1040 help

[BigBlueOcean]

If an account is ongoing, that is the books are not settled and closed, a reconciliation and correction of the record is an election any interested party may notice and demand from the accountants administering the books. If there is a mistake in the books, a mistake of ledger, that mistake can been corrected under the Law of Mistake. The intent of the principal party or a party in interest or a creditor, or accounting for the debtor can be properly expressed and the books corrected until the account is closed (death certificate) and final probate.

Where the account in the NAME is yet ongoing (with annual probate #24 and not final probate #26), correcting accounting, even back to the beginning, appears to be an option.

A post at this site noted below asserts a limited effectiveness to an immediate yearly period

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are the default currency in the United States. To avoid its usage fee (aka “income tax”), one simply has to demand lawful money, United States Notes (USNs) in the form of FRNs, be used instead, for all transactions, as provided for in 12 USC 411, by making a substantive record of that demand on records (checks and deposit slips) used by financial institutions in their normal course of business documentation, and thereby creating admissible evidence per Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6), and causing the presumed FRNs to be redeemed on an annual basis when 1040 Tax Returns are filed to enable this reconciliation of accounts.

I am electing to use Title 15 debt collection statutes to compel the mere debt collector IRS to account, which accounting will be s

[David Merrill]

If an account is ongoing, that is the books are not settled and closed, a reconciliation and correction of the record is an election any interested party may notice and demand from the accountants administering the books. If there is a mistake in the books, a mistake of ledger, that mistake can been corrected under the Law of Mistake. The intent of the principal party or a party in interest or a creditor, or accounting for the debtor can be properly expressed and the books corrected until the account is closed (death certificate) and final probate.

Where the account in the NAME is yet ongoing (with annual probate #24 and not final probate #26), correcting accounting, even back to the beginning, appears to be an option.

A post at this site noted below asserts a limited effectiveness to an immediate yearly period

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are the default currency in the United States. To avoid its usage fee (aka “income tax”), one simply has to demand lawful money, United States Notes (USNs) in the form of FRNs, be used instead, for all transactions, as provided for in 12 USC 411, by making a substantive record of that demand on records (checks and deposit slips) used by financial institutions in their normal course of business documentation, and thereby creating admissible evidence per Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6), and causing the presumed FRNs to be redeemed on an annual basis when 1040 Tax Returns are filed to enable this reconciliation of accounts.

I am electing to use Title 15 debt collection statutes to compel the mere debt collector IRS to account, which accounting will be s

Elegant!

In my mind this demonstrates one objective truth. Which is to say that there are a variety of methods to approach it. There are as many perspectives on the truth as there are people speaking about it.

What you bring to my mind is the perspective I sometimes acquire that FRNs are insurance policies. Redemption is merely making a claim. I started a thread recently about settling the bill with a Redemption Stamp across the dead President, showing authority to Redeem across the boundary between the Treasury and the Fed.

I hope you share this.

[shikamaru]

Elegant!

In my mind this demonstrates one objective truth. Which is to say that there are a variety of methods to approach it. There are as many perspectives on the truth as there are people speaking about it.

What you bring to my mind is the perspective I sometimes acquire that FRNs are insurance policies. Redemption is merely making a claim. I started a thread recently about settling the bill with a Redemption Stamp across the dead President, showing authority to Redeem across the boundary between the Treasury and the Fed.

I hope you share this.

Could FRNs be likened to stock certificates?

[David Merrill]

Could FRNs be likened to stock certificates?

Exactly. My purpose about the insurance model is to explain why the admiralty law presides. If a stock certificate is endorsed in general, like FRN's as bills, then they can be passed. If you redeem the certificate then it is no longer any good. If you redeem the FRN it is no longer any good.

This happened lately and I showed this on a thread. The new suitor, in setting up an evidence repository was using a large Demand stamp and putting it across the dead President on the front of the certificate. Defacing it and emptying it of value, as it was livered to the clerk of court of the United States (Federal Reserve) District. So the clerk of court, consulting with the attorney in a federal judge robe had to accept that this bill set had no value, but was to be honored or admit the suitor had the authority to deface the money with impunity.

Does not the power to destroy only compliment the power to create?


P.S. The postage stamp value being absorbed in labor and technology is a great example of redeeming a stock certificate.

P.P.S. Post works in many ways. This is the numero-linguistic interface in action. Post-Demand (after the demand) the authority to create off the bill is released. The postal clerk calls his round-date "cancellation".

[Shylmysten]

Elegant!

In my mind this demonstrates one objective truth. Which is to say that there are a variety of methods to approach it. There are as many perspectives on the truth as there are people speaking about it.

What you bring to my mind is the perspective I sometimes acquire that FRNs are insurance policies. Redemption is merely making a claim. I started a thread recently about settling the bill with a Redemption Stamp across the dead President, showing authority to Redeem across the boundary between the Treasury and the Fed.

I hope you share this.

Can you provide a link to that thread please David? THANKS!

[doug555]

See: https://1040relief.blogspot.com

[marcel]

Been awhile since we heard from the doug555 persona.

Thanks for chiming in, doug. The next overdue account is ... how about "george" - we haven't seen that login since June.

[Richierich]

If an account is ongoing, that is the books are not settled and closed, a reconciliation and correction of the record is an election any interested party may notice and demand from the accountants administering the books. If there is a mistake in the books, a mistake of ledger, that mistake can been corrected under the Law of Mistake. The intent of the principal party or a party in interest or a creditor, or accounting for the debtor can be properly expressed and the books corrected until the account is closed (death certificate) and final probate.

Where the account in the NAME is yet ongoing (with annual probate #24 and not final probate #26), correcting accounting, even back to the beginning, appears to be an option.

A post at this site noted below asserts a limited effectiveness to an immediate yearly period

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are the default currency in the United States. To avoid its usage fee (aka “income tax”), one simply has to demand lawful money, United States Notes (USNs) in the form of FRNs, be used instead, for all transactions, as provided for in 12 USC 411, by making a substantive record of that demand on records (checks and deposit slips) used by financial institutions in their normal course of business documentation, and thereby creating admissible evidence per Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6), and causing the presumed FRNs to be redeemed on an annual basis when 1040 Tax Returns are filed to enable this reconciliation of accounts.

I am electing to use Title 15 debt collection statutes to compel the mere debt collector IRS to account, which accounting will be s

I know this is an old thread but hopefully @BigBlueOcean is still around and can help shed some light on their use of Title 15 when dealing with the IRS ??

[American_National]

Their U.C.C. operating procedures may be helpful in this regard as well (I'm thinking in written form here) . . .

U.C.C. Section 3-114: If there are contradictory terms on a check, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.

So how do we use their own operational parameter rules to our favor in making our demand for the payment of our check/draft medium of exchange in lawful money of value ONLY?


Try this: (my poor attempt at trying to recreate the face of a personal check/draft)


Pay to the order of: ABC Company _________________. $[See Below]

One hundred and no/hundredths U.S. issued lawful money of value in units of Dollars

This is a Title 12 USC §411 described lawful
money of value consumer transaction

For: described in UCC 3-103(a)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . .By demand: your autograph, maker (UCC 3-103(a)(7))


Analysis:

1. Per the 4 corners [ ] rule, you have eliminated them establishing an exchange ratio for purposes of this transaction between their $[### ] "FRN's" and the long-form written value expressed in "Dollars" below their $BOX.

2. You have ordered the payment of this check/draft to be made in U.S. situs based lawful money of value in units of "Dollars", and not foreign/private FRN bills of credit evidencing a debt.

3. You have described the purpose of this check/draft as being the actual payment (not discharge) of a consumer transaction in value.

4. You have made your compliance with 12 USC 411 "By demand:" known as the maker of this check/draft. (transacting absent accommodation is authorized per U.C.C. 4-205)

5. No fractional reserve fabrication of additional debt is allowed resultant to your "non-accommodation" of their private-credit FRN instruments.


What are your comments/questions in relation to the above approach in building your administrative record for such lawful money offsets on your annual tax return(s)?

[doug555]

Their U.C.C. operating procedures may be helpful in this regard as well (I'm thinking in written form here) . . .

U.C.C. Section 3-114: If there are contradictory terms on a check, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.

So how do we use their own operational parameter rules to our favor in making our demand for the payment of our check/draft medium of exchange in lawful money of value ONLY?


Try this: (my poor attempt at trying to recreate the face of a personal check/draft)


Pay to the order of: ABC Company _________________. $[See Below]

One hundred and no/hundredths U.S. issued lawful money of value in units of Dollars

This is a Title 12 USC §411 described lawful
money of value consumer transaction

For: described in UCC 3-103(a)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . .By demand: your autograph, maker (UCC 3-103(a)(7))


Analysis:

1. Per the 4 corners [ ] rule, you have eliminated them establishing an exchange ratio for purposes of this transaction between their $[### ] "FRN's" and the long-form written value expressed in "Dollars" below their $BOX.

2. You have ordered the payment of this check/draft to be made in U.S. situs based lawful money of value in units of "Dollars", and not foreign/private FRN bills of credit evidencing a debt.

3. You have described the purpose of this check/draft as being the actual payment (not discharge) of a consumer transaction in value.

4. You have made your compliance with 12 USC 411 "By demand:" known as the maker of this check/draft. (transacting absent accommodation is authorized per U.C.C. 4-205)

5. No fractional reserve fabrication of additional debt is allowed resultant to your "non-accommodation" of their private-credit FRN instruments.


What are your comments/questions in relation to the above approach in building your administrative record for such lawful money offsets on your annual tax return(s)?

IMO, the DEMAND in 12 USC 411 has to do with the REDEMPTION, and not ISSUANCE, of lawful money.

The presumed and legitimate default currency in USA is FRN Fiat Notes.

Redemption of same can only occur in the after-the-fact usage of same.

Therefore, I believe we cannot demand payment in lawful money, per se.

However. we can state that "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" so that we can redeem these same amounts on a subsequent 1040 Form on line 21.

Make sense?