a rubber paycheck. The bank called him when the funds would not go through the boss's bank. He went to the bank and they gave him back the instrument but the non-endorsement had been torn off the end of it. He described it over the phone so you see this example is a simulation for demonstration, not the actual torn check:

Together this suitor testimony reveals the nature of fractional lending and how it creates currency in circulation. This extra currency must be bonded, it has to be worth something for people to place any value in the (extra) currency, and since the extra currency looks just like the US (Treasurer and Secretary signatures) bonded currency that means we have inflation anyway...

In the Crosstalk testimony above, the bank was treating the non-endorsed demanded lawful money like it was endorsed and had to clean house rather than be sanctioned by the Reserve Board or OCC, maybe even prosecuted for counterfeiting. The funds that are non-endorsed need to be treated as special deposits or the accounts, after fractional lending will simply not balance out.

This is why many suitors have noticed after non-endorsing funds on a long-held account it will be revised to non-interest bearing without mention or notice. If the bank can have no benefit of fractional lending on the funds then there is no cause for the bank to be paying for that benefit as a State bank.

At the first glance it is a bad thing for people to have their bank accounts closed out. True. But you should sit back a bit and look what is really happening. The bank, ignoring putting the funds into special deposits had cost jobs and risked criminal prosecution. Therefore closing the bank accounts fit under their Quit for No Reason clause on the signature cards.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Treefarmer;


I am sure that the vast majority of readers here wish they had never filed a W-4 or 1040 Form. However how many people regret being employed?

[stoneFree]

* DING *
No more calls; we have a winner!