Get Your Billions Back, America: 2014

[doug555]

Thank you Brian. I will also include these cites when directing my rebuttal the "Steve". My concern is that his attitude was stuck on "Find it in the IRC before I will consider it". This brings up the observation by doug555 that LM is without the IRC and I will never be able to find relevant information within. Citing law may well be met with refusal. I would then have to take it up with the tax court. We will see. Many times I have read in these threads that the tax courts do not want to hear challenges based on lawful money for fear of exposure to their scam.

IMO, if I were you, since all is governed now by contract/trust (and not by law), I would create a contract/trust with any agency/party that is trespassing against me, the man, and get this contract/trust (which is usually ratified by their silence/acquiescence) recorded in the county recorder's office so it becomes admissible substantive evidence.

I would create an "Affidavit in Support of the Lawful Money Reduction on Federal and State Tax Returns". Use this affidavit to give you a template for the format and content thereof.

I would also follow this procedure to establish my status to perform the same.

This claim, upon modification, may be a remedy for curing said trespass.

IMO... It is better to create a pro-active, substantive record. This record should begin with this letter, modified for using LM. Then use the Fault and Default letters.

I would not "argue" (discuss) this over the phone with anyone... such recorded proceedings, IMO, are a trap. A substantive, non-hearsay record must be created with the intent to enforce a trespass against the "man".

Others in this group may have better solutions, and I hope they will respond to you... in accord with Prov 11:14

14 Where no counsel is, the people fall : but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

[David Neil]

Finally got a letter from Oregon Revenue. They are keeping my money so far and are threatening a frivolous return fine. I just got this so I haven't studied it much but I want to post it ASAP as I do not have the chops to rebutt this. My first thoughts are that it states there is an appearance. I would want to demand the exact position which is frivolous. It also states that "on its face" which is prima facie evedennce that will stand until refuted. I am not sure yet that I even did a self assessment. The Oregon form simply states to place the total I got in line X of form 1040 into Line Y of the Oregon form.

Please let me know what experiences you ladies and gentelmen have had in similar circumstance and how you approached it.

I did send Alex a letter stating my position of redeeming lawful money. sent a copy of my IRS statement showing that my return was evaluated and correct except the $100 over reporting error. I sent reference to Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869) and a couple of other points.

I will be looking closer to this once I return home.

[David Neil]

Also they gave this July 20 deadline with apparent substantial penalties. Is there anyway to hold these off?

[Chex]

I am not saying this is the answer David

[David Neil]

Thanks Checks. IRS has, as far as I can tell accepted my return as accurate as I received my refund. This would therefore not be an IRS jurisdiction matter.

What I concentrate on is the first paragraph and the last. If the self-assessment they are speaking of regards the actual 1040 form I am wonder what allows them the be the arbiters of correctness as this is not there form. I am on the hold with IRS now to see if they can send me information confirming the fact that my "self-assessment" is correct. They also speak of "frivolous". I have not looked through ORS to find if a frivolous definition exists but it appears they are also basing frivolous on the IRS definitions which this forum as shown how to defeat.

My concern is the Oregon Statutes that state 361.922
The Department of Revenue shall assess a penalty of $250 against any individual who files what purports to be a return of the tax imposed by this chapter but which:
(a) Does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged; or
(b) Contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect.
(2) A penalty may be imposed under subsection (1) of this section only if the conduct referred to in subsection (1) of this section is due to:
(a) A position which is frivolous; or
(b) An intention, apparent on the face of the purported return, to delay or impede the administration of the income tax laws of this state.

So my most immediate threat is for them to assess the tax, impose fees and penalties and to appeal. I really can't afford this so I will have to have a very well thought out plan as to how to fight and survive. Since I always over pay on w-4 I should have enough (guess I should go through the math to see what I would have paid sans 12USC411). Their threats of 20-100% penalties suck, so I will have to read how they may or may not apply.

Also all of my demands have followed the format of Doug55 and include 12USC(a)2 "Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder."

Also in accord with Doug555 i have a sworn affidavit of my intention to demand lawful money.

As for the last paragraph I read this as "I won't provide any evidence you request, I am merely going to administer the law as I see it."

[allodial]

I believe the demand for lawful money isn't quite on point. AFAIK one is to #1 Redeem a bill for lawful money or #2 denominate transactions in lawful money. You start changing the verbiage too much and getting away from the applicable statute they might spot your error and come for "blood".

To reiterate: the checks would be redeemed for lawful money. Demanding lawful money isn't in the applicable statute.

[David Neil]

I believe the demand for lawful money isn't quite on point. AFAIK one is to #1 Redeem a bill for lawful money or #2 denominate transactions in lawful money. You start changing the verbiage too much and getting away from the applicable statute they might spot your error and come for "blood".

To reiterate: the checks would be redeemed for lawful money. Demanding lawful money isn't in the applicable statute.

Perhaps I was unclear or don't understand. My 1040/OR form 40 is based on my redemption of lawful money and is denoted as "demand lawful money reduction" on line 21 of 1040.

My checks are always stamped "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12USC411,95(a)2". Is this somehow wrong?

[allodial]

12 USC 411 pertains to the redemption for lawful money without reference to 'demanding' lawful money. Your redemption should put the bill into Treasury right and proper as lawful money. If the statute pertains to redemption and you are speaking of a demand for lawful money (a draft or a claim). That is, perhaps you need to explain to State of Oregon that you redeemed those checks/drafts for lawful money and that principal isn't subject to tax?

If the IRS approved the deduction, then Oregon DoR needs to do the same.

Paragraph 5 of that letter is 'screaming' "administrative law" --that the Oregon revenue department is probably subject to the plenary powers of the Oregon legislature.

[Chex]

12 USC 411 pertains to the redemption for lawful money without reference to 'demanding' lawful money. Your redemption should put the bill into Treasury the IRS approved the deduction, then Oregon DoR needs to do the same.Paragraph 5 of that letter is 'screaming' "administrative law" --that the Oregon revenue department is probably subject to the plenary powers of the Oregon legislature.

IRS jurisdiction matter.................................. Really?


The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 53 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S. Code was first published in 1926. The next main edition was published in 1934, and subsequent main editions have been published every six years since 1934. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.

In fact its Alex Anderson making a contract; the state "cannot" speak.

[allodial]

I'm unaware of pointing out a jurisdiction issue except the Oregon Dept. of Revenue tax franchise AFAIK should be harmonizing with the IRS on income tax. The key is principal is not taxed. Call Oregon Department of Revenue and tell them you need their U.S./IRS tax ID for your records, they will probably decline but admit to having one.

Alex Anderson is in bold + is showing he is working within the Oregon Department of Revenue from the signature. Oregon Department of Revenue seems to be the collective name of the 'enforcement sureties' for the Oregon "tax code".

[Chex]

According to live in the know Alex Anderson also lives a double life at 1040 Tax Service & Accounting probably scamming more folks out of currency.

[David Neil]

Chex, it does appear that Alex Anderson is making a contract. From what I can tell his letter is not a "Notice of Definciency" as described in ORS 305.265 but I cannot yet tell when section 10(c)(C) kicks in.

As I continue to research I believe I have found the catch 22. My return is being rejected because of ORS 305.265 10(c)(C) " If the department may impose a penalty under ORS 316.992 (Penalty for filing incorrect return that is based on frivolous position or is intended to delay or impede administration) (1) with respect to the report or return".

The conditions for used in applying 316.992, in my opinion are:
316.992(1)(b) "Contains information that on its face indicates the self assessment is substantially incorrect"; 316.992(2)(a) "A position is frivolous"; 316.992(5)(c) "An argument that wages or salary are not includable in taxable income"

So what I am seeing is that "on its face" my lawful money reduction on 1040 line 21 fits 316.992(5)(c). It appears to me that I must rebut "on its face" and that wages and salary... is not what Lawful Money Reduction is

My approach is focusing on on 2 Sections of ORS
If terms have the same meaning as federal law the definition for Frivolous Arguments is found in IRC 4.10.12.1.1. The closest to the ORS I believe they are sighting is 4.10.12.1.1.1.A Wages/Receipts Not Income. (There is a more extensive listing at http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-17_IRB/ar13.html not sure which is the most inclusive or up to date.) However, there is no mention of Lawful Money Redemption and none of the other definitions fit. 4.10.12.1.1 also states that "The return MUST be frivolous for a penalty to be asserted..."


and
My evidence that gross income was calculated correctly is the fact that IRS accepted my return and refunded my withholding. (I have requested the IRS print out of my 2014 return). I would then say that for my return to be accepted and refund issued, my reduction for lawful money redemption must not be included in definitions of frivolous. If it were frivolous I would have also gotten a notice (

3176C)

and a penalty access ("The return MUST be frivolous for a penalty to be asserted..."). So if terms are the same and lawful money redemption is not a frivolous term and if my adjusted gross income is correct then I properly Stated my Gross Income on Oregon form 40.

Now I jsut have to make myself clear and respond to this latest error refuting the claimed facts.

[Franco]

[allodial]

Very good input. However, having studied tax law (in international scope) quite thoroughly, there are two very fundamental principals worth nothing:

1. Principal/trees = not taxed
2. Interest/fruit = taxed.

If they are measuring taxable income from the Federal, then he should find Oregon Department of Revenue arriving at the same amount of taxable income.

[David Neil]

Thanks Franco.
I too have concerns about that paragraph, but my thoughts did note allow me to arrive to your conclusion. Thank you for opening my eyes.