941 REFUND on LH

[Demosthenes]

http://www.deathandtaxes.com/bio.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 7rank.html

Please explain what you're hinting at. I'm not sure I follow.

Hmmm. J.J. ... C.I.A. more than coincidence?

[webhick]

Hmmm. J.J. ... C.I.A. more than coincidence?

Actually, J.J. and account balances for 163 countries - China in first, US in last. I just don't see what one has to do with the other and I'm in too much pain right now to try to turn on the paranoia center of my brain to try to make a connection.

David's mentioned that he doesn't answer stupid questions. Perhaps due to my inability to understand his cryptic message and/or read his mind, he has possibly deemed me too stoopeed for him to crawl down off his high horse for five minutes and and clarify what he was trying to say.

Whether or not he was actually trying to say something, whether or not he actually thinks my stupid request for clarification was worth his time, whether or not he agrees with anything in this post...who really gives a shit.

Let's all get high on the stash in my safe and throw the party to end all parties.

[Quixote]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "checked on those payments". When the returns were processed, the IRS computer compared the tax on the return with the deposits actually posted to the account, not the deposits claimed on the return. Most 941s take 4-5 months to be processed. The ones in question were processed rather rapidly, possibly because 941s showing a refund are so rare.

Previous bookkeeper stupidly claimed that they not only made all their 941 payments but accidentally included their FUTA payments as well. IRS issued a letter about two months later saying they applied their overpayment to past returns and then three months after that said that they made a correction to the tax return to account for the payments not actually made.

You seem to be saying that IRS credited the account with the deposits claimed on the return, rather than the deposits posted to the account. That doesn't happen. The IRS correction would have consisted of moving the FUTA deposits, that the employer had mistakenly marked as 941 deposits, to the FUTA account for that year.

[webhick]

You seem to be saying that IRS credited the account with the deposits claimed on the return, rather than the deposits posted to the account. That doesn't happen. The IRS correction would have consisted of moving the FUTA deposits, that the employer had mistakenly marked as 941 deposits, to the FUTA account for that year.

I can't vouch for whether or not the bookkeeper actually used the IRS coupons for making tax payments (or how they were marked), but the canceled checks said 940 in the memo. She had made a giant clusterbunny of their 2005 payroll taxes. The only way I could explain those odd-ball notices of overpayment, then removing the overpayment was that they must not have checked on the payments to begin with. You just gave me a better explanation. Thanks.

[David Merrill]

Do you doubt the US is in the red by $$TTT?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 7rank.html

How does that happen? Simply by the private credit of the Federal Reserve Act. A bond or chattel mortgage is placed upon every endorsement of the Government bonds from FDR in 1933.

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.” The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933 The Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 19. Excerpt from the Address before the Governors’ Conference at the White House. March 6, 1933.

A chattel mortgage is debt, guilt or obligation to perform. Mort is death; gage is bond. Death-bond. We find the same theme in Demosthenes' title website - Death and Taxes.

http://www.deathandtaxes.com/bio.htm

And we find that faulty since we have the right, at any time to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in lawful money.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachme ... 1176137303
Title 12 U.S.C. 411

Which reverses the private credit/debt process by redeeming it at the paycheck transaction and prevents fractionalizing the funds - depreciating the dollar and adding to the national debt.

Simple as that:

They shall be redeemed upon demand...

But if you are in denial, like Demosthenes, dissociated from reality and persecuting people for being realistic, then I doubt you will see the logic in redeeming national debt.

http://alina_stefanescu.typepad.com/totalitarianism_today/2004/12/beware_of_helpf.html


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. An explicit example is when the suitor cashed a rubber paycheck and the bank was obligated to return the instrument upon reimbursing itself out of his account. The attorneys knew enough to destroy the evidence they had fractionalized his funds just like they do with all your paychecks as taxable income. They tore off the non-endorsement verbiage:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachme ... 1176138256

[webhick]

David:

Since the subject of your post is clearly addressed to me, I can only *guess* that were were making an attempt to clarify per my request.

Unfortunately, you still fail to connect the two links you provided:
One about J.J., and one showing the account balances of 160ish countries. All you managed to do is launch into a tirade about the second link.

Perhaps, while you are making that connection for us, you can also clarify why you think I'm so stupid as to *not* know the US is in debt. That must be the biggest "duh" in the history of mankind.

Correction: He actually did make the connection, but I failed to see it what with it being buried in all that rhetoric.

Thanks for the reply, David.

[Randall]

Do you doubt the US is in the red by $$TTT?

How does that happen? Simply by the private credit of the Federal Reserve Act. A bond or chattel mortgage is placed upon every endorsement of the Government bonds from FDR in 1933.

Now explain how the federal government handled the national debt prior to 1933. This country has been in debt since before the Constitution was even adopted. Millions were borrowed to fight the Revolutionary War. Hamilton arranged for the federal government to be responsible for the state debts incurred n the war. There was no fed at that time, how did this all happen? Why am I expecting this loon to provide a coherent reply?

[silversopp]

David,

Do you have a picture of all this "lawful money" that you've been redeeming?

[Doktor Avalanche]

David,

Do you have a picture of all this "lawful money" that you've been redeeming?

As soon as he Photoshop's the latest batch, he'll be right with you.

[silversopp]

David,

Do you have a picture of all this "lawful money" that you've been redeeming?

As soon as he Photoshop's the latest batch, he'll be right with you.

He talks about redeeming FRNs into "lawful money" and then shows a court case where the judge ruled him an imbecile as proof. I don't understand where he is coming from.

If I claim that I can take a personal check and redeem it for FRNs, I would be able to demonstrate that. I would be able to show the FRNs.

So what does he think is "lawful money"? And where on earth will he be able to purchase anything with this "lawful money"?

[.]

I don't understand where he is coming from.

Planet Van Pelt. Location unknown, but thought to be far, far away where no hint of rationality has ever penetrated.

[silversopp]

I don't understand where he is coming from.

Planet Van Pelt. Location unknown, but thought to be far, far away where no hint of rationality has ever penetrated.

I have no idea what he thinks he gains by pretending he doesn't know what his name is either. Makes him look like a damn fool. Now this stuff...

So whats the story on his daughter? How old is she? He is married? Did he get divorced? Does he pay child support or do they live together in a van down by the river?

[webhick]

This whole FRN topic is completely moot.

You can't redeem Federal Reserve Notes for lawful money. You can only redeem Federal Reserve Notes for dirty limericks written on post-it notes which have been notarized by the Queen of Fruit of the Loom.

And as for that whole lawful money schtick...well, the current Illuminati Dictionary defines lawful money as "livestock, paper or coin currency, and first-born children". We are considering removing "livestock" from the list of lawful money, as it is upsetting the sheep in the mailroom. Next edition is due out 2018.

[silversopp]

This whole FRN topic is completely moot.

You can't redeem Federal Reserve Notes for lawful money. You can only redeem Federal Reserve Notes for dirty limericks written on post-it notes which have been notarized by the Queen of Fruit of the Loom.

And as for that whole lawful money schtick...well, the current Illuminati Dictionary defines lawful money as "livestock, paper or coin currency, and first-born children". We are considering removing "livestock" from the list of lawful money, as it is upsetting the sheep in the mailroom. Next edition is due out 2018.

At least I can understand what you're saying. I don't even know what conspiracy Van Pelt is talking about, or what his point is. At the same time, Van Pelt is almost coherent, enough that it makes me curious. I wish he'd either make a point or become completely incoherent and write things like "motor scooter for lawful money = THE WIN" This middle ground is frustrating.

[The Observer]

This whole FRN topic is completely moot.

You can't redeem Federal Reserve Notes for lawful money. You can only redeem Federal Reserve Notes for dirty limericks written on post-it notes which have been notarized by the Queen of Fruit of the Loom.

And as for that whole lawful money schtick...well, the current Illuminati Dictionary defines lawful money as "livestock, paper or coin currency, and first-born children". We are considering removing "livestock" from the list of lawful money, as it is upsetting the sheep in the mailroom. Next edition is due out 2018.

At least I can understand what you're saying. I don't even know what conspiracy Van Pelt is talking about, or what his point is. At the same time, Van Pelt is almost coherent, enough that it makes me curious. I wish he'd either make a point or become completely incoherent and write things like "motor scooter for lawful money = THE WIN" This middle ground is frustrating.

Which I think is deliberate on David's part. As long as he can keep the waters muddy and not have to define anything consistently, he can continue to peddle the malarkey he has developed. This is why he puts up links that don't go anywhere, don't have any point, and have no nexus with the succeeding or preceding link. You can tell though when you are sucessful at pinning him down. He either makes unfortunate blurts (like admitting that "terminators" will have to go to a district court to address IRS levies/seizures) or he tries to ignore the questions at hand.

[webhick]

At least I can understand what you're saying. I don't even know what conspiracy Van Pelt is talking about, or what his point is. At the same time, Van Pelt is almost coherent, enough that it makes me curious. I wish he'd either make a point or become completely incoherent and write things like "motor scooter for lawful money = THE WIN" This middle ground is frustrating.

What good is a crazy rant if no one can understand it? And what fun is a crazy rant if people (including the ranter) actually take it seriously?

Unfortunately, The One Who Shall Not Be Named For Some Reason Or Another has broken my rules for a good crazy rant. Now I'm going to have to beat him with a wet shoelace. Him and his little motor scooter too!

[John J. Bulten]

See how much fun this forum is since I stopped taking it seriously? Clearly David is not taking you seriously either.

Did anyone stop to consider that Pete would perform due diligence before posting such an earth-shattering amount? I would expect he has received evidence that this refund is due to a lawful claim.

Did anyone stop to consider that Anonymous is an old hand with tax protest, having successfully avoided paying those 1997-1998 taxes for so long, while still maintaining a business that can handle million-dollar payrolls every quarter?

Did anyone stop to consider how long Pete and Anonymous must have been talking and preparing their moves to have this info ready to post so soon after its receipt and so soon after 1Q07 closed?

Did anyone stop to consider that Anonymous is practically daring the IRS to prosecute him, given the 12-digit zip and half the EIN, which is not enough for ordinary Googlers to go on but which anyone with connections can go after? IRS is allowed to treat public disclosures as potential evidence.

$199,461.97 + $57,900.70 + $46,862.03 + $79,905.84 = $384,130.54 (Solid footing?)

The answer to whether Anonymous will retain this credit is dependent on whether IRS decides to find errors in his filings. (Note, I didn't say whether there are in fact errors in his filings.) I'm sure Anonymous has learned enough not to get caught in the same trap as Simkanin. This one will be much more fun!

[Nikki]

Either the post is legitimate, in which case, Pete is full of crap for posting it and taking credit

Or

The post is a typical CtC bulls**t refund in which case the employer will be going to jail.

Tax evasion is one thing, but failing to pay over employees withholdings is a guaranteed ticket to club fed.

BTW, John, people who care are already looking into this one.

[Joey Smith]

Did anyone stop to consider that Anonymous is practically daring the IRS to prosecute him

Yeah, just like Larken Rose, Al Thompson, Nick Jesson, Dick Simkanin and several others who dared the IRS to prosecute them.

Now, uh, what do all of these folks have in common?

The TRUTH is that the courts don't buy Pete's theories, such as they are. A few people might get back a few bucks by filing out false returns, but that will not make the liability go away and eventually there will be collections, if not criminal penalties to go with it.

[webhick]

Comment Deleted: Was a little racy.