IRS INFORMATION
1. Zero Your Account New! Sto being a tax delinquent Flugitive (PDF)
2. Ineffective Assistance (Word Doc.)
3. 1099 Application (PDF)
4. Report 1099 Application(PDF)
5. NOTICE CONCERNING FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP (PDF)
6. Selecting the Safest Strategy
7. US Cod: Title 16,2432, Definitions
*****************************************************************
DOCUMENT #1: "Zero your account NOW! Stop being a tax delinquent FUGITIVE!
TO VIEW THIS PDF FILE CLICK ON:
www.fourwinds10.com/resources/uploads/pdf/Zeroouttheaccountpdftest1.pdf
*******************************************
DOCUMENT #2: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
Taken From Jack Smith Monday Night Class - July 2, 2007.
[ with extra notation for Australians from Keeper’s Watch Ministry of Adelaide ].
[In]effective Assistance Of Counsel Remedy
Any time a judge finds a defendant ‘guilty’ in a court case, this is based upon the fact that the parties were in full agreement as to the ‘facts’ - that is no evidence was introduced or brought forward by any party to rebut the assumptions and presumptions in any of the charging instruments. What you have in such a case is a contractual offer and acceptance and therefore an ‘agreement of the parties’ because no party offered any counterclaim or rebuttal to any or all of the assumptions and presumptions in any of the charging instruments [ KWM Note: - which may or may not include an assumption and presumption that one is ‘mentally incompetent’, which is often the last thing a court, particularly the Family Courts, have left to deny you a remedy when you have successfully deflected all other allegation through your private administrative process - this is an issue that requires special attention - be sure to privately submit several affidavits from many of your friends who have known you for a considerable amount of time as soon as possible, and request that your fiduciary enter them into the evidence file - send a courtesy copy of same to the judge and the other parties in interest also ]. The Judge makes his finding of ‘guilty’ based upon the ‘agreement of the parties’ as to what the ‘facts’ are in any given matter, and since the defendant accepted/agreed with the facts in the charging instrument by simply having failed to rebut them in the proper manner [ KWM Note - private administrative process instead of arguing in court ] , you end up with a ‘contractual stipulation’ and the judge is then going to issue a finding/judgment of guilty based upon that ‘agreement of the parties’. That judgement would then be based not upon the issues of law or what the ‘true’ facts in the matter are, or would have been had one brought forward evidence that no one brought forward previously, particularly evidence which could have rebutted the assumptions and presumptions in any and all of the charging instruments in a matter [ KWM Note - eg. your Certificate Of Protest, evidence of a private agreement/stipulation ] . The Judge cannot make any ‘guesses’ as to what the facts are, but only proceed on whatever evidence has been placed before him - so you end up with a contractual offer and acceptance if no counterclaim or rebuttal is brought forward. [ KWM Note - this is true even when the judge knows that you have evidence to submit in your possession after carrying out your private administrative process - he and your fiduciary will never inform/warn you to submit your evidence into the proceedings, if anything, the other parties will often attempt to circumvent your remedy through deceitful tactics such as attempting to use the Mental Incompetency issue against you, if it remains unrebutted to sneak in a Final Order before you get the chance to rebut the presumption of ‘mental incompetency’ ] So often a judgement has nothing to do with reality but is based on the logic of the actions of the parties in interest in any matter.
Often when a defendant states that they “do not understand the charges”, this may result in the judge ordering a psychiatric assessment which is a colourable way of the judge saying “hello, You need to get a clue about what is going on here!” [KWM Note: - Bear in mind however, that the ordering of psychiatric assessments has now become an integral and normal collateral test and weapon on and against defendants in the current admiralty system, most likely to be used against fathers falsely accused of child abuse at the commencement of proceedings in the Family Court of Australia more so than in any other case, which if not handled properly either by way of responding correctly to such an order for psychiatric assessment in the first instance [eg by conditional acceptance upon proof of claim that any test the psychologist or psychiatrist undertakes is more reliable and accurate than twenty affidavits from twenty of your friends who have known you for several years ] and/or by way of rebutting any ‘lingering presumptions’ of mental incompetency that are created as the outcome of any psychiatric assessments. The mental competency issue and the rebutting of any presumptions as to mental competency is often overlooked by defendants in any matter and this one issue alone can destroy your private administrative remedy even if you have carried out your private administrative remedy correctly and perfectly in every other way and in regards to all other allegations and assumptions and presumptions in the charging instruments .
When an incorrect/unjust judgement has been issued, you have to do a direct attack on the judgement itself. You cannot just fully accept for value and return for value a judgement, you have to go back to the substantive side of a case, and show that you are not guilty on the substantive side of a case. [ KWM Note - this is where a lot of experts
Page 1 of 7
in the commercial redemption movement fail in their understanding, and incorrectly apply the principle of ‘all crimes are commercial’, it is more correct to say that ‘all crimes are given a commercial value’ but there is also a private [substance] side to every case and one still needs to rebutt the presumptions that they committed any crime rather than just fully accept and return for value any and all charging instruments - when it comes to a false allegation of any kind, one still needs to show that they did not commit that particular crime otherwise it appears as if they are merely attempting to get away with doing the crime by simply ‘paying it off’, which of course is neither honourable nor scriptural ] The mere attempt to resolve the issue in ‘form’ is not going to be sufficient to get you out of trouble. You have to go back and deal with the substance too: Were you really truly the bad guy/girl or were you innocent?
So when it comes to having a judgement overturned, (when you were in fact innocent), the problem was that you did not understand something that was going on, but rather the case was that you relied upon the lawyer for EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, and being denied EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL could be a substantive reason, to vacate or set aside a judgement and have a retrial (or commence new hearings), because the substantive issue is whether or not true/natural justice has been done here in terms of meaning ‘due process and protection under the law’. upon INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. A party cannot merely file any kind of public document into the public side of the court such as a “Motion To Dismiss” the judgment because the Judge would literally ignore it anyway being a public Strawman filing and an argument on top of that. One must obtain an agreement/stipulation with the lawyer who denied effective assistance of counsel that he did in fact deny effective assistance of counsel through his silence and/or non-response. A mere public filing such as a “Motion” would also constitute the act of “charging your brother” as one did not give the lawyer an opportunity to cure which is an essential and necessary element of commercial law principles. A private administrative process including a Notarial Protest is the correct procedure required to establish the stipulation/agreement that one has been denied due process rights in this case, the effective assistance of counsel. Substantive rights are guaranteed only on the private side of any matter. Registered mailing applies to substantive rights.
A party first of all has to get the agreement/stipulation of the parties [especially the lawyer involved], that they were substantively denied effective assistance of counsel. One must go through private Letter Rogatory to the lawyer who is the “nexus” to the proceedings. Exculpatory evidence is that which would rebutt the presumption of the plaintiff and support those of the defendants. There have been many cases whereby exculpatory evidence has been handed back to the defendants - this is quite normal. One should not get “mad” and “upset” about this. What does the law require the Watchman [ in this case your fiduciary/legal counsel ] rto do? Give notice of danger to anyone whom which the Watchman has knowledge of such danger [such as when presumptions need to be rebutted as to any issue/allegation]. In Scripture it says, if the Watchman does not warn the party that is in danger, who is at fault?
If the Watchman warns the party who is in danger and if the party who is in danger does not heed the warning then it would be the fault of the party that did not heed it. The defendants need to catch the court’s mistake - which can be done even after a judgment has been delivered.
[ In a particular matter, the lawyers returned the exculpatory evidence back to the defendants after they had already been convicted and a judgement was issued ]
First of all, this party draws the attention to the lawyer as to the exculpatory evidence that come back and then in the letter it goes on:
“ Despite my numerous requests for you to do so and my ongoing statements to you that there were documents that would exonerate the defendant/respondant on the unfounded and unproven allegations and charges and subsequent convictions based on, by your own words, “hunches, suspicions and half-truths” that were not rebutted and so stand presumptively as agreement of the facts in this case between the parties” .
[ Jack Smith Commentary: The lawyers from the beginning said, “there’s no evidence here, just some hunches, suspicions and half-truths” on the part of the government - so the question is did the lawyers know what they were up against in this case? Absolutely! All there were were hunches, suspicions and half-truths.]
Page 2 of 7
The Letter then goes on:
“It has been confusing to me and puzzling as to how a person can be found guilty of a crime without any substantial
evidence being brought by the prosecution/plaintiff. Furthermore, I recall at the nomination hearings to the United
States Supreme Court Of Mr Bork a number of years back, Mr Bork stated on record that 99 per cent of everyone in
jail on a criminal conviction are there at their own agreement or words to that effect. After some objective inquiry
and unsolicited commentary I find it necessary to write this letter, which I will call a private Letter Rogatory to
solicit your help in resolving this matter”.
[ Jack Smith Commentary: Who is going to resolve the matter? The lawyer! Why is the lawyer going to resolve this matter? Because the lawyer created the problem! By INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL! How does that make you feel? Well, we can really get angry at that lawyer, or, how does that make me feel? I have to go back to the woman/man that is going to correct this problem for me! And that woman/man is the lawyer! So it makes me feel real good that I can give him/her the opportunity to correct the problem. ]
The Letter goes on:
“After some objective inquiry, I find it necessary to write this letter, which I will call a private Letter Rogatory,
please repond to me in writing within ten (10) days of receipt hereof, if you have any evidence or counterclaim as
to anything that might be incorrect in the following presentation and documentation. Your failure to respond
with a supported counterclaim will constitute your agreement/stipulation and consent with the undersigned in
this matter”.
The Undersigned’s Claim
Major Premise: There was no substantive evidence presented by the prosecution/plaintiff against the defendants in Case Number 12345 in United States Supreme Court to prove that the defendants committed a crime - all the facts presented by the prosecution were assumptive and presumptive of the facts that were associated with an “alleged crime”.
Minor Premise: The defense failed to rebutt the assumptive and presumptive facts, so the assumed and presumed facts stand as truth. Therefore the defendants have voluntarily consented and agreed with the prosecution’s assumed and presumed facts as offered by ‘tacit admission’. The facts are not in dispute by ‘agreement of the parties’ whether they are true or not.
Conclusion: The tacit admission of the facts by the defendant can only result in a finding of guilty by the court by the ‘agreement of the parties’ and not as a judgement in law based upon substantial evidence.
This is the first claim of the writer.
[ Jack Smith Commentary: Do you agree with me or not Mr Lawyer, if you do not agree with it, then come on back and put in your counterclaim as to why this is not true. Now underneath that claim goes the following questions from the writer -
A. “Have I not now discovered that this nation is no longer under a system of law in the public that was in existence when the nation was founded, in which the defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty? Is it not true that a defendant in court on a criminal charge in ‘THIS STATE’ is now assumed and presumed to be guilty by the charging facts in the case unless and until the defendant proves himself innocent by rebutting these facts?
Your response is agreement/stipulation herewith unless you respond with supported evidence to the contrary.
Page 3 of 7
[ Jack Smith Commentary: So what are we doing? We are stating a claim, and bringing some facts [ eg. such as the evidence of the stipulation/agreement and any other evidence ] in support. You need to break the judge’s presumption that the defendant’s understood the necessary procedure required in order for them to obtain a remedy.
[ KWM Note: - In America, counsel is appointed for an accused defendant in a criminal matter anyway - this is probably because in the American Constitution it clearly and blatantly obviously states that every party involved in a criminal case has the right to “effective assistance of counsel” and because it is written in such a blatantly open manner, the courts grant the assistance of a legal counsel so as to not let ‘the cat of the bag’. Although It is not expressly written as such in the Australian Constitution, Australians have a right to a “fair trial” which encompasses both assistance of counsel - (see Dietrich v The Queen 1992) and “effective assistance of counsel” especially under the current system of Admiralty law which requires an accused party to be buffered by legal counsel - this is because “ineffective assistance of counsel” or even no counsel at all would result in an unfair trial, and as in the case of Dietrich v The Queen 1992 [High Court Of Australia], Dietrich’s conviction was overturned on appeal on the basis that he had no counsel at all through no fault of his own - (N.B. in Australia you have a dance a round or two with the Legal Services Commission in your State to get a lawyer, and if the Legal Services Commission can place your into a dishonour, they then do not have to give you a lawyer, because then it was your own fault) - in the matter of Dietrich v The Queen 1992 - High Court Of Australia, Olaf Dietrich brought forward the fact the he had repeatedly pleaded with the court that he could not go ahead without counsel as he did not understand the proceedings, and did not have enough knowledge, but the court went ahead with the trial and convicted him. More than likely the reason why the Australian Courts do not give Australians a lawyer as they do in America, which should be the case when a father is falsely accused in the Family Court, is because the right to “effective assistance of counsel” is not written in such blatant wording and therefore, it would not be so risky in Australia to not tell an accused defendant that they not only need legal counsel to buffer them in the current system of Admiralty, but they also have a righ to the effective assistance of counsel otherwise the trial/hearings would not be a fair trial or hearing and that would constitute a denial of substantie/natural rights - only problem is, the accused is required to be sharp enough to pick up on these points and unfortunately, Australia is not the best place for “details” ].
[ KWM Note (continued) - Substantive rights are protected on the private side of any legal matter in today’s Admiralty jursidiction courts. So rather than go into the court ‘publicly’, by appearing generally or by filing any public motions or documents, one needs to submit their record/evidence being confidential commercial information [ comprising stipulation/agreement of the parties that you were denied effective assistance of counsel ] into the private side of the court [ registered mail directly to your fiduciary and the judge in private chambers - courtesy copies to other parties ] requesting/petitioning for review of the evidence showing that you were denied effective assistance of counsel and that a procedural error has occurred. In the First instance, one must get the significant parties to any legal matter to agree/stipulate with them that they were denied effective assistance of counsel. This would ensure that the issue has already been resolved in private and there is no need to go into the public to try and make such a point which would not work in your favour anyway.
[ Jack Smith Commentary: This Letter Rogatory is written to the lawyer/counsel to get his tacit agreement that you were denied effective assistance of counsel because he failed to disclose/point out to you necessary procedural actions that were required to be taken in order to give you your remedy. This is going to be a mirror image of what the court did to you to find your guilty in order to get the lawyer in agreement with you that you were denied effective assistance of counsel remebering here that a ‘fact’ is only that which has already been ‘agreed/stipulated ’ to .]
The letter goes on:
B. Is it not true that since 1933 there is no lawful money of substance circulating in the public by sanction of public law, and so there can be no judicial proceedings in law, since in law requires the ability to provide a remedy at execution in lawful money of substance which does not exist in public policy?
Your response is agreement/stipulation herewith unless you respond with supported evidence to the contrary.
Page 4 of 7
C. Is it not true that civil and criminal proceedings in the courts of ‘THIS STATE’ are de-facto and based upon private commercial contract law proceedings between the plaintiff/prosecution and the defendants/respondents?.
Your response is agreement/stipulation herewith unless you respond with supported evidence to the contrary.
[ Jack Smith Commentary - In the United States, Title 18 suggests that all criminal cases are commercial and so we are just repeating that in Point C ]
D. Is it not true then that the Criminal/Family/Supreme/District/Magistrate Court in ‘THIS STATE’ in this case did not try this case by bringing substantive evidence, but rather, was relying upon an agreement of the parties by the hopeful failure of the defendants/respondent to rebutt the assumptions and presumptions of the charging facts?
Your response is agreement/stipulation herewith unless you respond with supported evidence to the contrary.
E. Is it not true that you, as legal counsel appointed for the undersigned made a statement to the undersigned
that the prosecution did not have any evidence, and you as the defence legal counsel would mount an
evidence in chief to defeat the charges?
Your response is agreement/stipulation herewith unless you respond with supported evidence to the contrary.
[ Jack Smith Commentary - As you can see from the above questions, we have to attack the judgement based upon the action of setting it aside/vacating it, due to the fact that the procedural due process was not followed i.e. it was a ‘bad game’ and the game is going to have be played over again with procedural and substantive due process being observed the second time around to re-determine who wins. So it is not directly about innocence or guilt. How is it that we are going to get the game set aside/vacated? What is the only thing that will now set aside/vacate the game? It was an unfair game [KWM Note - i.e. unfair trial in Australia]. So the purpose of this Letter Rogatory is to get a new hearing by proving that the lawyer was incompetent through his/her tacit agreement ] .
[ Jack Smith Commentary - If the defendants merely go into the public side of the court and say “that lawyer was incompetent, what is the court going to do? The Judge will merely say, “Excuse me, they passed the Bar Exams, they have years of experience and they go to regular classes each year!” “I was personally in this court and I never see them make any kind of misjudgement when I was sitting as the Judge on this case, therefore I am ruling against you!” That is exactly what is going to happen! And that is why the correct manner in which to secure a rehearing is through this Letter Rogatory.
The purpose of this Letter Rogatory is to get the lawyer to confess that he/she was incompetent through their inability to provide proof of claims to the contrary, because if they ‘admit’ they are incompetent, and the defendants claim
they were incompetent, have we not now got an agreement of the parties? Then obviously the court could not say the parties were wrong because you would now have an agreement/stipulation between the parties that the lawyer was incompetent. You are not going to prevail by attempting to get the lawyer to expressly admit that he/she was incompetent!
If we set this procedure up to say that:
“Everybody understands that to win in court one is required to rebut the presumptions in a charging instrument!”
Would the lawyer then say no that is a lie? If the lawyer then says that is a lie he has then just admitted that he is incompetent because he does not know how the system works!
Page 5 of 7
You are saying to the lawyer that ‘everbody knows that unless the defendant rebuts the assumptions and presumptions in a charging instrument, he is going to be found guilty! So if the attorney then states that this is a false statement, he himself would be proving that he is incompetent because he is then showing that he does not even know the rules as to how the court is operating! If the lawyer were to respond with “No!, you don’t have to do that!”, then everyone else would be thinking where the hell did that lawyer get his/her licence? We don’t care whether or not the lawyer is incompetent or not, all we care about is protecting the rights of the defendant in this scenario! Now as far as the court is concerned, since all of this is private, is any of this likely to surface in the public to embarrass that lawyer? Mostly certainly not! Not unless somebody does a hell of a lot of private research! So this procedure takes place in the private, it is not secret, just in the private! Because our purpose is NOT to destroy the attorney [ KWM Note: Remembering and taking into account here that in Scriptural and Commercial Law, one must always provide a party with an opportunity to cure ] Because maybe the lawyer was not out to destroy, but was rather, just a part of the wacky world of Alice In Wonderland!
Well then how did that make you feel when the lawyer did not assist you to rebut the presumptions? Surprised? Well I am glad then that you did not become antagonistic or warfare like, I’m glad that you came back to the lawyer and caused the problem to attempt to get him to resolve it! Now let’s have a look at where this is going - let’s assume that you set up all of these questions and the question are all set up in such a manner that if the lawyer AGREES with what you said, he/she will not answer you. Because you’re telling way too much reality and truth in this private Letter Rogatory document are you not? At least as far as the public is concened? And he is licensed to operate in the public is he not? So if a newspaper editor came up to him and said that he just saw a letter from a defendant alleging that the lawyer was incompetent and the lawyer responded with, “that is a bunch of lies, and I did not even bother responding to it!” What did the lawyer just do then? He admitted that the defendant’s claims in the letter were all true because he did not rebut them. Which means that his real answer was, “my client was absolutely on point!”, “And that is why he is going to get a remedy!” “BUT I cannot say that!” The other reason why this is colourable is because you are not asking the lawyer to respond to you if they agree with you! That way nobody can ‘charge’ the lawyer with screwing up because he/she failed to respond! That lawyer will just say “I did not agree with any of that, I did my best!”, “The guy was just guilty as sin!” And the sleeping public as usual, will believe that because as usual, they will not look into it!
So this is the perfect result because if the lawyer who represented you fails to respond, and you do the correct private administrative procedure and you have an ‘agreement of the parties’ that you can privately take back to the court and get a remedy - NOT judicially but by way of private administrative Data Integrity Board hearing [Ministerially], and if you can get that judge to agree/stipulate that your procedure in getting this agreement into the evidence record of the court, is correct, then the end result will correctly have the judge acting ‘ministerially’ and not ‘judicially’ by ‘reviewing it for error in procedure’, and he will say, “well, I concur with this and we are going to issue a vacation of the judgement and we are going to set the case for more hearings”. Do you then have to go up on appeal [ which is argument/dishonour ] HELL NO! There is nothing to ‘appeal’ right now, other than the fact that YOU did not rebutt the presumptions, and therefore you cannot get a remedy on appeal!
So what happened in Step Number One [1] is that we got him basically to AGREE with the rules in regards to the way the court operates and is supposed to operate, and the basic way the court operates is that we needed to rebut the presumptions.
Under Step Number Two [2] we had the MAJOR PREMISE that you as the lawyer are trained and licenced and presumed to know the proper form, substance and procedure to defend the defendants against the assumed and presumed charges for which the plaintiff/prosecution has brought no prima facie evidence.
MINOR PREMISE - In this case, you did not put on a ‘case in chief’, to rebutt the false assumptions and presumptions of the criminal charges against the defendant, that would have required the prosecution to present substantive evidence to prove the charges.
CONCLUSION - You are either grossly incompetent in assisting the defendant/undersigned in this case, or else you acted maliciously and with intent to keep the defendant/undersigned from bringing a necessary and sufficient defense in this matter.
Page 6 of 7
Then we go through a series of statement/questions to get them to admit the facts in support of this as it applies to this case.
And then finally, in Step Number Three [3], MAJOR PREMISE - the undersigned has an unalienable right to due process of law and equal protection under the law including but not limited to the right to effective assistance of counsel
[ KWM Note: this right is cleverly hidden from recognition by the largely sleeping Australians under the umbrella of the Constitutional right to a ‘fair trial’ in Australia - see Dietrich v The Queen 1992 - HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA which colourably states that we have a right to assistance of counsel, especially when and if we did not explicitly waive that right, this right includes the ‘effective’ assistance of counsel also which is just another necessary element required in order for one to have had a fair trial ] in defense of the criminal charge.
MINOR PREMISE - You were not effective in your assistance of counsel in this case, because you were either incompetent, or malicious in failing to represent the defendant by assisting in rebutting the assumed and presumed facts and charges against the defendant when the undersigned was willing and able to testify by negative averment and present facts by way of admissable evidence to demonstrate that the assumed and presumed charges were not true.
CONCLUSION: The defendants were denied effective assistance of counsel in this case, and the judgement in this case should be set aside based on incompetent assistance of counsel and then some facts in support of that.
Number 1 - We set down some rules as to the way the court proceeds and we necessarily had to do that.
Number 2 - We set down that the lawyer did not do it.
Number 3 - We set down because you (the lawyer) did not do it, we were denied an effective assistance of counsel which is a denial of a substantive right requiring the court then to vacate/set aside the judgement.
Now if we get an ‘agreement between the parties’ on the above questions/statements, and carry out the proper procedure to take it back into the evidence file in the case, then what more is there for the Judge to do? Not much OTHER THAN TO SET ASIDE/VACATE THE JUDGEMENT!
But if you incorrectly went in on a public side ‘Motion’ to set aside/vacate the judgment, the judge simply CANNOT SEE IT! Worse yet, let’s say we go the Habeas Corpus route where you are unlawfully going to put the defendants in prison. Where is that going to go? NOWHERE! And why is it going to go NOWHERE? Because you are involved in a contract allowing and consenting and giving permission to the public to do it, and now you want to issue a Habeas Corpus saying that they do not have such a right? What’s wrong with AGREEING with your contract? So you see, all of these criminal cases are based upon contract law which has nothing to do with law or any of those things most patriots think that these courts are doing!
And then these Patriots end up being upset with the lawyers, and upset with the judges, and some are even upset at the denial of an Article III [Chapter III Court in Australia] Constitutional Court, but why do we need any of those things when Contract Law is so relatively important in these cases?
JUST DON’T CONTRACT YOU IDIOTS!!
*******************************************************
DOCUMENT # 3: "1099 APPLICATION"
TO VIEW THIS PDF FILE CLICK ON:
www.fourwinds10.com/resources/uploads/pdf/1099.pdf
********************************************************
DOCUMENT # 4: "REPORT 1099 - CONFIDENTIAL REPORT"
Report # 1099
Confidential Report
Explanation of the 1099 OID and the 1040V (Voucher) An What Impact It Has On Your Alleged Income Tax Liability
There have been a number of differing interpretations of the use of the 1099-OID and the 1040-V as well as to who is the payer and who is the recipient. Also, there appears to be some differing opinions regarding the term “IRS agent”. In trying to understand the IRS function regarding prepaid and the return to the private, here are some of my thoughts. I will try to put this into an itemized format in order to separate the different issues mentioned.
It is important, I believe, that we look at the use prescribed by the IRS for each form; namely the 1099-OID and the 1040-V.
Instructions for the 1099-OID state that it is a form to be completed by REMICs (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit), FASITs (Financial Asset Securitization Investment Trusts), Stock and Bond Brokers, and any other institutions authorized by Congress to convert notes, bonds and other securities into M-1 (liquidity).
1. The 1099-OID (original Issue) deals with our credit as collateral for “newly created money” (that which is created by the use of our credit/SS# - even though */all/* “old” money (money already in circulation) was also created with our credit, or through a pool or blocked grant).
2. Original issue would include all mortgages, bonds, certain securities, car loans, and the like.
3. On the other hand, the 1040-V would be to cover other numerous types of transactions that have not been directly funded by us, those which are *not *funded by unilaterally signed (by us) futures contract* *notes, credit applications and such future contracts. Rather the 1040-V is used for instant use with re-circulated money and bills & statements for products by corporations not governmental approved nor licensed to create money; such as Fanny & Freddie).
4. Is what we are doing cleansing all the money so that it is no longer contraband (it has been accounted for in other words, appropriated to the proper debtor/tax payer fiction)?
5. So, it would seem that the 1099-OID when declared on the 1040, as that which must be returned to the source, (declared in the total amount of income on line 21 of the 1040) that we are due the refund and the “recipient(s)” are the ones required to declare on their returns all the credit they withheld from us, as their income (all the money created using our credit/labor/assets as the collateral). This is the re-funding to us by IRS thus making the IRS a “pass-through/clearing house” for the reallocation of funds to the proper accounts at the U.S. Treasury and to be properly applied to their respective accounts thus bringing our account to 0-).
6. *Next,* The back of the recipient’s copy of the 1099-OID states as follows (quoted below):
“Original issue discount (OID) is the excess of an obligation’s stated redemption price at maturity over its issue price (acquisition price). OID is taxable as interest over the life of the obligation. If you are the holder of an OID obligation, generally you must include an amount of OID in your gross income each year you hold the obligation. Obligations that may have OID include a bond, debenture, note, certificate, or other evidence of indebtedness having a term of more than 1 year. For example, the OID rules may apply to certificates of deposit (CD’s), time deposits, bonus savings plans, and other deposit arrangements, especially if the payment of interest is deferred until maturity. In addition, the OID rules apply to Treasury inflation-indexed securities. See Pub 550. Investment Income and Expenses, for more information.“
(This is the point at which the account is accelerated in time to maturity. To quote from one of your letters, “when the 1040 assessment is made in truth, the connection is made to all agency accounts for the tax loss write-off as negative payment to Treasury and, now, the prize is taken! How or when is the prize going to be paid out?” We can only hope the IRS will not be hi-jacked by the pirates before delivering the prize.)
It continues: “
7. The taxes required to be paid by the recipient on the 1099-OID will be the difference between the original issue (will be the face value of the note plus all interest calculated to maturity for mortgages, cars, and financed items) and the discount. (Similar to the difference between wholesale and retail). Each corporation/vender only pays tax on the interest received each year less their costs. This changes and becomes all due when the account is accelerated in time to maturity at which time all interest is due
8. From the above, I concluded the following as pertains to Mortgage Companies (REMICs - Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits), FASITs, (Financial Asset Securitization Investment Trusts) and Brokerages, etc.
a. In the case of REMICs etc., (where our credit has been hijacked similar but not identical to what the FTB has done) we now file an IRS form 1099-OID for the amount of the note or original document used by the REMIC to obtain the “loan”, etc. which they have requisitioned to their own account. Or we may file any other appropriate 1099, i.e. 1099-B such as would be used for title to real estate or title to a vehicle, etc. or in the case of arrest, the “body”. This is when we become identified as the source. The amount on the 1099-OIDs or other 1099s (red forms only) should include the original amount of the “loan” (face amount of the note) in addition to any “payments” that have been made against the “loan”. These payments may be put on separate 1099-OIDs instead of being included with the note amount. These are all amounts of our credit, which they have requisitioned to use to make claim against us. This is declared on line 21 of the form 1040 as taxable income, as zero on line 63, and then as withholding on Line 64 (as we are not the tax payer and we are only identifying our Treasury Account balance). This will then indicate that we are entitled to have our credit re-funded for the amount on line 64. Can you tell me if, at this point, we now have “true title” to the property that was used as collateral for the “loan” the REMIC etc. made against our credit? Would this remove our “real property”, real estate out the control/possession of the government and give us a fee simple or allodial (absolute) title to the property? If so, this would probably also apply to autos, refrigerators, tractors, etc.
b. Only that which we have discharged with cash, checks, money orders, etc, or subsidized with our credit goes onto the 1099-OID.
c. A 1040-V is prepared for the balance they are claiming is owed. The 1040-V is only for “open” accounts (those showing a “balance owed”) If we pay with a 1040-V, the product will have been purchased with credit. Would this give us the superior title?
d. The REMIC now made a “loan” of our credit (they borrowed our credit at the Treasury because they have been authorized by Congress to do so) using our note as collateral. The REMIC now provides the so-called “lender”, the one on the Trust Deed that has requested the REMIC to borrow our credit in order that they may pretend to be the “lender” on the Trust Deed and submitted the Trust Deed to a Trustee to act as “holder”. Is the Trustee now the holder of the Title/ If so, which Title. Since the Title Insurance Companies are the ones insuring the “Title” to the REMIC are they not responsible to provide a clean title to us through the use of our credit by the REMIC since they claim they only insure the REMIC, but we pay the premium through escrow?
e. The REMIC has passed our credit, that has been converted into futures (Mortgage Backed Securities MBSs) and provided funds to close out any prior mortgages, and equity created by “payments” (the giving of money we labored for) as well as inflation from derivatives.
f. When “billing” us, the mortgage company/bank puts a coupon on the bottom of their “assessment/bill” to us (which we do not owe). This zeroes the account on their books because they have billed us and paid us with the coupon (Roget’s Thesaurus qualifies under the heading of “Money” that money is a token, script, *coupon*, check, etc. and under the heading of “securities” that a security is a stock certificate, street certificate, interim certificate and coupon). (Black’s fourth edition defines a coupon as:) They use the coupon as a disguised payment to *execute* our credit in order that we still believe we owe and will volunteer into the contract. (Similar to what the FTB does) Would we not then use the 1099-B (barter) in lieu of the 1099-OID to claim our credit used to produce the coupon?
g. At that point we really do not owe anything; they owe us what they borrowed of our credit plus interest. They are still withholding our exemption they procured from the Treasury and have failed to pay us the interest.
h. If or when we send a check to them, we have volunteered to contract with the “so-called lender” to make the payments and not use the coupon. They */presume/* we have a contract.
i. So, we can send the 1040-V and use their coupon, for the remainder of the futures contract as we are prepaid and our portion of prepayment being held by the Treasury (unidentified in the pool) with the note or other instrument as collateral, (in Trust Deed states, the Trust Deed is collateral for the Note) can now be appropriated to our account. We file this with a 1099-B for return of all the coupons.
j. Since they have previously used our SS# to “borrow” from our credit at the Treasury, we must take it back from them by filing with IRS to show they are the holders of contraband funds. We undo the presumption that we are the debtor and they are the creditor.
k. When opening a credit card account, applying for a mortgage, and including any previously “paid” property taxes, sales tax, etc., these so-called debts are the ones we want to claim on the 1099-OID since this is “stolen credit” (inflation money) and the pirating of our credit. Until we report this on a 1099-OID to IRS, the institution, that converted our instrument (note, bond, application, cash or checks expended, etc.) to create this spendable credit, is identified as the creditor. So, when reported on the 1099-OID we are now identified as the source/creditor of the funds. When we make “/payments/” for the so-called “/loan/” with FRNs, checks, etc., the 1099-OID would also be used since money had been placed into circulation that this payment is off-setting the OID now identifies it. We should then expect to be reimbursed through IRS (the accountants and clearing house for the Treasury) for the use of our credit which was wrongly appropriated and identified.
l. I feel uncertain about filing a 1099-OID against certain venders (the self-employed and those who have used their own hard earned money to go into business) as the vendor was not the originator of the funds directly through us. Only credit banks, credit agencies, mortgage companies, and other organizations authorized by Congress to create money should receive a 1099 OID. Since very few vendors provide “deferred payments”, they may be using a bank or other credit agent, i.e. Target, Sears have their own bank. An ordinary vender is not an original issuer nor an initiator of a blocked grant nor a distributor of same, so, we would need to know if there is a credit provider or not, but if so who they are. A self-employed machine shop, auto repair shop, or other businessman has paid for materials and labor would we not be claiming his credit/labor?
9. We send the form 1040-V with the MO (statement showing “outstanding balance”) made payable to the Treasury - For transactions involving vendors.
10. The 1040-V is mainly good for set-off (or payment?) of current (open) billings/statements. It will be one of the red form 1099s to claim the re-funding of the credit.
11. It is important to identify whether our credit has been used or not. Otherwise, you may be providing whomever you are sending the 1040-V payment twice, i.e. he will receive two tax exemptions.
12. Original 1040-V with MO goes to IRS with MO made payable to the Treasury
13. Declare the amount on the MO as income on line 21 of form 1040 (This assesses the tax)
14. The 1040-V (voucher) for payment of tax, pays the amount on line 21- zeroes out the amount on the 1040. (This is slightly different from the 1099s)
15. IRS sends the MO to the Treasury for allocation of the credit to be provided as a tax exemption to the vendor.
16. When the “vendor” received the 1040-V with their bill/statement/money made “payable to
17. When the product was sold, the company credited “sales” on their Profit and Loss Statement and debited “accounts receivable” which is a Balance Sheet account.
18. They can then transfer the amount of the asset account “accounts receivable” on their Balance Sheet to the asset account “prepaid tax” on their Balance Sheet.
19. The tax will be paid by them when they file their yearly tax return because their taxes are based on sales less cost of good sold shown on the Profit and Loss Statement.
20. Since we have given our credit for payment of the vendor’s MO. The vendor issuing the MO can now use the copy we have sent to them on their tax form (corporation Income Tax Form) to receive a tax exemption/our credit against any tax they may owe. If none owed, they will get a receive a tax refund for the amount of their bill/MO.
21. As pertains to the State tax Assessor, (so-called unpaid statements or “owed” amounts)
22. The State Tax Assessor sends an assessment and has used our SS#.
23. The State Tax Assessor puts a coupon on the bottom of the assessment.
24. This zeroes their account because they have charged our account with the assessment and issued the coupon/money to off-set the assessment, account 0-.
25. At that point we really do not owe anything, the account is at zero; therefore, *they are not in violation* of the law/Constitution as they have not as yet taxed us.
26. If or when we send a check we have *volunteered* and the tax becomes payable because we have contracted by volunteering. Income tax is a volunteer tax.
27. If we send the 1040-V and use their coupon, we are prepaid and our portion of prepayment being held by FTB can now be appropriated to our account. We can then file a 1099-B for the value of the coupon.
28. As pertains to the State Tax Assessor (funds we have given them or they have hi-jacked from us)
29. If the State Tax Assessor has taken from us then we file a 1099-OID to identify the funds they pirated from us.
30. The 1099-OID is filed on the 1040 in lines 21 and 64.
31. We should then be in line to receive a refund for the amount in line 64.
32. We should also be able to file a 1099-B as above.
33. As pertains to the IRS
Follow the procedures above as pertain to State Tax Assessor (the STA) is only a franchise of the IRS and the rules are the same.)
34. When the 1040-V is sent to the vendor, they are now paid by us, for the product, using the IRS as a pass-through/clearing house for the funds they are billing or charging, by now being eligible for a tax credit on *_their_* returns; a tax credit being the full amount prepaid against any tax they owe (now an asset on their books as prepaid tax). The 1040-V which we send to the IRS is our “payment” (accessing our credit through IRS) for the product and authorization to provide the vender a tax exemption for his services and authorization for the funds to create the next prepaid item since they will report the sales on their tax return and provide the amount of the “cost of good sold” which will also be declared on their tax return as to how the “credit” was used in the manufacture of the item. We do not want to interrupt commerce. The vendor has paid for the materials and workforce (other people’s labor) used to produce the product from some prior original issue. We are then acquiring the item with our exemption/credit through a tax credit to him.
35. Since the 1040-V is a payment to by us to IRS, I believe we need to send the 1040-V directly to the IRS for IRS to validate the invoice/charge/money order made by the vender (that we received the product and the credit was converted into produce (used up in materials and labor) with a copy to the vender and instructions to the vendor that this is payment via their “tax credit”.
36. The instructions for the 1040-V state that this form is to be used when submitting payments against income tax owed. See quote from the form:
*“What Is Form 1040-V and Do You Have To Use It?*
37. Detach Form 1040-V along the dotted line. Do not staple or otherwise attach your payment or Form 1040-V to your return or to each other. Instead, just put them loose in the envelope.
38. Mail your 2005 tax return, payment, and Form. It is a statement you send with your check or money order for any balance due on the *“Amount you owe” *line of your 2005 Form 1040. Using Form 1040-V allows us to process your payment more accurately and efficiently. We strongly encourage you to use Form 1040-V, but there is no penalty if you do not.”
39. It seems that we might need to file a 1040-V for the total amount of the 1099s filed for return of withholding and show the total amount of tax due on line 63 with the 1040-Vs as payment of the taxes in lieu of the services or product.
40. Therefore, this form has nothing to do with the creation of M-1, rather a payment against taxable income, bill/statement/money order (re-circulated money which would be part of the velocity of money). So, when we use this form we are making the payment against *_income_* created through a transaction between me and a taxpayer vendor or service provider. When I send the 1040-V to the vendor/service provider, I am telling him that I have made a payment to the IRS and a tax refund is now waiting for him to claim. When he receives the 1040-V with the “money order”, he can now show the account paid by journaling the money being held as an accounts receivable, from the accounts receivable, to another asset account; namely, “prepaid taxes”. He can now take the 1040-V with the bill/statement/money order and present this to the IRS for payment, either as a credit against any taxes he owes or as a refund. Unless new money has been created by a licensed agency, a 1099-OID is not the form to use for a vendor, i.e. the “mom and pop” places. We have received the product in exchange for our exemption. This is exchange dollar for dollar.
41. I’m not sure if we need to take into account the difference between new money (original issue) and old money (money in circulation). Or perhaps it does not matter. The 1040-V pays our expenses/bills/invoices etc. but we are not to get rich off of other peoples labor. It seems to me that if we attempt to get a cash refund in addition to the produce we are stealing. The corporation has converted the credit into product and distributed the credit for materials and labor (other peoples’).
42. The municipalities also make payments for services to the public via contractors which places the funds into circulation. A friend sent a 1099-OID with a 1040-V to the County Property Tax Collector. She received the copy of the 1099-OID back saying they did not need it. They said if she had any questions to call. They kept the 1040-V and we have dropped a short note asking for an acknowledgment of the payment. If she gets it, we will know that the taxes have been paid and the County does not need the 1099-OID probably because they do not file or pay tax or perhaps they have identified the credit already through our property.
43. If her County taxes go away, it would seem we can use the coupon on the bottom of the service companies, phone, gas, electric company, etc. with the 1040-V to pay them. The coupon is the money/check and the amount is usually indicated on the bottom of the coupon similar to check numbering. Black’s says a coupon is to be cut and redeemed for the amount on the coupon. Most companies that use coupons require it to be cut and have the value of the coupon must be printed on it. Just as on coupon bonds, newspaper coupons to clip, and bills to those who have used our credit. They appear on Franchise Tax assessments, IRS assessments, property tax assessments, utility bills, etc., all of which are indirectly using our credit.
44. Many of the services that are under blocked grants, the funds have been designated for certain services i.e. police, fire department, road repair, street lighting, just to name a few, and our 1040-V will underwrite them for us by designating our portion of the “pool” (blocked grants which include all properties assessed by the county and other assets). Because these services have been paid to contractors who perform these services, etc. the levies now placed upon us are indirect and we need to use the 1040-V to pay for our portion of municipal services with the 1040-V. This would then be indirect as opposed to a direct creation of credit and we can use the 1040-V to pay for these services. I do not believe we should request a refund as we are using the services. Please comment on this as others disagree with me. It depends on the intent of asking for the refund and the ultimate objective that would determine whether or not we do so.
45. When the 1040-V is filed with the 1040 as a payment for all debt using funds that have been in circulation; i.e. purchases using cash, checks money orders, etc. as well as statements/bills sent by the vendor which would also include any payments made against credit cards, mortgages, auto loans, etc. we then need to use both the 1099-OID or 1099-B and 1040-V in order to get a return of the funds we have given to them as well as a return of our credit.
46. The Internal Revenue Service is only an accounting service and collection agency for the United States Treasury. They are acting as a pass-through/clearing house for the money system. Therefore, they are the ones who will do the bookkeeping to determine the balances in each account. They can draw on our direct Treasury Account when we send the proper documents. So, it is incumbent upon us to use the forms properly and to the best of our understanding in order that the IRS will be able to perform their duty to keep accurate books and records of our credit with the Treasury and to provide us with the service. If we fail on our part to make frivolous filings, i.e. requesting a refund with the 1099-OID indicating 0- withholding, we will be defeated before we start.
47. I didn’t expect this writing to grow so large, but hopefully you will have time to review it and comment on my assessment of what is the proper process. My mind keeps going and doesn’t want to stop. Since this is all accounting, the question is how do we access the record/system to set it straight and get our return/withheld funds/payment for labor/intellect, if not through the 1040 and the other forms provided? Title 5 section 552 (I believe this is the correct site) requires that all agencies must correct their records and the Treasury Department has a department, the “Data Integrity Board” in Washington, D.C. that requires all agencies must coordinate their records accurately. The Data Integrity Board must report to Congress. This might be a source to assist if IRS does not resolve this matter.
48. Just a thought, but on original issues filed on 1099-OID, could 1040-V be used with the money order/bill/statement/charged to us via the U.S. Treasury, i.e. “Pay to the
Example of Stamp On The Order For Money (Money Order)
|
PAY TO THE UNITED STATES TREASURY Please find the exact amount of claim reflected on the attached 1040-Voucher to balance out this account to ZERO (0) __________________ ____ District Director Internal Revenue Service Officer Internal Revenue Service Annex 5, Stop 5000 |
**********************************************************
DOCUMENT # 5: NOTICE CONCERNING FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP (PDF)
TO VIEW THIS PDF FILE CLICK ON:
www.fourwinds10.com/resources/uploads/pdf/f56_filled.pdf
***************************************************************************************
DOCUMENT # 6: SELECTING THE SAFEST STRATEGY
TO VIEW THIS PDF FILE CLICK ON:
www.fourwinds10.com/resources/uploads/pdf/All_1_.pdf
*************************************************************************************
DOCUMENT # 7: U.S. CODE COLLECTION; Title 16,2432. Definitions
TO VIEW THIS PDF FILE CLICK ON
**************************************
Thank you, Squirrel!