Who filed this year, and how?

[Sabo]

For what its worth, Income: http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/I/i0612.jpg

That's interesting. Two thing about that:

"Income" when applied to the affairs of individuals expresses the same idea that "revenue" does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation.

What does Black's Law (assuming that's what the scan is from) say about "revenue"?

Below it, 'income tax' is defined as tax on yearly "profits", which in 'Income' is defined as gain upon businesses and investments.

Am I being too pedantic, or is this one of the reasons we're (meant as those who are non-sheep) fighting the way we are?

[Brian]

That's interesting. Two thing about that:

What does Black's Law (assuming that's what the scan is from) say about "revenue"?

Below it, 'income tax' is defined as tax on yearly "profits", which in 'Income' is defined as gain upon businesses and investments.

Am I being too pedantic, or is this one of the reasons we're (meant as those who are non-sheep) fighting the way we are?

Sabo, Here is the link for Black's Law 1st and 2nd editions

http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/

Revenue: http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/R/r1034.jpg

[David Merrill]

Think of extending this to The Good Church, the Mandatory Exception (Section 508(c)(1)(A) - churches) of you in self-governance at home.

"The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." (Gregory v. Helvering, (1934) 239 US 465,460.)

It may be a lot safer to think of this all in terms of informal corporation sole. At least the author of the diagram wishes that you not use it without considering the risks carefully.

[Frederick Burrell]

David in the diagram you have presented the Good Church is incorporated with a charter grant. Then it states that it is an unusual incorporation, in that it is similar to Articles of Association. Is reason the articles of association are used because it is filed with a different government agency. Not with the Sec. of state. If this is not the case then why are the Art. of Association filed instead of the usual type of non-profit incorporation with the Sec. of State. FB

[David Merrill]

I understand it being free of registration altogether. However if it is to be registered at all then it functions under the state registration procedures for a corporation sole. But I do not know a lot about corporation sole.

I believe that Wesley SNIPES got in hot water with Eddie Ray KAHN for trying to set up corporation sole.

[jeffreydavid]

I tried something different this year. I used the John H. Doe approach but made modifications. The "pay" they claim I received is through 1099's. I claimed all on the 1040. I also liquidated an IRA account, which I also claimed. But I then negated all on line 21 as in the example of John H. Doe. I attached a schedule for line 21 where I incorporated each 1099 into the filing and included a copy of EVERY check with non-endorsement. On the schedule I listed the "gross pay" from the 1099, then my Demand for Lawful Money Reduction (i.e. the total of the checks non-endorsed), and showed a total line showing zero as "taxable income." I did this for all 5 1099's. I also incorporated a copy of Title 12 and I also incorporated an Affidavit of Truth signed True Name with Notary signature. Also, since one of my "employers" went to direct deposit, I registered my demand at the Register of Deeds at the end of 2010 and included a certified copy of that demand for that pay in the filing as well. My viewpoint is this - since I had no income (i.e. due to lawful money) I owe them no filing. But if I don't file I can't offset their presumption that I am endorsing private credit. So I file. Only to be (most likely) met with future frivolous filings.

At this time I have no belief any of it will matter and I expect frivolous notices to arrive. But here's hoping. I received a Refund Due notice from them for 2010 only to be currently met with Frivoulous Filing bills (2 now) for the same calendar year and an agent in Utah who sent me a "proposed tax due" calculation (which was R4C and used to establish my LOR). I feel like I am in a quandry. I have their own Notice CP12 that they owe me money, but it doesn't seem to matter because they continue to claim I owe them money (after the date of their Notice CP12). As I mentioned tonight to another suitor, I believe the challenge is they will fight me tooth and nail because if they ever have to pay me the "money" they themselves previously said they owe me then they are exposed. Who knows. After the past few months and being currently involved in my LOR filing I have to say not much will surprise me going forward.

[Treefarmer]

I tried something different this year. I used the John H. Doe approach but made modifications. The "pay" they claim I received is through 1099's. I claimed all on the 1040. I also liquidated an IRA account, which I also claimed. But I then negated all on line 21 as in the example of John H. Doe. I attached a schedule for line 21 where I incorporated each 1099 into the filing and included a copy of EVERY check with non-endorsement. On the schedule I listed the "gross pay" from the 1099, then my Demand for Lawful Money Reduction (i.e. the total of the checks non-endorsed), and showed a total line showing zero as "taxable income." I did this for all 5 1099's. I also incorporated a copy of Title 12 and I also incorporated an Affidavit of Truth signed True Name with Notary signature. Also, since one of my "employers" went to direct deposit, I registered my demand at the Register of Deeds at the end of 2010 and included a certified copy of that demand for that pay in the filing as well. My viewpoint is this - since I had no income (i.e. due to lawful money) I owe them no filing. But if I don't file I can't offset their presumption that I am endorsing private credit. So I file. Only to be (most likely) met with future frivolous filings.

At this time I have no belief any of it will matter and I expect frivolous notices to arrive. But here's hoping. I received a Refund Due notice from them for 2010 only to be currently met with Frivoulous Filing bills (2 now) for the same calendar year and an agent in Utah who sent me a "proposed tax due" calculation (which was R4C and used to establish my LOR). I feel like I am in a quandry. I have their own Notice CP12 that they owe me money, but it doesn't seem to matter because they continue to claim I owe them money (after the date of their Notice CP12). As I mentioned tonight to another suitor, I believe the challenge is they will fight me tooth and nail because if they ever have to pay me the "money" they themselves previously said they owe me then they are exposed. Who knows. After the past few months and being currently involved in my LOR filing I have to say not much will surprise me going forward.

It seems to me the IRS tries to collect revenue under every possible pretext, without being encumbered by any laws, rules or regulations, such as the "Constitution" (whatever that mythical creature may be), or the IRC, or statutes, or anything else I've seen.

If their job is to implement "public policy" by hitting everyone up for more and more debt instruments, aka "money", then I suppose they can change their so-called rules as they go along, and make up new ones daily at their whim.

I have noticed that once information returns have been generated, such as W-2 and/or 1099, the IRS expects to get a cut, unless the $ amount is under a specified threshold amount which changes yearly and seems to trail inflation somewhat.

[jeffreydavid]

That sounds about right. Thanks for many of your previous posts. I have read a few this evening and appreciate your sharing. Today I received a Final Notice of Intent to Levy... and I was not planning on using Registered Mail to send it back through my LOR but after reading one of your comments I think at this point in the game I am more interested in paying the money to send it than leave it to chance. Thanks again.

[David Merrill]

Treefarmer;


One technique at play is that the presentments keep coming from different campuses of the IRS. That is why we open the evidence repository with a LoR against Timothy Franz GEITHNER - the Secretary of the Treasury acting as the US Governor of the IMF.

A suitor with a Libel of Review would Refuse for cause the Final Notice for Levy with the original R4C going to GEITHNER on the LoR in action. Send a copy of both the Clerk Instruction and the R4C to the campus that has mailed you the Presentment. The original clerk instruction with a copy of the R4C goes to the USDC into your LoR. Keep a copy for your records...

You can keep a record of what is in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US government. That is probably what it will take to dissuade the IRS agent from calling your boss or bank.

[Treefarmer]

Treefarmer;


One technique at play is that the presentments keep coming from different campuses of the IRS. That is why we open the evidence repository with a LoR against Timothy Franz GEITHNER - the Secretary of the Treasury acting as the US Governor of the IMF.

A suitor with a Libel of Review would Refuse for cause the Final Notice for Levy with the original R4C going to GEITHNER on the LoR in action. Send a copy of both the Clerk Instruction and the R4C to the campus that has mailed you the Presentment. The original clerk instruction with a copy of the R4C goes to the USDC into your LoR. Keep a copy for your records...

You can keep a record of what is in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US government. That is probably what it will take to dissuade the IRS agent from calling your boss or bank.

Yes, that technique has worked well for us.

It sometimes also works to send presentments back to sender without opening them, or accepting them, in the case of certified IRS mail which requires a signature.

Last summer while I was on my road trip out west, DH was tending the treefarm. I had instructed him not to contract with any alphabet agencies, and he didn't.
He refused to sign for the certified letter presentments which happened to show up while I was out of town. We'll never know what was in them, because after three unsuccessful tries the IRS stopped sending them.

Of course we already had our LoR in place by then, going into a default judgment.

[David Merrill]

Here are some examples of Default Judgment.