Fiddo
Forum Replies Created
Very true, one person said that they file the “exempt w-4” but add a small bit to it :
Quote:USC (UCC) 1-207which says this:
Quote:? 1-207. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.(1) A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice”, “under protest” or the like are sufficient.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.
and the link (as always) UCC – on Cornell.law.edu?
So, does adding this make it more viable to submit a exempt w-4, of course the choice is always that of the person doing so.
:ph34r:
um, confusion…
you said
Quote:In a criminal failure to file scenario, here's an example of a successful use of an IMF. In discovery you ask for any documents that indicate you are NOT liable to file an income tax return. they respond that there are none. Now, when the agent is on the witness stand you establish the fact that the agent is an “expert” and bring out the fact that according to the IRS there are no documents that indicate you're liable to file. Your “expert” agrees.Are you not saying two different things? Asking in discovery for any documents that indicate a person is NOT liable and then claiming that “there are no documents that indicate you are liable to file”?
How would one go about this? Seems like double talk or something I seem to be missing the point. Maybe I need to re-read this a few times.
1) ask for any documents that indicate a person is not laible.
2) verify from the witness that there are no documents that indicate that you are liable to file.
This make sense to anyone else?
Sorry again for the confusion, end of work day here.. 😮
You think that is something, at my place of employ they have actually instituted an electronic “W-4”, where a person can logg into the website, and “change” their withholding. They pretty much limit what a person can enter and if a person claims “exempt”. They just check the selection and type in the year the are claiming the exemption for.
So, somehow they are doing W-4's without the required signature?? I wonder how this could be accepted? Isn't a person (mislead of course) supposed to sign under penalty of perjury??
Sorry I cannot link to the website as it is an internal one within the company and their firewall would unfortunately block everyone.
Just really thought everyone should know..
🙁
Yes of course, I mis-spoke when I said “presumed”. I was intending to say that I verify everything I read with more than one source and from locations that a person could believe to be credible.
It's important for new people to learn that there are many sources (FREE sources) where people can learn correct, credible information. Like this site since every quote or citation is linked to another source for anyone to verify the writers copy. (I say “copy” as a printing term, not plagerizing – “copy” is the referance for rough drafted material before it is proof-read and printed, end of lesson).
A good source will always be free and have lots of cross-links, in my education although i have bought a book, video here or there. Much of my education was free, repeated over and over till learned and then with confidence acted upon.
We all deserve to be free and live in this land of our forefathers as they intended. The truth is spreading and it's only a matter of time before this issue becomes main stream news rather than just the “off topic” on some hardlined, leftist show where they cut off your mike before you can speak.,
God speed everyone..
😉
A good start in my opinion is your suggestion to open a repetoir with someone at your company but I would also additionally suggest that when you do make contact that you ask the person to hear you out fully, to review all your information and talk with you first about any questions before they contact the “advocate service”. As I myself tried same with my company, I was sending them information, they requested more and I got more. Seems that their request for me to get more info was a delaying tactic. They used a non-tax corporate lawyer to get an opinion (for lack of better term) from the advocate. To which they sent it to me and the final statement that the matter was resolved and that any further action I took would most likely end my employ.
Also sueing your employer, unless your money bags isn't worth it, since although you might win in one court they could just keep appealing until they have a court see it their way. They would do that to keep any other sheep still employed from doing the same thing as you.
Give the person you contact time to absorb the info, and be nice and don't make any demands or talk about doing any legal actions as this makes them slam the door really quick. It takes a person a long time to accept the truth, it did for me and I am sure it has for a lot of people in this movement. Take it slow and best of luck…
🙂
Very true,
I myself also spent years reading and re-reading material from different websites and also cross checking what was being posted. I believe that if you can cause a person to doubt one website then they might faulter. If you read the same material and referances from several different sites, since they can't all be wrong a person must presume that what is read (if understood and in plain english) to be true if it is all saying the same thing.
I have after my many years decided (or finally just got fed up being robbed) to stop this year. It is a small step but I feel I have my ducks in a row and armor plated to withstand any assault (so long as it's legal and fair.. like that would ever happen?).
For those who are waiting to take the step, let it be known that you are not the first and won't be the last to act on the truth. It might turn your world upside down, but once you no longer have to look at the world from being bent over and thru your knees it all seems to be a lot better place. Because then it will be right side UP 😉
Well, that's unfortunate but maybe the break was from outside sources and pressure. Perhaps some thugs where calling and harrassing her and she decided to distance herself to be less effective as a pawn then the problems Schiff is having.
<_<
I agree,
A complete waste of time since it doesn't really address the issue of the fraud. Guess someone wasn't thinking…
<_<
Definitely NOT!
But as I live in an apartment, I think they would object to me installing a wall safe and direct deposit (yes, I know another “no-no”) doesn't work with those..
I will look around for the heavy floor standing ones though and use that to keep coin and frn “somewhat” secure.
😉
Yup…
I agree with both of you…
He will get his case either thrown out or as Bing indicated
Quote:result in another bogus case precedent that corrupt judges will cite as an authority, to rule against other Patriotic Americans in the future.As Sonic said, people need to know the truth and stop shouting “bad stuff” from the rooftops.
Wonder if anyone has tried to contact Mr. Akins and let him know he's not entirely correct and just leaving himself open for heart ache?
😉
One additional, I have sent an email to the reporter who did the story and asked if they could pass it along to the Akins' couple. We need to tell them where they made mistakes and help them from inadvertently hurting both themselves and the rest of us in the movement. Here's to hoping I get thru…
🙁
Yes Sonic, actually i do have the link, just for some odd reason didn't link it but thanks for reminding me 😀
This from the irs.gov website:
Authorization to use Psuedonyms
It's scarey to think they now don't have to even tell us their real names! 😡
Well supposedly the irs manual even authorizes agents to use false names when doing “business” to “protect” their privacy but not yours. I think it would be hard for anyone to serve a strawman and good luck trying to find the person with the rubber name stamp.. <_<
Yes, I have heard of such things or with the women no longer needing a man, just a “donation” of material. Well it is still something that should not be altered as it has always been one way and only one way, one man and one woman.
But I agree, each is entitled to their own “desires” or lifestyle.. :huh:
On another note, I sent a copy of the page from the SAPF website about the income tax laws to the company lawyer who asked the “tax advocate” the questions that where ignored. I sent it as an FYI and more as a “I think you might like to know” and made the statement that doing so was not in any way and attempt to change anyone's mind or position but just to let them know “they might have been told wrong”…
here's the page I used:
SAPF page about the tax laws – not legal advice
Quote:One must plant seeds first to grow the trees that will bear fruit..🙄
okay, seems I mis-spoke the year the SS failes, here's a link to a Federal Reserve Board article:
At the end of the first paragraph it says that the SS account (fund) could be depleted by 2031. Course they are again recommending reductions in benefit payouts to help stretch things further. Then in the 4th paragraph the recommend increasing the SS tax to increase the funds paid in. As below…
Quote:Unless social security savings are increased by higher taxes (with negative consequences for growth) or reduced benefits, domestic savings must be augmented by greater private saving or surpluses in the rest of the government budget to ensure that there are enough overall savings to finance adequate productive capacity down the road to meet the consumption needs of both retirees and active workers.It still means it won't be around for me anyways but then we could get some moron in the big house (or is that the current situtation) and have huge government just tax at 93% income and 7% SS and then the program would maybe, just maybe still be there until 2050.. (but I digress)
😮
