PDA

View Full Version : Basis in Law



NYGMan-Tax
10-14-12, 02:33 PM
David, I have read everything you have posted on this topic and am still having trouble understanding part 2 of your position. I have tried to address this on other forums, but you seem to not answer my question.

You have two prongs to your position:
1) You can redeem FRN's for Lawful money
2) Lawful money is not taxable.

I will ignore point 1, while I do not agree with your view, part 2 is more problematic.

Under the code, anything of value regardless of form, is taxable. If I get paid Canadian Dollars, Mexican Pesos, Euro, British Pounds, FRN's I am viewed as getting something of value, which is taxable to me. If someone gives me a car, a painting, or anything else of value, I am taxed on that value. What I don't understand, and can not find, having gone through the regulations, IRS Code, and case law, is what is the authority to exclude redeemed lawful money.

Assuming you are redeeming FRN's for lawful money, at a 1-1 exchange rate, the value of lawful money can be determined, and therefore should still be taxable. Assuming lawful money doesn't exist in tangible form, any cash, checks, of transfers I get are paid in FRN's when paid, and subsequently converted. This brief moment in time is enough time to to be taxable. Even if in your hold them for even 1 millisecond, it is enough to be taxable, prior to the conversion

All I am looking for is some case law, IRS Code sections, IRS regulations, or even Private letter ruling that you have gotten from the IRS, that supports your position on the nontaxability of lawful money, which clearly has value, and when paid to you, needs converting.

You should be able to lay out the authority very simply, in order to support your position. I do;t need historical documents, or definitions, just the law.
I hope posting here will provide you with a chance to post your support free of "censorship".

Please just answer my question directly, specifically, and only referance valid laws and cases.

David Merrill
10-15-12, 02:26 AM
David, I have read everything you have posted on this topic and am still having trouble understanding part 2 of your position. I have tried to address this on other forums, but you seem to not answer my question.

You have two prongs to your position:
1) You can redeem FRN's for Lawful money
2) Lawful money is not taxable.

I will ignore point 1, while I do not agree with your view, part 2 is more problematic.

Under the code, anything of value regardless of form, is taxable. If I get paid Canadian Dollars, Mexican Pesos, Euro, British Pounds, FRN's I am viewed as getting something of value, which is taxable to me. If someone gives me a car, a painting, or anything else of value, I am taxed on that value. What I don't understand, and can not find, having gone through the regulations, IRS Code, and case law, is what is the authority to exclude redeemed lawful money.

Assuming you are redeeming FRN's for lawful money, at a 1-1 exchange rate, the value of lawful money can be determined, and therefore should still be taxable. Assuming lawful money doesn't exist in tangible form, any cash, checks, of transfers I get are paid in FRN's when paid, and subsequently converted. This brief moment in time is enough time to to be taxable. Even if in your hold them for even 1 millisecond, it is enough to be taxable, prior to the conversion

All I am looking for is some case law, IRS Code sections, IRS regulations, or even Private letter ruling that you have gotten from the IRS, that supports your position on the nontaxability of lawful money, which clearly has value, and when paid to you, needs converting.

You should be able to lay out the authority very simply, in order to support your position. I do;t need historical documents, or definitions, just the law.
I hope posting here will provide you with a chance to post your support free of "censorship".

Please just answer my question directly, specifically, and only referance valid laws and cases.

I am afraid your beginning this journey has biased your perspective and I will only come across as evasive. That is to say you have been posting on Quatloos and I have not really been spending any time trying to convince anybody there. Wserra (http://www.iromlaw.com/Bio/WesleySerra.asp)has a slur campaign on American remedy going and I will be a bit brutal with a reality check, he has revealed that there are many intelligent people who have filed Libels of Review and more importantly, he will not tell you how many PACER hits his search inquiries reveal because it is likely he knows of maybe a thousand identical cases. Most importantly he has no reason to explain how all these victims seem quite happy with dismissed cases and remain cordial and respectful of me.

So I am informing you and notifying you plainly that there is something indeed that you are missing. There is a big whoosh as something goes over your head and you are trying to bring that misunderstanding to light by bringing a big Wserra presumption here:



You have two prongs to your position:

1) You can redeem FRN's for Lawful money
2) Lawful money is not taxable.


The law says that Federal Reserve notes may be redeemed in lawful money by demand. Actually it uses a pronoun "They" when Congress is otherwise very specific so I believe that "People" works as well in that pronoun. I do not say that FRN's can be redeemed for lawful money. The law, read in plain English indicates that there is a difference between FRN's and lawful money because one is redeemed in the other.

What I say is that people can make their demand like the law says. There is no harm in making a simple demand. You can buy a stamp for a few bucks (http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Quality.Rubber.Stamps.2.719-635-0943) and most banks will accept your "restricted endorsement" with no problem. Many times you need not even sign your demand - the stamp works for your signature.

http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/9060/redeemedfrn1.jpg

I should address that putting a stamp on a bill does nothing at all except teach people, get them curious and I imagine that hundreds of people have looked up the law just due to the stamp circulating on money. Once you have the cash in hand you have lawful money.

Your second premise is also faulty. Lawful money is not taxable? Reserve currency is taxable. US notes are not a reserve currency. When you demand lawful money you can presume that you are receiving US notes in the form of FRN's. The currency you receive is not a reserve currency and therefore your income is outside the scope of the Federal Reserve System. Title 26 no longer applies to you.

That is basically how it works but you being from Quatloos I will add that Wserra and his crew there do not decide whether or not to send Refund Checks from the Treasury - IRS agents at the instructions of government attorneys do. That is where the rubber meets the road and you can skip over to some interesting demonstrations by clicking here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145-Exactly-what-does-the-IRS-agent-think&p=7551&viewfull=1#post7551).

I have clobbered the slur campaign by the bottom of the second page there. But as you read onward you will realize that all the redicule and sucking up to Wserra is about the presumption that people doing this are demanding metal - which is unrealistic.

I have been watching you with a little more interest than the others because you have yet to adopt an infantile insulting posture. So I am going to presume for now that you are being genuine and when you persist on putting words in my mouth, like here, you will be hearing about that and I will be ignoring the rhetoric around your presumptions as well, like here.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
10-15-12, 03:04 AM
Is there a reason you have registered three times from three different email addresses?


P.S. I truly did not read NYGman's post past the presumptions. So if any member is curious about some of the post please bring that up. I enjoy speaking about this always.

What I do not enjoy is the attorney tactic of deciding the premise before asking the questions. If you set up a faulty foundation for somebody else to debate from, that is stacking the cards in my opinion.

Additionally NYGman has set up two additional accounts with StSC. The two unused ones have been permanently banished. I am curious though - were the other two to colleagues of yours? More likely you were having confusion about our two-post rule. That is to avoid non-human members registering.

David Merrill
10-15-12, 08:54 AM
Maybe you would better understand it as the right to be heard. - The way I focus on making your demand. That is why we are wise to keep a separate evidence repository under our control with the competent clerk of court at the USDC.

Like I explained over on Quatloos there is no case law or supporting opinions because the judges and IRS attorneys are smart enough not to break the law.

Where I want to go though is into the power of a suitor's word.


Isa 58:14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

For the IRS to make a separate assessment is to not just depend on hearsay - but to prefer it. Especially after there are numerous non-endorsements on the paychecks, or a copy of the non-endorsement Signature Page (electronic deposit) in the IRS file and in the USDC evidence repository. The suitor expresses his word by making the demand.

And like I keep explaining to the Quatlosers we are all quite grateful that they are not the ones cutting the Refund Checks. The IRS attorneys are doing that. They do not write letters of explanation - they just forgive (http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/1623/irsform834forgiveness.pdf).


Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
10-15-12, 09:24 AM
P.S. Please do not get me wrong - I am grateful you came to inquire:


From NYGman's profile:

A real live tax lawyer, who actually knows the tax law, and seeks the truth, but despises lies

You have me thinking along new lines, assuming your inquiries are genuine. [Which I doubt because you imposed a false premise of my posture.]

I like the idea that Congress meant "They" to be "People" - listen carefully:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8452/mortgageonpeople.jpg

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/514/mortgageofpeople.jpg

Taken literally this supports my substitution of People into the pronoun "They". The people are redeemed from the mortgage that saved the Federal Reserve from the twenty-year charter expiring in 1933.

I expect that you will return to Quatloos in the Wserra fashion and report that you have "won" by me not producing any "proof", even when unencumbered by the heavy censoring. I expect that will work out as well as Wserra's slur campaign is going so far.

Treefarmer
10-15-12, 09:19 PM
Under the code, anything of value regardless of form, is taxable. If I get paid Canadian Dollars, Mexican Pesos, Euro, British Pounds, FRN's I am viewed as getting something of value, which is taxable to me. If someone gives me a car, a painting, or anything else of value, I am taxed on that value. What I don't understand, and can not find, having gone through the regulations, IRS Code, and case law, is what is the authority to exclude redeemed lawful money.



That's an interesting statement that I have never seen stated before.
I have never heard of the IRS collecting a value tax.
I thought the IRS collects income tax?

Anthony Joseph
10-16-12, 02:22 AM
David, I have read everything you have posted on this topic and am still having trouble understanding part 2 of your position. I have tried to address this on other forums, but you seem to not answer my question.

You have two prongs to your position:
1) You can redeem FRN's for Lawful money
2) Lawful money is not taxable.

I will ignore point 1, while I do not agree with your view, part 2 is more problematic.

Under the code, anything of value regardless of form, is taxable. If I get paid Canadian Dollars, Mexican Pesos, Euro, British Pounds, FRN's I am viewed as getting something of value, which is taxable to me. If someone gives me a car, a painting, or anything else of value, I am taxed on that value. What I don't understand, and can not find, having gone through the regulations, IRS Code, and case law, is what is the authority to exclude redeemed lawful money.

Assuming you are redeeming FRN's for lawful money, at a 1-1 exchange rate, the value of lawful money can be determined, and therefore should still be taxable. Assuming lawful money doesn't exist in tangible form, any cash, checks, of transfers I get are paid in FRN's when paid, and subsequently converted. This brief moment in time is enough time to to be taxable. Even if in your hold them for even 1 millisecond, it is enough to be taxable, prior to the conversion

All I am looking for is some case law, IRS Code sections, IRS regulations, or even Private letter ruling that you have gotten from the IRS, that supports your position on the nontaxability of lawful money, which clearly has value, and when paid to you, needs converting.

You should be able to lay out the authority very simply, in order to support your position. I do;t need historical documents, or definitions, just the law.
I hope posting here will provide you with a chance to post your support free of "censorship".

Please just answer my question directly, specifically, and only referance valid laws and cases.


Assuming, as David Merrill does, that you are genuine in your inquest, let us delve into your opinions further:

As to your "point 1", I believe David Merrill has answered that sufficiently and proficiently citing the code, and relevant cases, relating to the issue. However, one little word may be the cause of confusion:

It is, "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..." rather than your "point 1" which reads, "You can redeem FRN's for Lawful money". That may be an overlooked distinction but I believe it makes a difference. FRNs redeemed in lawful money suggests that the very same paper functions as lawful money if the demand is made on the record. It makes no difference that the paper "appears" the same to the eye; that paper is now redeemed and the remedy from the fees/tax associated with endorsing elastic currency and credit exists between your ears and is extant pursuant to the law.

So your potential obfuscation by using the word "for" rather than "in" is refuted for cause.

Your next point, which you feel is "more problematic", is that anything of value is taxable. While that may be true for most, that truth is based on the presumption that whoever acquires "anything of value" is a voluntary signature endorser of the elastic currency and credit of the Federal Reserve thereby creating a tax burden on anything of value obtained by way of said signature endorsement.

The premise and presumption of voluntary participation with the FED's system of false balances is why you posit "anything of value is taxable". So in that regard you are correct; whether you recieve eggs, cars, furniture, clothes, gold, silver, pesos, etc., if one consents or acquiesces to the presumed notion that one is a willing participant in the FED's credit and currency system, than there is a tax burden associated with "anything of value".

That tax burden of "anything of value" would be considered compelled servitude/slavery if not for the extant and required written-in remedy in the law found at Title 12 U.S.C. ?411. That remedy relieves culpability of debt-enslavement since participation and endorsement is voluntary. One simply can make one's demand clear and on the record of one's intent and desire to be set apart from the abomination of false balances and the chattelization of human flesh and bone as the surety-bond substance behind the elasticity of the FED's currency and credit.

Seosaidh
10-16-12, 02:50 AM
Wow, Anthony Joseph, that was a very well thought out response. It was the best one I've read about how redeeming lawful money gives remedy against servitude. Thanks. I understand it better now.

Anthony Joseph
10-16-12, 05:24 PM
Wow, Anthony Joseph, that was a very well thought out response. It was the best one I've read about how redeeming lawful money gives remedy against servitude. Thanks. I understand it better now.


You are quite welcome.

The most important part of this issue is getting "remedy between your ears" and forming the record. This does not, however, guarantee you will be without strife or not be subject to further "tests" of your conviction. The truth does have power but it is God Almighty who decides how the truth will manifest for each of us. So there may be some who heard the truth and acted upon the truth but yet felt somehow "it didn't work". We have to remember it is not for us to decide if it "worked", it is our desire to seek and act upon the truth even though we may think "it didn't work" out of our lack of understanding or knowledge of God's Will.

The record is clear and it is ultimately God who judges the record. He will decide the manifestation and outcome of our actions and the actions of others. All we can do is act in honor, truth and peace as best we can and pray that He will lead us upon the righteous path regardless of our potential misguided notions of failure.

I find that part to be most challenging for me, keeping my thoughts and faith in check in the face of what sometimes seems like total ignorance, disregard and dismissiveness from those who are with the charge of administering and guarding the Kingdom - IN GOD WE TRUST and SO HELP ME GOD.

David Merrill
10-16-12, 11:00 PM
You are quite welcome.

The most important part of this issue is getting "remedy between your ears" and forming the record. This does not, however, guarantee you will be without strife or not be subject to further "tests" of your conviction. The truth does have power but it is God Almighty who decides how the truth will manifest for each of us. So there may be some who heard the truth and acted upon the truth but yet felt somehow "it didn't work". We have to remember it is not for us to decide if it "worked", it is our desire to seek and act upon the truth even though we may think "it didn't work" out of our lack of understanding or knowledge of God's Will.

The record is clear and it is ultimately God who judges the record. He will decide the manifestation and outcome of our actions and the actions of others. All we can do is act in honor, truth and peace as best we can and pray that He will lead us upon the righteous path regardless of our potential misguided notions of failure.

I find that part to be most challenging for me, keeping my thoughts and faith in check in the face of what sometimes seems like total ignorance, disregard and dismissiveness from those who are with the charge of administering and guarding the Kingdom - IN GOD WE TRUST and SO HELP ME GOD.

That is all very well put Anthony Joseph. I want to describe that trust system (fiat currency) a little better for the readers.

The IN GOD WE TRUST trust began in 1863 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5114?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8).


United States currency has the inscription “In God We Trust” in a place the Secretary decides is appropriate.

The SO HELP ME GOD is the swearing in of public officials - a fungible fidelity bond:

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6152/suthersfungiblefidelity.jpg

NYGMan-Tax
10-17-12, 01:18 AM
I am not getting it, it still doesn't work. there is inherent value in what you are getting from a second party. What ever the form of the value received, it is taxable. the fact that you don't consider it valid currency is irrelevant. I get paid in USD, EURO, British Pounds, Canadian Dollars, to name a few. I have also been paid in property for my services. Under all scenarios, the money I was paid, regardless of denomination and form is taxable.

I am just getting a bit frustrated with the lack of authority for this position. I can't find an IRS code section, regulation, or case to support this position. I know you all believe this opinion, and in David, but unless supported by the tax laws, it just doesn't work. David could apply for a PLR present his position to the IRS, and have them rule on it. At least with that the IRS would provide their logic and analysis. The only issue is the IRS will not opine if they believe the argument is not frivolous, and based on some of the case law I have read, that may actually be the case.

NYGMan-Tax
10-17-12, 01:33 AM
Is there a reason you have registered three times from three different email addresses?


P.S. I truly did not read NYGman's post past the presumptions. So if any member is curious about some of the post please bring that up. I enjoy speaking about this always.

What I do not enjoy is the attorney tactic of deciding the premise before asking the questions. If you set up a faulty foundation for somebody else to debate from, that is stacking the cards in my opinion.

Additionally NYGman has set up two additional accounts with StSC. The two unused ones have been permanently banished. I am curious though - were the other two to colleagues of yours? More likely you were having confusion about our two-post rule. That is to avoid non-human members registering.


To be honest, based on the postings on this site, I really didn't want my true email address in your logs. I used a disposable address, and typed it wrong twice, so I couldn't verify the account. I just think at some point in the future due to certain positions you take with respect to taxation, that should the IRS decide to, they may criminally prosecute, and email addresses may be seized. I just don;t want to have my true email on any IRS list. While I respect the IRS ant the tax law and regulations, I have been audited before, and don't want to do that again. I do believe in minimizing tax burdens legally, and paying as little tax as the law will allow, but always in a way supported by law. I will add, if there were a valid legal way to avoid taxation on income, I would jump right on it. Between federal, state, city, property, FICA, Medicade, Sales Tax, other taxes, I am subject to over 60% tax on income. This theory is not the magic bullet David makes it out to be. Everything posted while sounds good, just doesn't work under the law.

JohnnyCash
10-17-12, 03:08 AM
It does work. My experience redeeming thousands of dollars annually in lawful money and paying zero taxes these past 5 years corroborates the truth of what David speaks of. And that's probably why my voice (as Harvester) is now disapproved over at Quatloo (http://jesse2012.com/qool-aid.jpg).

NYGMan-Tax
10-17-12, 03:50 AM
It does work. My experience redeeming thousands of dollars annually in lawful money and paying zero taxes these past 5 years corroborates the truth of what David speaks of. And that's probably why my voice (as Harvester) is now disapproved over at Quatloo (http://jesse2012.com/qool-aid.jpg).


That's not proof. The fact that the IRS has not picked up on this yet, doesn't mean the position has been accepted. The IRS has a system of examining returns post refund. Depending on the level of income and the way it is presented, your chance of audit may be low. You may never get audited, then again, when you do, you will have an issue. I am not saying you can't take your position, but by taking it you are needlessly raising your audit risk. If you get audited, this position is not supported by the law. Think about it, the IRS does not have the resources to look at every return, lower gross income earners are less likely to be audited. Those who deal in cash, and don't seriously live outside there means, also can sneak by too. Heck, you can file a return with all zeros and get a refund, and the IRS may never catch you. Look at the CtC folks. I am sure some have got away with it, but that doesn't make it right.

Think of it like this, do you speed, when driving? If you say, you add 10% because everyone else does, and the cops don't mind, it doesn't make going 10% over the limit legal. If the cops choose to, they can write a ticket for it, but they usually ignore it, and look for people in excess. This is what is probably your situation. You just don't rise to the level of audit, and have yet to be randomly selected. It does not mean you are right, under the law

NYGMan-Tax
10-17-12, 03:53 AM
That's not proof. The fact that the IRS has not picked up on this yet, doesn't mean the position has been accepted. The IRS has a system of examining returns post refund. Depending on the level of income and the way it is presented, your chance of audit may be low. You may never get audited, then again, when you do, you will have an issue. I am not saying you can't take your position, but by taking it you are needlessly raising your audit risk. If you get audited, this position is not supported by the law. Think about it, the IRS does not have the resources to look at every return, lower gross income earners are less likely to be audited. Those who deal in cash, and don't seriously live outside there means, also can sneak by too. Heck, you can file a return with all zeros and get a refund, and the IRS may never catch you. Look at the CtC folks. I am sure some have got away with it, but that doesn't make it right.

Think of it like this, do you speed, when driving? If you say, you add 10% because everyone else does, and the cops don't mind, it doesn't make going 10% over the limit legal. If the cops choose to, they can write a ticket for it, but they usually ignore it, and look for people in excess. This is what is probably your situation. You just don't rise to the level of audit, and have yet to be randomly selected. It does not mean you are right, under the law


I should also add, if you believe it is right, why not ask the IRS for a PLR confirming that your position is valid? [note: Doing do will draw attention to your prior year filings, but if everything is legit, this shouldn't be an issue]

David Merrill
10-17-12, 12:25 PM
I am not getting it, it still doesn't work. there is inherent value in what you are getting from a second party.

It will take some time to go through your flurry of posts but again, I address the juxtaposition of premise with your initial sentence.

There are 'boxes' in which we are conditioned to think and Treefarmer has already presented an excellent item for another reality check:


I have never heard of the IRS collecting a value tax.

So just to get our heads out of a certain box that you propose to draw consider the sales tax. Sales tax is a burden on the shopkeeper, not the buyer. It would be a buyer's tax if it was intended for the purchaser. It is such an ingrained tradition though, that people are accustomed to paying the sales tax for the shop owner. The shopkeeper should subscribe to the letter of the law and just put the sales tax into the purchase price, in an OCD world, don't you think?

Importing the principle of your 843 Form rebuttal I read yesterday you do not seem capable of seeing over the edge of the teacup and think that is the scope of the horizon here. All you need to do is figure that the Income Tax is a fee on the use of the Fed's private credit. Then you might understand much better how redeeming lawful money by demand (by making your demand) removes the suitor into the still extant currency realm of US notes and coins (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html).


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Your myopia is supported by the facts:


It does work. My experience redeeming thousands of dollars annually in lawful money and paying zero taxes these past 5 years corroborates the truth of what David speaks of. And that's probably why my voice (as Harvester) is now disapproved over at Quatloo (http://jesse2012.com/qool-aid.jpg).

David Merrill
10-17-12, 01:39 PM
It does work. My experience redeeming thousands of dollars annually in lawful money and paying zero taxes these past 5 years corroborates the truth of what David speaks of. And that's probably why my voice (as Harvester) is now disapproved over at Quatloo (http://jesse2012.com/qool-aid.jpg).


Moving on to the second sentence:


What ever the form of the value received, it is taxable.

That may be true according to the Sixteenth Amendment - it is just not within the scope of the Federal Reserve Act (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImM2EzYjY5ZWItMDUxOC00OTViLWIwNzMtNGViZ jJkZmIyMzYx/edit). Simply think about the Fed Act and the remedy, to be conducting transactions outside the Act:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3011/12usc411pre1934.jpg

I like this! You change my style to explain in a more technical form. The bottom document in this file (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImQjYtd3ZQTU9mcUE) about Section 411 of Title 12 is titled to be about paragraph 203(a) but in processing I discovered paragraph 202 is so much more interesting! This is where by law anybody who endorses private credit may be considered a State Bank!

This introduces somewhat of a revelation to me that since the Average Joe signing endorsement is a state bank he is getting consideration - (not a naked contract (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_NameDefinition.jpg)) - should Joe be lending out to all his friends and fractionally on the approved Fed rates (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_Money.zip) he finds himself at the center of a run on Poker Night. Joe can simply call up the FDIC and they will send an armored car - well, a cheap suit in sunglasses with a briefcase anyway - to save his reputation as a banker.

The only problem with your posting here is that I cannot seem to get though your first two sentences without running out of time to chat. And my mind wanders into new discoveries like a trimmer 843 Form-based Libel of Review. The LoR is my intellectual property and with my imagination (Planet Merrill) I just find it too amusing that since my intellectual properties have value, that in your New York City G-Man Tax Attorney (http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24698&p=324277#p323708) world you would have it that the IRS can start taxing me? For my thoughts? For sharing my thoughts and others benefitting by getting full refunds of their withholdings? That would be quite contrary for the IRS to give these people Refunds and then Tax me for showing them how! My thoughts have value. So do yours but on Planet Merrill you are a teaching tool.

So I will leave the rest of your posts for the good members and readers here to parse out for the value you bring - which is no small value. It is indeed a privilege to have you here.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Section 203(a) is an interesting segway into the Secretary being US Governor for the IMF as found in the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements (http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/3599/publiclaw94564.pdf) (p. 8).


P.P.S.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_RavageArticle_Page08.jpg

Jethro
10-17-12, 07:47 PM
Under the code....

Prove I am "under the code":

David Merrill
10-17-12, 08:53 PM
NYGman says;

That is not proof.


Yet we have been redeeming lawful money in various forms for seven years now (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_affidavit_of_public_money.jpg).


BTW: I just got my State refund check (over $3,000) , based on the 1040 Line 21 "Lawful Money Demand Reduction". The Federal refund was already successfully applied to back taxes. The other State tax return was also accepted without objection to this reduction. So, "...by the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, a matter is confirmed"! Hooray!


That snippet is from my current emails. You will get no proof over the Internet. My favorite examples show contemplation like that though - that the IRS considered it carefully and then cut the check, even to apply it to back taxes. Or closer to home (yours) would be the state tax authority pondering over a tax refund carefully enough to add the School Tax Credit on:

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

You have a good point. The recipient in New York is a banker for the huge international bank and is a licensed tax preparer. He was at a get together and overheard his co-worker's (the host's) sister, an IRS attorney speaking a bit too candidly, There is a group of people in Colorado who don't pay Income Tax; they are doing it correctly. He figured she meant me but she clammed up to any further conversation about it. She would however speak a little about his returns and at one point, the next year she remarked that she could no longer access his files.

This sort of thing goes on around me all the time. It is not proof to you because like you see, I bounced it back and forth with him until he was comfortable that nobody would figure it was him. But even if you do, what are you going to do? Are you going to call up the NY Tax Authority and gripe about somebody else getting a refund? You would be griping to the people who write the refund check! You would call them up and tell them they made a big mistake?

So we discussed it carefully and found these two docs as sanitized are convincing that they go together and they show contemplation. As you read it, it is not proof - agreed. But you have to admit it is rather convincing.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Treefarmer
10-18-12, 01:02 AM
I am not getting it, it still doesn't work. there is inherent value in what you are getting from a second party. What ever the form of the value received, it is taxable. the fact that you don't consider it valid currency is irrelevant. I get paid in USD, EURO, British Pounds, Canadian Dollars, to name a few. I have also been paid in property for my services. Under all scenarios, the money I was paid, regardless of denomination and form is taxable.

I am just getting a bit frustrated with the lack of authority for this position. I can't find an IRS code section, regulation, or case to support this position. I know you all believe this opinion, and in David, but unless supported by the tax laws, it just doesn't work. David could apply for a PLR present his position to the IRS, and have them rule on it. At least with that the IRS would provide their logic and analysis. The only issue is the IRS will not opine if they believe the argument is not frivolous, and based on some of the case law I have read, that may actually be the case.

NYGMan-Tax, it is indeed a pleasure to have you here.
You bring a new perspective to this discussion forum.
Thank you for joining us.

Earlier today I dug out my searchable copy of the 1986 IRC and searched for the term "value".
"Value" occurs there 3,416,179 times, usually in connection with "interest" or "estate".
Then I searched for "value tax", which occurs not at all, and neither does "taxable value", "tax value" or "inherent value".
Then I searched for "tax on value", which occurs once:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 62 - TIME AND PLACE FOR PAYING TAX
Subchapter B - Extensions of Time for Payment

-HEAD-
Sec. 6163. Extension of time for payment of estate tax on value of
reversionary or remainder interest in property

-STATUTE-
(a) Extension permitted
If the value of a reversionary or remainder interest in property
is included under chapter 11 in the value of the gross estate, the
payment of the part of the tax under chapter 11 attributable to
such interest may, at the election of the executor, be postponed
until 6 months after the termination of the precedent interest or
interests in the property, under such regulations as the Secretary
may prescribe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it interesting that you stated that anything of value being received is taxable by the IRS.
Perhaps value is not taxable under the IRC, but pursuant to public policy?
Would you please elaborate on your statements about value being taxable?
Thank you.

As to your curious statement about someone not considering "value received" as "valid currency", this really caught my eye.
You did not appear to be addressing anyone in particular with your statement, so I assume that you were directing your comment at the collective forum members.
A quick forum search revealed that we have never discussed the validity of any currency on this forum, and the word combination of "valid currency" exists exactly once on this forum in your own post.

So while you are at it, would you please also explain how "received value" is "valid currency"?
Thank you, your input here is appreciated.

Seosaidh
10-18-12, 03:18 PM
I guess the question about value pertains to the definition of income; what is it? I know the statutes define it, but I don't have time to refresh my memory right now. Is receiving lawful money receiving income?

David Merrill
10-18-12, 03:32 PM
Speaking for myself I have already refused to be drawn into G's premise about value. It scarcely shows at all in the Code like Treefarmer has shown us.

I will keep it simple about being in contract with the Fed, or not.

Keyser Soze
10-18-12, 05:10 PM
Value is subjective. According to NYG's theory, if I am required to accept FRN's at gunpoint, then I have not placed any value in them, they are therefore not taxable. Thank you to all in this forum, I now place my value in Lawful Money.

shikamaru
10-18-12, 05:22 PM
I guess the question about value pertains to the definition of income; what is it? I know the statutes define it, but I don't have time to refresh my memory right now. Is receiving lawful money receiving income?

Tax is derived from property.
Tax is assessed against the value of something and not the property itself.

Brian
10-18-12, 06:00 PM
Tax is derived from property.
Tax is assessed against the value of something and not the property itself.

The income (gain or profit) is derived from the property (ie: rent from renting a house, gain realized by employing labor combined with capital to produce a product). It is then measured by the $$ amount above and beyond the costs of producing. (The house is the property, The labor is related to the employer/employee relationship or said differently slave master/slave relationship, Capital is also property)

If you have a business that is incorporated you pay a tax on that privilege that is measured by the income (gain or profit measured in dollars). The excise is on the privilege and is measured in dollars.
As the wage maker your labor is part of you. If you use the treasury issued medium of exchange that falls under federal common law and IS a direct tax. However if you use the quasi federal/private Fed script as payment for your labor that is a privileged activity that falls under the excise power of the government via the commerce clause.

Seosaidh
10-18-12, 07:21 PM
The income (gain or profit) is derived from the property (ie: rent from renting a house, gain realized by employing labor combined with capital to produce a product). It is then measured by the $$ amount above and beyond the costs of producing. (The house is the property, The labor is related to the employer/employee relationship or said differently slave master/slave relationship, Capital is also property)

If you have a business that is incorporated you pay a tax on that privilege that is measured by the income (gain or profit measured in dollars). The excise is on the privilege and is measured in dollars.
As the wage maker your labor is part of you. If you use the treasury issued medium of exchange that falls under federal common law and IS a direct tax. However if you use the quasi federal/private Fed script as payment for your labor that is a privileged activity that falls under the excise power of the government via the commerce clause.

Oh, that's right! And direct taxes must be apportioned, therefore no income tax ought to be assessed against income of lawful money. But then the question arises, if someone pays you in FRN's, did you receive private credit?

David Merrill
10-19-12, 12:07 AM
Oh, that's right! And direct taxes must be apportioned, therefore no income tax ought to be assessed against income of lawful money. But then the question arises, if someone pays you in FRN's, did you receive private credit?

More, did you endorse private credit?

Consider the law like a mirror. If you project forgiveness...


PPS: forgot to mention... along with that check I sent certified a copy of my Default Judgment published at county level.

Nickname

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: David Merrill <>
Sent: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: mortgage

you may recall, we're very behind in our mortgage payments.
So much so that mortgage co. was sending nasty letters, and even returning a check uncashed because it wasn't for the full amount due. I have been R4C'ing just about everything from them.

Well, today I discover they have cashed our latest check:!
(attached)

Seems we may not be in default after all.



I just love it when somebody applies my intellectual property to save their home from foreclosure.

NYGMan-Tax
10-19-12, 01:42 AM
so much to respond to, this is great, I am really enjoying this discussion. Lets start off with something basic to my question, value.

I am trying to simplify multiple code sections and regulations to make it easier to understand. I could quote a series of code sections, but I am trying to explain it is the most basic way. David provides a general overview of his theory without referring to code sections, regulations and case law, so I figured it was the easiest way to do it. I am a tax lawyer by trade, and know the code and regs quite well. However, I prefer to explain in plain English, in a way I hope all can understand. Sure you can search for value, but you won't find it used in the context I am using it, but it is correct. Think about this, you perform a service for someone. The service you just performed has a value to it, and you expect to be compensated for that value. You assign an amount to the worth of that work, typically this is your salary, or hourly wage. Under the code, the value that is assigned to that work is what is subject to taxation. It would be taxable, unless you are donating time to charity, and do not expect to be paid. You are in effect donating the value of your time. [As an aside, in essence you can think of charity work as earning a dollar value for services rendered, but donating the value of your services, resulting in no income recognition as it is a wash - Income = $100 charitable deduction = -100 : income less charitable deduction = 0 - you can not deduct the cost of your labor against your income to offset, that is not permitted deduction]

Now let's get back to value. I do a job. Let's say I expect to get paid $5,000. At the completion of the job, I have several options:
1) They offer $5,000 in FRN's
2) They offer me a car worth $5,000
3) They offer to pay me in EURO (Aprox 6,500 of them)
4) They offer to give me a corporate bond, face value of $5,000, with 3% interest payment for 10 years
5) They offer to give me a computer worth $5,000
6) They offer me gold, silver, or other like items of value worth $5,000
7) They offer to pay of $5,000 of an existing loan
8) They offer to supply other services back to me, worth $5,000
9) They offer me $5,000 of diamonds
10) They give me a $5,000 gift card
I could go on

In all the above cases, I have income of $5,000. This is attributed to me when the amount is due, and I have control over it, either through actual receipt or constructive receipt. It is the receipt of value that causes the taxable event. Again, actual receipt, or constructive. When I say constructive, it implies you have control over the asset, but it may not be physical control. For example, number 2 above, I have title, but the car is still parked with the person giving it to me, I am in constructive receipt of it, even though I do not have physical possession.

My point here is that when you perform work, you expect to get something of value in exchange for your labor. This value is quantifiable, and typically paid in USD. Now days, this is done mostly via wire transfer (Direct Deposit) or check, but cash also works. [Although I will leave cash out of this, as most people who work for cash do so, to stay unreported, and will not declare that income]. Regardless of how this value is transferred to you, it is taxable income. What ever you do with it after you get it, or what ever form you get it in, it is still taxable to you upon receipt [constructive or actual].

So that is what I don;t understand, converting or redeeming into lawful money, does not change the fact that it is still earned. I am assuming you will now go back to y charitable deduction simplification. You may now agree with my premise on value as taxable, but then sy you are entitled to deduction against redeemed lawful money. This is my problem, I can not find any code section, regulation, or case that supports a deduction for this. Can anyone show me one as part of the tax code or regs. Tax law is derived from the IRS code and regulations, and case law interpretations of those. So far, the only case law I have found does not support Davids position.

As for the proof David posted, of his banker friend. I will tell you, as a Lawyer in NYC, and being subject myself to NYS/NYC withholding, in looking up the withholding rates, the amount of the refund reflects withholding that would indicate this person is not high up in the organization, and is an entry level employee. While this person may be an authorize tax preparer, they are not a CPA or Lawyer. They are a Junior person, with little experience, and I would say a very basic understanding of the tax law. Again, based on the refund amount, I don't think this person earns enough to even be on the radar of the taxing authority. I used a speeding analogy last post, but here is a better one, I think.

Suppose I am a serial killer. I kill 10 people without getting caught. I am good at what I do, and leave no evidence. Using your logic, I could say that Murder is not a crime, because I have done it 10 times before, but have never been caught, or even questioned. Therefore, it must not be illegal. This is the same as you preparing a low value tax return, claiming a fictitious deduction, getting a refund, and saying the deduction was obviously correct, as the IRS paid the refund. Simply getting the refund is not proof of anything. I have stated before, this will increase your audit risk, and that may result in the IRS examining your returns some day, but who knows when that will be. The IRS is more concerned with large dollar tax cheats, than someone who scams a few thousand dollars. They just don't have the resources.

You could ask for a PLR (Private Letter Ruling) in which the IRS reviews your position and provides analysis, however if the IRS does not agree with you, you will still be bound by their decision). You can get a lawyer to write you a legal opinion, or you can do nothing and hope the IRS never catches you.

Another thing I said, and really mean, I would love to legally pay no tax, and if I can find something that is supported in the law, that would absolve me of my tax obligation, I would want to know about it. But I need to be able to support my position with the existing tax law, and here I am having a problem. There is nothing I can find in the tax code, regulations, or tax law that supports this. In fact case law seems to imply that regardless of form, it is taxable, and that FRN's are lawful money, and that all the provision you site is good for is swapping FRN's for FRN's. If you have a $100 bill in bad condition, you can go to the fed and redeem it for a new $100, redeeming you lawful money for more lawful money. However, I don't want to debate that issue, and until now have steered clear of it. Please just focus on part two, and why the act of redemption for lawful money results in that money being nontaxable, when clearly it has value, and what you got, that you are exchanging also had value.

I hope I addressed the points above. I will not entertain the position that the tax law doesn't apply to you. If you reside in any of the 50 states, regardless of citizenship, you are subject to the tax code. Heck, even foreign workers, here on work permits are subject to US tax. And if you think tax only applies to government workers or some limited subset of employees, I will not debate that absurd position. It has been proven wrong, even among people who argue other positions on not being taxable. I also will not entertain the 861 position or the OID scam, all bad positions, and based on a bad reading of the code, and a lack of understanding of legal writings.

I do really want to continue this discussion, as this theory fascinates me, and I would like to understand the basis for the position, although focused more on why the redemption results in a tax benefit.

Seosaidh
10-19-12, 02:59 AM
See, that went right over my head. Whoosh! Lol

Treefarmer
10-19-12, 03:13 AM
Earlier today I dug out my searchable copy of the 1986 IRC and searched for the term "value".
"Value" occurs there 3,416,179 times, usually in connection with "interest" or "estate".
Then I searched for "value tax", which occurs not at all, and neither does "taxable value", "tax value" or "inherent value".
Then I searched for "tax on value", which occurs once:


I just realized that the number 3,416,179 is the total word count of all words in that copy of the 1986 IRC, and that the word counter will not count specific words.
So if a word occurs zero times or only a few times it can be counted manually.
But "value" occurs so may times that there's no way to count it in a practical manner, absent a programmable word counter.

I'm using OpenOffice dot org.
If anyone knows of a word count feature which will count instances of specific words in that software, please let me know.
Thanks.

NYGMan-Tax
10-19-12, 03:21 AM
See, that went right over my head. Whoosh! Lol

It is important to me for you to follow, what was it that wizzed by? Where did I loose you? I really want to do my best to express my concern about this position, and that I believe anyone using this method to reduce their tax liability really doesn't have a legal basis that I can so far determine. This is the purpose of my posting, I am asking for guidance on where to find support for it.

I have tried to ask David these questions on another forum, but he felt he was being moderated and couldn't answer my questions, so I brought them here. I have done extensive research on my own time, read almost all Davids relevant posts in other forums, watched his videos, read others who have the same view, and still can't understand why the conversion renders the income tax free. It really should be a simple answer for an expert, yet I still haven't got one. If I am to rely on a position, I want to know what part of the tax law covers it. David is not a lawyer, and yet he seems to be providing tax advice, based on his own interpretations or the law. If this goes "t**s up (so the saying goes, no offense intended)" David will not be in a position to represent me in a court.

JohnnyCash
10-19-12, 04:33 AM
You could ask for a PLR (Private Letter Ruling) in which the IRS reviews ...and what? the IRS tells you "Oh yeah you're right, lawful money's outside our jurisdiction. You win, our fiat money scam has been bringing in billions of dollars but we'll let you off with a Ruling in your favor. Here ya go!" And while you're at it ask Don Corleone for a list of everyone the Mob has popped a cap in.

Not gonna happen. Has it occurred to you that perhaps you're putting too much trust in official institutions and well-respected professionals. Have you given much thought to the possibility you've been scammed, lied to, on a massive scale, by these same leading figures?

You mentioned the hypothetical of being a criminal, a very good one. Let's run with that. Let's say you're tired of being a little fish running penny ante scams, you wish to run the ultimate con, something that can deceive an entire nation. Sounds like an impossible task, doesn't it? To basically takeover a free country at the turn of the century, a country experiencing unprecedented prosperity. Prosperity precisely because freedom and property rights are secured by law. And what is the nation using as money? Yes, gold & silver and notes backed by, settled in the same metal. Your plan is to gradually move people away from real money -- to using unbacked private debt notes as money. A new ELASTIC CURRENCY controlled by YOU!

What will you need to pull it off? Cooperation? Granted it won't be easy, you'll need to go into partnership with government officials, help from a compliant media, a vast network of minions, members of secret organizations, infiltrators, websites (http://jesse2012.com/qool-aid.jpg), paid agents, grunts, etc. throughout the country. You're patient, you may not even live to see the culmination of the master plan. How long do you think it'll take?


If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. - Joseph Goebbels

The Third Reich told a lot of lies. Most Germans believed the State.

BTW, I redeem lawful money (http://jesse2012.com/slavefree.jpg) and haven't paid income tax since 2007 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461&p=5059#post5059).

David Merrill
10-19-12, 07:02 AM
It is important to me for you to follow, what was it that wizzed by? Where did I loose you? I really want to do my best to express my concern about this position, and that I believe anyone using this method to reduce their tax liability really doesn't have a legal basis that I can so far determine. This is the purpose of my posting, I am asking for guidance on where to find support for it.

I have tried to ask David these questions on another forum, but he felt he was being moderated and couldn't answer my questions, so I brought them here. I have done extensive research on my own time, read almost all Davids relevant posts in other forums, watched his videos, read others who have the same view, and still can't understand why the conversion renders the income tax free. It really should be a simple answer for an expert, yet I still haven't got one. If I am to rely on a position, I want to know what part of the tax law covers it. David is not a lawyer, and yet he seems to be providing tax advice, based on his own interpretations or the law. If this goes "t**s up (so the saying goes, no offense intended)" David will not be in a position to represent me in a court.

Thank you for correcting that perception Treefarmer!

I explained that NYGman brings in perceptions and states them as premises. It may be a problem of mine but as I read each sentence I want to correct his perceptions. So I prefer not to read his posts because it just takes too long to pick apart every sentence.

I looked at the previous page and noticed that the new Qualude shift, to attack Refusal for Cause is now sunk by a family being able to stay in their home through a foreclosure. He sent a copy of the check, which proves nothing but I believe him that the mortgage company was so glad to get it that they cashed it and now have reset any default action by doing so.

I find that quite satisfying as the Quatlosers all keep assuring themselves that the LoR and R4C are bogus.

NYGMan-Tax
10-19-12, 02:30 PM
and what? the IRS tells you "Oh yeah you're right, lawful money's outside our jurisdiction. You win, our fiat money scam has been bringing in billions of dollars but we'll let you off with a Ruling in your favor. Here ya go!" And while you're at it ask Don Corleone for a list of everyone the Mob has popped a cap in.

Not gonna happen. Has it occurred to you that perhaps you're putting too much trust in official institutions and well-respected professionals. Have you given much thought to the possibility you've been scammed, lied to, on a massive scale, by these same leading figures?

You mentioned the hypothetical of being a criminal, a very good one. Let's run with that. Let's say you're tired of being a little fish running penny ante scams, you wish to run the ultimate con, something that can deceive an entire nation. Sounds like an impossible task, doesn't it? To basically takeover a free country at the turn of the century, a country experiencing unprecedented prosperity. Prosperity precisely because freedom and property rights are secured by law. And what is the nation using as money? Yes, gold & silver and notes backed by, settled in the same metal. Your plan is to gradually move people away from real money -- to using unbacked private debt notes as money. A new ELASTIC CURRENCY controlled by YOU!

What will you need to pull it off? Cooperation? Granted it won't be easy, you'll need to go into partnership with government officials, help from a compliant media, a vast network of minions, members of secret organizations, infiltrators, websites (http://jesse2012.com/qool-aid.jpg), paid agents, grunts, etc. throughout the country. You're patient, you may not even live to see the culmination of the master plan. How long do you think it'll take?



The Third Reich told a lot of lies. Most Germans believed the State.

BTW, I redeem lawful money (http://jesse2012.com/slavefree.jpg) and haven't paid income tax since 2007 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461&p=5059#post5059).

First, I am very disappointed that David has chosen not to read my posts and respond. It reminds me of my toddlers who stick their fingers in their ears and go
"Naa Naa Naa" when you tell them something they don't want to hear. I believe David is best positions to address my concerns, but yet he just dismisses me out of hand. However, at least Johnny Cash and some others are actually giving it a go, to which I thank them.

I agree with you point on the PLR's, of course the IRS isn't going to say this position is valid, whether you believe this is due to the law not supporting the position or the fact that there is a conspiracy within the IRS not to admit taxes can be avoided, or some other reason altogether. Let's just go with your post above. The fact that you seem to acknowledge the IRS will not bless this position, as they would not issue a PLR in favor of it, shows that you really believe the IRS doesn't support this position. Think of the PLR process as running a draft tax return by the IRS to see how they would view the position. If you feel they would deny the PLR, then by default you can't believe they actually accept it on a filed return.

Regardless of how valid you believe this position to be, the courts don't seem to support it, the IRS if asked in a PLR would not support it, so even if you are correct in your views, you are still going to be subject to penalties, Liens, and possibly jail, as the courts will not agree with you.

I think you all have the wrong opinion of me. I am all for using the tax law to minimize tax liabilities within the boundaries of the law. I do this for a living. It is a legitimate position to structure a company in a way to minimize the tax consequences and I fully support taking advantage of any "loophole" in the tax code. I have no vested interest in any other site, I just seek answers to my own questions, with respect to this. Heck, if you can answer my questions with sufficient legal support, I will be singing this theories praises.

What interested me about this theory is that I really hadn't seen it until a few months ago, and I have been researching it ever since. I am a lawyer, I have to go by the law, regardless of whether you (Generic you, not directed at Johnny Cash) believe the laws are applicable. As a tax lawyer, I need to get comfort with this position, based on the IRS code, regs, and case law. I need to ensure that cases sited actually hold what David proports them to hold, or are just quotes from discussion sections taken out of context, I have to look up the code sections, and relevant regulations, and put together a legal arguement to support this position before I can take it.

David states that he believes my perceptions are wrong, but hasn't attempted to correct them. I try to distill any position in to its basic components. I provide plain english examples on how the IRS code works, and try to apply it to Davids position in order to show where I am having an issue. I think I laid it out in a way that was easy to understand. If not, I can elaborate on anything if asked.

While I do admit I have a general dislike of "Tax Protesters" (and I don't use that term in the negative) who make frivolous arguments and waste courts time, and consistently loose. I have no issues with those that study the tax law, and find creative ways within those laws to minimize tax. I was hoping David leaned more to the later rather than the former, but he just seems to be evading my questions here too, even though I am now posting on a forum he can't claim is censoring him.

If David doesn't like my "perceptions" I wish he would list them out, and state what the issue is. I will take as much time necessary to respond, but I would like my concerns addressed.

Look, for those taking this position, don't you want a succinct concise explanation of this position, with appropriate legal citations to code, regs, and cases, that you can research and confirm. Do you not want a written opinion that can be reviewed by legal professionals, judges, and legal scholars. Do you not want independent verification of this position?

If you believe Davids position is solid as a rock, what do you have to fear from providing the proper legal analysis. Referring to historic texts, old laws, articles, or documents outside the core tax law, code, regulations, and body of cases is not sufficient, in a law court. I am open minded, and willing to admit I am wrong, if provided with the support. A position like this should be easy to explain, and document. While you may believe the tax law is complicated, in all honesty, when you understand it, it is fairly straight forward. It is long, it refers to itself, and it is written by lawyers, so it can be a bit tricky for non-lawyers.

Finally, why would I be against this, other than I can't find legal support. As stated before, I would love to legally not have to pay tax. If this theory is supportable, I will be very happy. I do have a preconceived notion on the validity of this position, but only because I am a lawyer who has done his research, and have not found the support needed to accept this position. Rather than saying my opinion is correct, I wanted to reach out to the one person who seems to come up the most in searches on this topic, to help me find what I am missing. Repeatedly he has ignored my questions, even admitted to not reading them, and has generally tried to dismiss me, which to be honest, is not something I would expect from someone who has true conviction in his beliefs.

There is power in truth, you can not argue with the truth, you can not ignore the truth. Provide me with proof this is valid. Again, proof is not a redacted refund. Oh, by the way, has David ever posted his redacted returns and refund checks? I would think that would be an interesting read, although again not proof.

One final point to this post, and alluded to earlier, even if you are right (and I am not saying you are) if you believe the IRS will never admit this, and the courts will support the IRS's views on this, the penalties they can levy are real, and the jail time you can get is very real, and there are several public examples of people spending real jail time, loosing real property, and money, due to taking positions they believed were valid, but for which the IRS believed were frivolous. You can be a tax martyr if you like, but I certainly don't want to be. All I am trying to do is put the law behind these positions, and see if I can build a position supported by law, which would be undeniable in a court of law. When in Rome, do as the Romans, When in court subject to tax laws, find support in those laws.

NYGMan-Tax
10-19-12, 02:40 PM
As for the LoR and R4C I couldn't care less. The fact that you R4C a document has no applicability in pleadings or with respect to IRS notices. While it may make you feel good, outside of the UCC, with respect to contracts, it is not applicable. You are free to mark and revert, but it serves no legal purpose used the way it is promoted here. There is a big misconception as to when R4C is applicable. However, this isn't my issue, and I don't care to debate it, as you are free to mark any document in any way you see fit. In the end, you will find you received no benefit for doing this.Of course, I have now probably opened myself up to a slew of posts telling me I am wrong and the R4C documents work. Even assuming R4C is applicable, what is you cause? Just because you disagree with the IRS view, would not give you cause to refuse a document. But again, you are free to have your views on this, I would just prefer to discus the redeeming of lawful money, specifically what legal support you have for taking the position that the redemption is not taxable.

JohnnyCash
10-19-12, 02:55 PM
HA! Your dis-ingenuity is showing.

Simply getting the refund is not proof of anything. I have stated before, this will increase your audit risk, and that may result in the IRS examining your returns some day, but who knows when that will be.You sound skeered. Or are you projecting fear? There is no downside when redeeming lawful money. Aside from record-keeping there is no cost. I have won (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?358-No-Income-Tax-paid-3-years-and-counting) with lawful money, corporations (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?681-Company-beats-IRS-penalties-with-Lawful-Money) win with lawful money. In fact everyone here redeeming lawful money, and showing evidence of same (good record-keeping) is winning. The IRS folds. They melt like an illusion. Using Federal Reserve debt notes as money is an illusion GMan. Throw some lawful money on that illusion and she melts like the Wicked Witch of the West.

The days when you could win this with lies and propaganda are long gone, Gman. This isn't your father's Oldsmobile any more.

American_National
10-19-12, 04:30 PM
There is power in truth, you can not argue with the truth, you can not ignore the truth.

NYGMan-Tax, I agree with what you have stated in the quote above. Since you are an admitted attorney, locating the source reference material to support such a position for these and future questions that build upon the foundational answers you provide below should be really straightforward for you.

From reading your prior posts, the best approach to you answering this lawful money question for yourself is to engage in a dialog that allows you to establish your foundational reference material to support a series of questions that you come up with answers to in this regard.

Here are 5 initial foundational questions for you to answer:

1. Are Federal Reserve notes (FRN's, FRn's, Frn's, etc.) issues of the "United States", or issues of the "Federal Reserve" system/districts, please? (pick one "United States" or "Federal Reserve")

2. Is the "Federal Reserve" a foreign controlled private corporation, please? (yes or no)

3. Does the "United States" sell bonds to fund the costs of its various federal programs and benefits, please? (yes or no)

4. Who is currently the primary purchaser of these bonds, please? (Federal Reserve, China, IMF, IBRD, Great Britain, etc.)

5. Are Federal Reserve notes classified as intangible "bills of exchange", please? (yes or no)

We can incrementally move forward in this dialog once you have located your source reference material that supports and answers these initial 5 questions above. I agree with you that you are the one who must locate the foundational supporting documents that support any position you my choose to take in dealing with IRS in this regard.

I also understand everyone's ongoing frustration in trying to deal with IRS personnel whose greatest accomplishment in life so far has been mastering the ability to verbatim read somewhat at the 6th grade level and attempt to articulate various IRS form instruction sections to you on the phone, which always begin with "generally speaking", and are not to be used by anyone in supporting any position regarding a tax.

The IRS personnel I have dealt with so far also have no training or concept of what codified federal regulations and/or united states codes actually mean, or how to go about properly interpreting them - as ongoingly evidenced by their lack of ability to articulate the "in context" meaning of various regulatory defined terms that come out of their mouths over the phone. I also know the ongoing frustration of trying to get these intellectual giants off their butts long enough to have them seek the advice of their in-house legal counsel prior to re-engaging in an intelligent two-way conversation over the phone in regards to this and other topics.

So, lets do this in small simple steps - (N)ew (Y)ork (G)overnment (Man)-(Tax) attorney, small simple steps. :-)

martin earl
10-19-12, 05:39 PM
NYGman tax,

From US V Ware:
"It is also to be noted that Congress Has already come to grips with the question whether United States notes are legal tender in 31 U.S.C. ? 452, which provides:
16

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt."

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/608/608.F2d.400.78-1834.html

As an attorney, you will notice the reference is to United States notes (as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes) and that US Notes are NOT legal tender for payment on "interest on the public debt".

It is my understanding that income taxes are used to "pay the interest on the public debt". It is reasonable to assume that if I am paid (income) exclusively in United States Notes (lawful money as issued and defined in the code listed above) I cannot legally tender those notes for payment of the interest on the public debt.

If that is the case, the IRS is actually prohibited, by law to accept my US Notes.

Of course, there is no such law that I know that does not allow them to receive notes such as EUROS, or any other elastic currency international Notes you listed, "value" expression converted into the other elastic currency Federal Reserve Note.

US Notes are NOT and never have been Federal Reserve Notes, nor have EUROS, et al. Had WARE demanded his "redemption of lawful money" not in Gold coin, but in US Notes, the issue before the court would have logically, been different. His claim was that "because Federal Reserve NOTES are not redeemable in Gold coin, they are not taxable.

The court was clear to point out in WARE that FRNs are redeemable IN LAWFUL MONEY (US Notes, as cited) and that US Bank notes are NOT legal tender for payment for the interest on the public debt.

It is clear the IRS would have not been able to receive said US Note lawful money for payment.

Thank you for being on this forum and for your reply, I am looking forward to it.
martin

martin earl
10-19-12, 05:55 PM
I guess the question about value pertains to the definition of income; what is it? I know the statutes define it, but I don't have time to refresh my memory right now. Is receiving lawful money receiving income?

The question should not be "are they income" clearly, there is income that is NOT taxable. For example, punitive damage payments made the by the STATE in lawsuits are not "taxable income". I know because I had punitive damages from a Federal case and the payment was not taxable, (I did not demand lawful money at the time of settlement, no income tax was due and the payment was substantial.)

Also, a credit line from a bank is not "taxable income" though is of course, an income. VISA credit lines, etc are income, but not taxable income.

CERTAIN Obligations of the United States are not taxable income either.

US Notes are lawful money AND Obligations of the United States and that is what FRNs are redeemed in "on demand". It seems that while they could be considered INCOME US Notes are not "taxable income", nor, apparently, as issued, are they a "legal tender" for payment of interest on the national debt.

This leads me to believe US Notes might be a legal tender on the "principle" of the National debt. So if one was actually volunteering to pay down the public debt, one could simply make a "principle only" payment using Redeemed lawful money.

However, I believe that would have to be done through and to the US Treasury, not the IRS.

I wonder how I would be treated if I started making principle payments on the national debt directly to the Treasury?

martin earl
10-19-12, 06:07 PM
HA! Your dis-ingenuity is showing.
You sound skeered. Or are you projecting fear? There is no downside when redeeming lawful money. Aside from record-keeping there is no cost. I have won (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?358-No-Income-Tax-paid-3-years-and-counting) with lawful money, corporations (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?681-Company-beats-IRS-penalties-with-Lawful-Money) win with lawful money. In fact everyone here redeeming lawful money, and showing evidence of same (good record-keeping) is winning. The IRS folds. They melt like an illusion. Using Federal Reserve debt notes as money is an illusion GMan. Throw some lawful money on that illusion and she melts like the Wicked Witch of the West.

The days when you could win this with lies and propaganda are long gone, Gman. This isn't your father's Oldsmobile any more.

I do not think he is scared. I think he stands to make a ton of money if he can somehow prove to his rich clients he can show them how to stop paying personal income taxes.

He is simply asking us to show him how to prove to his clients that it is based in law so they will sign the contract giving him a percentage of their "returns" and savings.

I know that is exactly what I would be doing if I were a tax attorney or accountant. He is correct, just showing someone a "tax return" or 2 or some refund checks will not convince business man who is pulling in millions in personal income.

I could be wrong...but I doubt I am...

David Merrill
10-19-12, 08:44 PM
I do not think he is scared. I think he stands to make a ton of money if he can somehow prove to his rich clients he can show them how to stop paying personal income taxes.

He is simply asking us to show him how to prove to his clients that it is based in law so they will sign the contract giving him a percentage of their "returns" and savings.

I know that is exactly what I would be doing if I were a tax attorney or accountant. He is correct, just showing someone a "tax return" or 2 or some refund checks will not convince business man who is pulling in millions in personal income.

I could be wrong...but I doubt I am...

That is an interesting perspective.

Seosaidh
10-19-12, 09:02 PM
The question should not be "are they income" clearly, there is income that is NOT taxable. For example, punitive damage payments made the by the STATE in lawsuits are not "taxable income". I know because I had punitive damages from a Federal case and the payment was not taxable, (I did not demand lawful money at the time of settlement, no income tax was due and the payment was substantial.)

Also, a credit line from a bank is not "taxable income" though is of course, an income. VISA credit lines, etc are income, but not taxable income.

CERTAIN Obligations of the United States are not taxable income either.

US Notes are lawful money AND Obligations of the United States and that is what FRNs are redeemed in "on demand". It seems that while they could be considered INCOME US Notes are not "taxable income", nor, apparently, as issued, are they a "legal tender" for payment of interest on the national debt.

This leads me to believe US Notes might be a legal tender on the "principle" of the National debt. So if one was actually volunteering to pay down the public debt, one could simply make a "principle only" payment using Redeemed lawful money.

However, I believe that would have to be done through and to the US Treasury, not the IRS.

I wonder how I would be treated if I started making principle payments on the national debt directly to the Treasury?

What profit or gain is there associated with receiving lawful money in exchange for my time or property (not from business)? Since I'm not receiving private credit, but rather lawful money, it's a 1:1 transaction, no profit or gain, therefore not income.

Or am I thinking this through too simplisticly?

David Merrill
10-19-12, 09:22 PM
What profit or gain is there associated with receiving lawful money in exchange for my time or property (not from business)? Since I'm not receiving private credit, but rather lawful money, it's a 1:1 transaction, no profit or gain, therefore not income.

Or am I thinking this through too simplisticly?

I think I have said as much many times in different terms. You make no bond for any extra funds to be created by fractional lending. Therefore the obligations are solely on the signatories, the Secretary and the US Treasurer.

The bank will stop paying interest by converting your account to a non-interest bearing account. Since you are no longer granting it the privilege of profiting from your funds in the account, it stops giving you the privilege of interest on those funds.

Anybody "saving" FRNs without earning more interest than the rate of inflation is silly because as stock certificates in the Fed, they are designed to depreciate over time. So if you stuff $1000 in your mattress today you can expect it to be worth less in a year. So there goes all the incentive for saving right there...

Now we might get some insight into how many proper perspectives there can be had on illusions. Mainly the illusion is that government debt can be bought and sold like there is value. The measure of the illusion is found in SDR's (Special Drawing Rights) and SDR's are indeed used for international insurance evaluations and claims. SDR's are the measure of conditioning of five nations to endorse blindly. But the UN's IMF etc. often mumble about making SDR's the new "limited gold standard" and such nonsense. More illusions.

If everybody snaps out of it, it will all implode back to the $42.22/troy ounce international earmark from the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements.

So I think you have an enjoyable perspective on the whole thing Seosaidh. It sounds as valid as any. I think that the profit and gain that you speak of is actually the benefit of having the FDIC come support your fractional lending practice, like you get paid enough to run a bank from your kitchen. But you sign for that privilege when you endorse private credit from the Fed. So you are being presumed to be getting a lot of profit and gain like any other state bank.

When you redeem lawful money though, there is no more profit and gain; just an honest day's wages. You dispell the illusion you are a state bank profiting and gaining from usury and fractional lending.

That leads to another illusion-displacer. The cash you receive is not a reserve currency. So you are not allowed to fractionally lend anyway! If you were to be rediculous enough to produce a run on yourself and you called the FDIC to bail you out, you would probably be in trouble if you were doing that practice with non-reserve currency!

Seosaidh
10-19-12, 09:33 PM
I'm glad to hear that, David. As an aside, I really enjoy reading the posts on this site. The people here are my kind of people. This site is a blessing

David Merrill
10-19-12, 11:11 PM
Thank you for posting here.

David Merrill
10-20-12, 12:26 AM
I believe that I can steer NYGman to deduction. I want you to sift through the memorandums and manual instructions to IRS agents and look for any clues that redeeming lawful money (outside the scope of demanding metal) has any merit to deem frivolous. I have a collection of these for you but you likely prefer to simply surf them out for yourself.

Exactly what does the IRS agent think? (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?145-Exactly-what-does-the-IRS-agent-think&p=7194&viewfull=1#post7194)

Please point out anything that looks like it applies. There is mention of Rickman in one for example, but that is applied to Gary RICKMAN demanding metal.

John Howard
10-20-12, 01:51 PM
The bank will stop paying interest by converting your account to a non-interest bearing account. Since you are no longer granting it the privilege of profiting from your funds in the account, it stops giving you the privilege of interest on those funds.

What if the account was non-interest bearing from the start? Would that be a lawful money account or am I reaching too far?

martin earl
10-20-12, 02:24 PM
What if the account was non-interest bearing from the start? Would that be a lawful money account or am I reaching too far?

The best way to think and act is this, endorsement creates the "taxable event".

Non endorsement (demand is made for lawful money per 12-USC 411) makes it a non-taxable event.

It is all on what YOU do, not what they do.

martin earl
10-20-12, 02:32 PM
What profit or gain is there associated with receiving lawful money in exchange for my time or property (not from business)? Since I'm not receiving private credit, but rather lawful money, it's a 1:1 transaction, no profit or gain, therefore not income.

Or am I thinking this through too simplisticly?

Balanced scales! Of course! a 1:1 transfer of energy! That is and excellent way to think of it.

Now, apply the 1:9 ratio of fractional reserves (or 0:9 ratio allowed now) and you will see why elastic currency is an abomination and impossible to maintain.

Demanding lawful money makes your deposits non reserve currency and they cannot be fractionally reserved for lending, thus creating new debt with every single dollar on deposit.

Anthony Joseph
10-20-12, 02:50 PM
We are also talking out the idea that there is an actual "office", as an operation of law, created by Title 12 U.S.C. ?411 - The office of redeemer. If there exists a choice to redeem lawful money pursuant to the law then that choice must be made by a "redeemer", ergo we effectively operate The Office of Lawful Money Redemption as redeemers.

This all came from the simple and relevant question, "...what office will you use to communicate with the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury?" when discussing the proper and principal party to notice in order to achieve all encompassing remedy and relief from the presumptive notion that we are willing signature endorsers of the FED's elastic currency and credit system.

American_National
10-20-12, 03:18 PM
What profit or gain is there associated with receiving lawful money in exchange for my time or property (not from business)? Since I'm not receiving private credit, but rather lawful money, it's a 1:1 transaction, no profit or gain, therefore not income.

Or am I thinking this through too simplisticly?

There is no profit or gain when one exchanges the agreed upon value (supply-vs-demand) of their work/labor directly for Lawful Money of the United States, instead of choosing to accept Federal Reserve issues of intangible "bills of exchange" known as FRN's.

It is a 1:1 exchange transaction like you had stated above.

Every human+being has always had the unalienable natural law (God's perfect Law) right to contract with others to exchange the mutually agreed upon value of their limited resource work/labor directly for whatever form of payment they so choose to accept.

Seosaidh
10-20-12, 05:06 PM
Seems to me that banks not having US Notes on hand is what's complicating the entire process. It should be a simple matter of demanding FRN's be redeemed for US Notes and/or coin.

Since US Notes aren't readily available, we're reduced to performing legal gymnastics in order to gain access to lawful money. The NY tax guy has a good point, in that it should be easily demonstrated by the codes and regulations how to exercise the remedy. Or maybe I simply don't understand the process well enough yet.

Also, it seems to me that Federal Reserve Banks, being unable to provide US Notes on demand, are in breach of contract when the can't perform as demanded. Shouldn't that be grounds for a lawsuit?

American_National
10-20-12, 05:06 PM
David,

Do you have a URL reference to an online copy of a Public Law or act of Congress that initially established the $300 MILLION Dollar limit on United States issues of the "United States (currency) notes" that are present-day described in 31 U.S.C. ?5115(b)(1), please?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5115 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5115)
31 USC ?5115
(a) The Secretary ofthe Treasury may issue United States currency Notes. The notes—
(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and indenominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.
(b) The amount of United States currency notesoutstanding and in circulation—
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

The notes section states that the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.

Also, per the United States Treasury website, under the subheading of “What are United States Notes and how are they different from Federal Reserve notes?” we find the following important information:

“Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.” http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

I can see why the Treasury had to publish the above statement seeing as how there are $239 MILLION Dollars in "United States notes" currently outstanding and in circulation. (see page 11 of the September 2012 .pdf report for the sum of United States notes currently outstanding and remaining in circulation http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2012/opdm092012.pdf)

United States (currency) note issues were discontinued and none have been placed into circulation due to the fact that the Treasury thinks that $61 MILLION remains outstanding and in circulation - if you don't count the $25 million in United States Notes issued prior to July 1, 1929, that was determined pursuant to Act of June 30, 1961, 31 U.S.C. 5119, to have been destroyed or irretrievably lost. (see note 13 on page 15 of the above monthly report.)

American_National
10-20-12, 05:12 PM
Seems to me that banks not having US Notes on hand is what's complicating the entire process. It should be a simple matter of demanding FRN's be redeemed for US Notes and/or coin.

I was already composing a thread reply along these lines . . . Hopefully David can post a URL to the foundational material stating the reasons for the establishment of the hard-figure $300 MILLION Dollar limit by Congress.

Seosaidh
10-20-12, 05:22 PM
Logically, there is probably only $300 million in gold backing the certificates that back the notes.

martin earl
10-20-12, 05:45 PM
I was already composing a thread reply along these lines . . . Hopefully David can post a URL to the foundational material stating the reasons for the establishment of the hard-figure $300 MILLION Dollar limit by Congress.

This limit by law, was set prior to the civil war, for issuance of the Greenback. That law limited the notes based on how much Gold coin of the US was already in the Nation or would be with current gold reserve bullion. Since nearly all the Greenbacks were eventually redeemed in Gold coin and the total was about 300 million (at face value of the coins) after the Civil War and when the Silver dollar and Gold Coins had a par value again.

Those gold coins were then voluntarily given back to the Treasury in the New Deal of 1933 and the Gold confiscation. US Notes were again issued (in various forms) and ON DEMAND could be exchanged for Federal Reserve Notes and some Federal Reserve Bank Notes could be redeemed directly for gold coins.

I found this interesting and wanted to share it about United States Bank Notes (legal tender):

"So, great. But what do these obligations mean? Well, remember that these notes [US Bank notes with RED SEALS] were actual U. S. debt issued by the US Treasury. Therefore, at certain times, restrictions on their use were deemed necessary to avoid the treasury to default. Acceptance of U. S. notes issued by the treasury for interest on its debt (which includes these notes) would be silly. They wanted notes which were backed by other banks or government agencies, like the Federal Reserve."

from: http://www.banknoteden.com/Legal%20Tender.htm alterations in bold and brackets mine.

The US Notes were discontinued because for 200+ years, the confusion of several different notes in circulation as "legal tender" both public (lawful money) and private (reserve notes) was out of hand. And, it was actually nearly impossible to know who was using what notes for what.

It is my belief that there is a US Note on the face of every currently issued Note today (above the 1 and 2 dollar denomination). This brilliant solution to different notes and my recorded DEMAND for lawful money per 12-USC 411 leaves no question which notes I am using.

It is already record on every bank transaction and that simple act of 2 notes in one makes book keeping a matter of record, not which notes where used in which transaction and what transactions are taxable events and which are not.

It also hides the US Note in plain view to confuse those seeking a different Note or Gold or silver coin redemption. Masterful manipulation of the law and the human mind while all the while, not breaking the law and keeping lawful remedy accessible to all.

Seosaidh
10-20-12, 05:56 PM
This limit by law, was set prior to the civil war, for issuance of the Greenback. That law limited the notes based on how much Gold coin of the US was already in the Nation or would be with current gold reserve bullion. Since nearly all the Greenbacks were eventually redeemed in Gold coin and the total was about 300 million (at face value of the coins) after the Civil War and when the Silver dollar and Gold Coins had a par value again.

Those gold coins were then voluntarily given back to the Treasury in the New Deal of 1933 and the Gold confiscation. US Notes were again issued (in various forms) and ON DEMAND could be exchanged for Federal Reserve Notes and some Federal Reserve Bank Notes could be redeemed directly for gold coins.

I found this interesting and wanted to share it about United States Bank Notes (legal tender):

"So, great. But what do these obligations mean? Well, remember that these notes [US Bank notes with RED SEALS] were actual U. S. debt issued by the US Treasury. Therefore, at certain times, restrictions on their use were deemed necessary to avoid the treasury to default. Acceptance of U. S. notes issued by the treasury for interest on its debt (which includes these notes) would be silly. They wanted notes which were backed by other banks or government agencies, like the Federal Reserve."

from: http://www.banknoteden.com/Legal%20Tender.htm alterations in bold and brackets mine.

The US Notes were discontinued because for 150 years, the confusion of several different notes in circulation as "legal tender" both public (lawful money) and private (reserve notes) was out of hand. And, it was actually nearly impossible to know who was using what notes for what.

It is my belief that there is a US Note on the face of every currently issued Note today (above the 1 and 2 dollar denomination). This brilliant solution to different notes and my recorded DEMAND for lawful money per 12-USC 411 leaves no question which notes I am using.

It is already record on every bank transaction and that simple act of 2 notes in one makes book keeping a matter of record, not which notes where used in which transaction and what transactions are taxable events and which are not.

It also hides the US Note in plain view to confuse those seeking a different Note or Gold or silver coin redemption. Masterful manipulation of the law and the human mind while all the while, not breaking the law and keeping lawful remedy accessible to all.

I have a dumb question, is your demand recorded at your bank, District Court, or where?

Jethro
10-20-12, 05:57 PM
I am trying to simplify multiple code sections and regulations to make it easier to understand. I could quote a series of code sections, but I am trying to explain it is the most basic way. David provides a general overview of his theory without referring to code sections, regulations and case law, so I figured it was the easiest way to do it. I am a tax lawyer by trade, and know the code and regs quite well. However, I prefer to explain in plain English, in a way I hope all can understand. Sure you can search for value, but you won't find it used in the context I am using it, but it is correct. Think about this, you perform a service for someone. The service you just performed has a value to it, and you expect to be compensated for that value. You assign an amount to the worth of that work, typically this is your salary, or hourly wage. Under the code...


Again NYGMan, the problem as I see it is you're beginning with a presumption; a presumption that one is "under the code". How do you know that presumption is correct?

You see, I have a "code," too - Jethro's Tax Code, and under the code everybody owes me One Million Bux. <--- It says so right there. So why haven't you paid me your Million Bux tax?

martin earl
10-20-12, 06:00 PM
Logically, there is probably only $300 million in gold backing the certificates that back the notes.

"On April 5, 1933, Roosevelt ordered all gold coins and gold certificates in denominations of more than $100 turned in for other money. It required all persons to deliver all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve by May 1 for the set price of $20.67 per ounce. By May 10, the government had taken in $300 million of gold coin and $470 million of gold certificates."

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-takes-united-states-off-gold-standard

That Gold coin is nearly the identical amount of Greenbacks redeemed after the Civil War. It is my belief (backed by the Congressional record) that those coins were given to the US treasury and are held in trust, by those who demand lawful money redemption.

We now have proof that those funds (by representation) are IN circulation by the Treasury accounting document and are accessed by DEMAND for lawful money per 12 USC 411.

martin earl
10-20-12, 06:03 PM
I have a dumb question, is your demand recorded at your bank, District Court, or where?

The District court and on every bank transaction I do, and on all my endorsements. it is getting forwarded to the Treasury as we speak, via criminal complaint/notice to the Secret Service. (actually its the department of Homeland Security now, but if the SS does not handle it, it will go directly to Treasury enforcement officers next).

This is getting further down the road of redemption, without demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411, we are not even on the road, it all starts with your demand and goes from there.

Seosaidh
10-20-12, 06:24 PM
On every bank transaction I do, and on all my endorsements. it is getting forwarded to the Treasury as we speak, via criminal complaint/notice to the Secret Service. (actually its the department of Homeland Security now, but if the SS does not handle it, it will go directly to Treasury enforcement officers next).

This is getting further down the road of redemption, without demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411, we are not even on the road, it all starts with your demand and goes from there.

Thank you. This is where I keep getting confused about redemption. I'm unclear about how to begin the process. I understand that I need to change my signature card at the bank, but what to do after that I just don't get. I also think that's what the NY tax guy was after. A clear roadmap on how to proceed is needed.

Maybe there's one already here on the site, but I simply haven't found it yet.

martin earl
10-20-12, 07:01 PM
1. Get an ink stamp that reads: DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12-USC 411.

2. Put that stamp above ALL your endorsements (signatures) of any commercial value or any contract that includes the use of money or Government agreements (applications for DLs etc).

3. Learn more. You will learn why that restriction on all you business dealings is vital.

It all starts with your DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY, even the learning, since FAITH without works is dead.

Be at peace you will get it.

NYGMan-Tax
10-21-12, 12:00 AM
Sorry the weekends are the only time I get to spend quality time with my twins. I do want to respond to all the posts here but it will take me some time. I really like this discussion, and the input from everyone here. The issue I am having is the position being taken, is using citations and theory detached from the codified tax law. I need to support this under the code. For those who don't think the code applies to you, that is another debate. I will have that with you if you want, but for purposes here, lets presume we are all under the code.

I promise to address all questions, I just need time. I do have a life outside tax, and forum debate. Feel free to carry on discussing, I will get back.

Let's just say, If I can validate this approach, I can write an opinion, and can use that to support an audit, but it has to be grounded in current tax law with specific code sections regulation and cases cited. While I am happy to her discussion on private credit, and the like, it isn't really applicable in a position paper, unless specific tax codes embody this theory. I need to be able to use the code, regs and case law, to make a clear and compelling case for this position, and this is what i am struggling with, as I can't find an appropriate exemption in the tax law....

more to follow I promise, keep up the discussion, it is very interesting. I am also thankful some here finally understand why a refund check is not proof enough. If you want to take this position and your income in in excess of 250k, you need support, as taking this position with that much income will trigger an audit, no question.

I will also add, I do have access to ex-IRS agents as resources, and am talking to them about this, but nothing positive so far.

David Merrill
10-21-12, 12:38 AM
Sorry the weekends are the only time I get to spend quality time with my twins. I do want to respond to all the posts here but it will take me some time. I really like this discussion, and the input from everyone here. The issue I am having is the position being taken, is using citations and theory detached from the codified tax law. I need to support this under the code. For those who don't think the code applies to you, that is another debate. I will have that with you if you want, but for purposes here, lets presume we are all under the code.

I promise to address all questions, I just need time. I do have a life outside tax, and forum debate. Feel free to carry on discussing, I will get back.

Let's just say, If I can validate this approach, I can write an opinion, and can use that to support an audit, but it has to be grounded in current tax law with specific code sections regulation and cases cited. While I am happy to her discussion on private credit, and the like, it isn't really applicable in a position paper, unless specific tax codes embody this theory. I need to be able to use the code, regs and case law, to make a clear and compelling case for this position, and this is what i am struggling with, as I can't find an appropriate exemption in the tax law....

more to follow I promise, keep up the discussion, it is very interesting. I am also thankful some here finally understand why a refund check is not proof enough. If you want to take this position and your income in in excess of 250k, you need support, as taking this position with that much income will trigger an audit, no question.

I will also add, I do have access to ex-IRS agents as resources, and am talking to them about this, but nothing positive so far.

Because of your presumption I do not think you will ever find what you are after except maybe after a few more years. I will show you the early rendition of making the demand:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_affidavit_of_public_money.jpg

If you want to believe that then we have seven-going on eight years.

I think the main gap if you will here is that I would never have understood this without developing through the Libel of Review and its history 'saving to suitors'. There is a diversity of citizenship and it boils down to whether you are in contract with the Fed or not; so your premise is keeping you from developing any understanding of American remedy. You only see the one citizenship and do not recognize any diversity.

I was a pal with one of the authors of Are You Lost at C? (http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2149/libelinreview.pdf) There is some very esoteric knowledge that is presented too. For example Jim was a financial advisor and sold his complete client portfolio on the eve of the 1997 Crash. (Well, let's call it a Slump.) This requires some knowledge of the Fibonacci Sequence (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImOGMxZjIxYmItNTM3NC00ZWMzLWJjOWQtZDhmO DUyMzcxMGYx/edit) and he was a 32 Degree Mason. So some of this all ties together with the presumption there is more to life than meets the eye.

It also relates to Spiritual Mind Treatments and Mental Equivalence. So this is truly law. Mental equivalence to me anyway is when your understanding of the law is the same as the actual law. So it even goes beyond simple law it is how you make use of law. If you learn to forgive, the law demands the universe take your order - take on your order - become of the same order as you (http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1461/creationandcommunicatio.pdf) - forgiving and it reciprocates like a mirror.

We are certainly all under the law.

Redeeming lawful money excludes you from the IRC, Title 26 of the USC which is not positive law (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9024/titlesoftheuscode.pdf). By reconciling the US note value with the Federal Reserve note (well, sort of) Congress was able to enact Title 31 into positive law. They had to fudge it though and it is catching up fast, the cover up. Cover ups never go away, they just build lies upon more lies. They fester. The federal judges getting this ruling that they get pay raises at the same rate the Dollar devalues from fractional lending, that is a Tell.

A second-year law student told me matter-of-factly, All common law is is case law. Stare decisis. So you will not find the case law authority you are looking for until somebody at the IRS or DoJ is stupid enough to try prosecuting somebody for redeeming lawful money who understands the precept that is spelled out in the legislative history of the Fed act, they lose at trial and appeal, and win on appeal. For the IRS and DoJ to be that clumsy for the two years that would take is just unrealistic to hope for.




Regards,

David Merrill.

JohnnyCash
10-21-12, 01:01 AM
Again NYGMan, the problem as I see it is you're beginning with a presumption; a presumption that one is "under the code". How do you know that presumption is correct?

You see, I have a "code," too - Jethro's Tax Code, and under the code everybody owes me One Million Bux.
Jethro! You have the makings of a great scam here. To get it really rolling ... I'd suggest a secret meeting, preferably involving a US Senator, the principals of Jethro's bank, and a central banker (you could channel Paul Warburg if pressed). Here you will hatch a plan to get some legislation passed establishing a new elastic currency, Jethro's Bux. We'll get Congress to declare them legal tender (I hear you can buy a congress-critter quite reasonably). Of course they won't be lawful money (altho redeemable in same) but we can make use of some existing law to collect an excise tax on their use! For distraction, I recommend a 3-million word Internal Jethro Tax Code, non-positive law. Use of your money will extend the federal district out into the States. May need to tweak it here 'n there, PM me, this is brilliant! -- just need to get everyone using them and condition them into believing everything with value is taxable income, not just your beautifully-engraved Federal Jethro notes.

I will also add, I do have access to bank-examiners, attorneys, high net-worth individuals, and am talking to them about ....

Seosaidh
10-21-12, 02:10 AM
LOL Oh my gosh.

Treefarmer
10-21-12, 04:04 AM
First, I am very disappointed that David has chosen not to read my posts and respond. It reminds me of my toddlers who stick their fingers in their ears and go
"Naa Naa Naa" when you tell them something they don't want to hear. I believe David is best positions to address my concerns, but yet he just dismisses me out of hand. However, at least Johnny Cash and some others are actually giving it a go, to which I thank them.

I agree with you point on the PLR's, of course the IRS isn't going to say this position is valid, whether you believe this is due to the law not supporting the position or the fact that there is a conspiracy within the IRS not to admit taxes can be avoided, or some other reason altogether. Let's just go with your post above. The fact that you seem to acknowledge the IRS will not bless this position, as they would not issue a PLR in favor of it, shows that you really believe the IRS doesn't support this position. Think of the PLR process as running a draft tax return by the IRS to see how they would view the position. If you feel they would deny the PLR, then by default you can't believe they actually accept it on a filed return.

Regardless of how valid you believe this position to be, the courts don't seem to support it, the IRS if asked in a PLR would not support it, so even if you are correct in your views, you are still going to be subject to penalties, Liens, and possibly jail, as the courts will not agree with you.

I think you all have the wrong opinion of me. I am all for using the tax law to minimize tax liabilities within the boundaries of the law. I do this for a living. It is a legitimate position to structure a company in a way to minimize the tax consequences and I fully support taking advantage of any "loophole" in the tax code. I have no vested interest in any other site, I just seek answers to my own questions, with respect to this. Heck, if you can answer my questions with sufficient legal support, I will be singing this theories praises.

What interested me about this theory is that I really hadn't seen it until a few months ago, and I have been researching it ever since. I am a lawyer, I have to go by the law, regardless of whether you (Generic you, not directed at Johnny Cash) believe the laws are applicable. As a tax lawyer, I need to get comfort with this position, based on the IRS code, regs, and case law. I need to ensure that cases sited actually hold what David proports them to hold, or are just quotes from discussion sections taken out of context, I have to look up the code sections, and relevant regulations, and put together a legal arguement to support this position before I can take it. ....
................................................
If David doesn't like my "perceptions" I wish he would list them out, and state what the issue is. I will take as much time necessary to respond, but I would like my concerns addressed.

Look, for those taking this position, don't you want a succinct concise explanation of this position, with appropriate legal citations to code, regs, and cases, that you can research and confirm. Do you not want a written opinion that can be reviewed by legal professionals, judges, and legal scholars. Do you not want independent verification of this position?

If you believe Davids position is solid as a rock, what do you have to fear from providing the proper legal analysis. Referring to historic texts, old laws, articles, or documents outside the core tax law, code, regulations, and body of cases is not sufficient, in a law court. I am open minded, and willing to admit I am wrong, if provided with the support. A position like this should be easy to explain, and document. While you may believe the tax law is complicated, in all honesty, when you understand it, it is fairly straight forward. It is long, it refers to itself, and it is written by lawyers, so it can be a bit tricky for non-lawyers.

Finally, why would I be against this, other than I can't find legal support. As stated before, I would love to legally not have to pay tax. If this theory is supportable, I will be very happy. I do have a preconceived notion on the validity of this position, but only because I am a lawyer who has done his research, and have not found the support needed to accept this position. Rather than saying my opinion is correct, I wanted to reach out to the one person who seems to come up the most in searches on this topic, to help me find what I am missing. Repeatedly he has ignored my questions, even admitted to not reading them, and has generally tried to dismiss me, which to be honest, is not something I would expect from someone who has true conviction in his beliefs.

There is power in truth, you can not argue with the truth, you can not ignore the truth. Provide me with proof this is valid. Again, proof is not a redacted refund. Oh, by the way, has David ever posted his redacted returns and refund checks? I would think that would be an interesting read, although again not proof.

One final point to this post, and alluded to earlier, even if you are right (and I am not saying you are) if you believe the IRS will never admit this, and the courts will support the IRS's views on this, the penalties they can levy are real, and the jail time you can get is very real, and there are several public examples of people spending real jail time, loosing real property, and money, due to taking positions they believed were valid, but for which the IRS believed were frivolous. You can be a tax martyr if you like, but I certainly don't want to be. All I am trying to do is put the law behind these positions, and see if I can build a position supported by law, which would be undeniable in a court of law. When in Rome, do as the Romans, When in court subject to tax laws, find support in those laws.

This looks like a good place for me to jump in.
This thread has taken off faster than I can keep up, which tells me that there must be a vital interest in this topic.

I think that part of the misunderstandings surrounding lawful money stem from some preconceived notions about some people's business practices.
However, not everyone signs W-4 forms, files tax returns or even has bank accounts or driver licenses.
Some of us do have such things, but our income may be so low we get EIC, or perhaps we have no income at all.
So there are many reasons why some people don't file tax returns or pay income taxes.

It has been my personal experience that the IRS is mainly interested in the income (whatever that term may really truly mean) which is
reported to them on information returns. Once income is reported on 1099 forms and W-2 forms or any other info forms, it is taxable by the IRS.
Redeeming lawful money is not applicable there, because it would be after the fact that a contract was signed with the Fed system via SSN,
W-4, signature endorsement at the bank, W-8BEN or whatever, which makes the contracting person a taxpayer, regardless of what they redeem their FRN's for after they receive them.

I think SEDM (http://sedm.org/) has done a very good job of documenting (http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef/SubjectIndex.htm#INTERNAL%20REVENUE%20SERVICE) how one becomes a taxpayer person via SSN, W-2, etc (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm).

Lawful money however starts with a man or woman standing on land somewhere between the Atlantic ocean on the east, Pacific ocean on the west, and south of the Canadian border, but north of the Mexican border.
This man or woman was forced to memorize, during their younger years while subjected to compulsive schooling, something about a document called the United States Constitution, which is said to be the basis for the government of the geographical territory on which the wo/man is standing.
This document is very interesting and says many things in a strange kind of language which resembles English enough that it can be read by literate English speakers, whether native or otherwise.

In this document is written "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States", "No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken" and then there is an amendment #16 which says "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
At first this looks like a contradiction but the Supreme Court assures us it's not, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. 240 U.S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103.
"No new power of taxation"....that's good.

The wo/man now engages in lawful private business with other wo/men using cash or other things as a medium of exchange, reports nothing to anyone, and has no trouble with the IRS at all.

If the wo/man has a DL and a bank account with SSN, s/he writes on the back of checks something like this:
"deposit for credit on account or exchange for lawful money of equal face value"
thereby making clear that s/he wants no part of fractional reserve lending and its attending fee schedule and false weights and balances.
S/he gets her cash, reports nothing to anyone, and also has no trouble with the IRS.

This has been my experience with lawful money.

David Merrill
10-21-12, 08:24 AM
Thank you for that Treefarmer;


I think this photo might better amplify your point.



http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5426/departmentofrevenue.jpg

The Driver License Store (Colorado).

David Merrill
10-21-12, 09:01 AM
Suitors are the wealthiest people I know for sure. They understand wealth as energy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=W7qGVUi8GQU)and that the only thing anybody can truly own is what they can create - meaning ego. So it comes down to perceptions (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImNTRiMDZkODYtYzlkNS00NGE4LTk2MmUtNGNmO WJkYWEyMzU3/edit).


http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2176/bishopcastle.jpg

martin earl
10-21-12, 06:46 PM
NYGMan-Tax, if you are looking for basis in law, you need to be looking in the correct law.

The TAX CODE is not the correct law, private property laws and public use laws of private property are where you need to look.

FACTS: Federal Reserve NOTES (and CREDIT) are private property issued under 12 USC. Their public USE is regulated by the OWNER of the property (the Federal Reserve BANK).

The TAX CODE is simply a sub-textual set of laws pertaining to the members of the public who ACTUALLY USE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER.

Title 12 USC comes FIRST, the TAX CODE is the sub-text rules are for its enforcement for people who do not demand REDEMPTION from Title 12 and all laws that follow.

It is a simple matter of LAW, creation creates ownership, the CREATOR of Federal Reserve Credit is the OWNER and when anyone or anything uses that property, they assume the obligations of doing so.

I do not use the property of the Federal Reserve therefore, I am under NO obligation to pay them for the use of their Property.

You are an attorney, feel free to provide your evidence that if I do not use your property (in FACT, I DEMAND NOT TO USE your property), I am under any obligation (assumed or presumed) to pay you a fee or penalty.

The Tax CODE is restricted to those people who by use or endorsement volunteer themselves to use the private (but publicly available) property of a Private Corporation known as THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.

Their notes are SEALED by the owner, and although they have this notice on them "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" there is no law requiring anyone to accept or even tender them as payment of debt.

If it was the case that there was not other NOTES, in circulation that were 'legal tender' the NOTICE would read:

"THIS NOTE IS THE ONLY LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AND CANNOT BE REDEEMED FOR LAWFUL MONEY NOR REFUSED FOR PAYMENT OF DEBTS".

Federal reserve notes do not even reach the standard of LEGAL TENDER because no law requires them to be accepted as a legal tender for payment of debts.

martin earl
10-21-12, 10:12 PM
"As of June 2011, the U.S. Treasury calculates that $230 million in United States notes are in circulation, and excludes this amount from the statutory debt limit of the United States. This amount excludes $25 million in United States Notes issued prior to July 1, 1929, determined pursuant to Act of June 30, 1961, 31 U.S.C. 5119, to have been destroyed or irretrievably lost.
[link to www.treasurydirect.gov]

David Merrill
10-21-12, 11:27 PM
Thanks!

I am hoping to relate that somehow to this Treasury vault (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbTlZVjBCM081dFE/edit) in Colorado Springs at the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle (http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/710/monumenttended.jpg).

American_National
10-22-12, 08:11 PM
"As of June 2011, the U.S. Treasury calculates that $230 million in United States notes are in circulation, and excludes this amount from the statutory debt limit of the United States. This amount excludes $25 million in United States Notes issued prior to July 1, 1929, determined pursuant to Act of June 30, 1961, 31 U.S.C. 5119, to have been destroyed or irretrievably lost.
[link to www.treasurydirect.gov] (http://www.treasurydirect.gov])

As of September, 2012 - the amount outstanding and in circulation is currently $239 MILLION in United States notes.

See mid way down on page 11 in the link provided below:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2012/opdm092012.pdf

Between the $239 Million currently outstanding and remaining in circulation + the $25 MILLION they think may have been lost or destroyed ($264 MILLION), there would only be $39 MILLON left that could be currently issued in United States currency notes to reach the $300 MILLION Dollar limit.

F.y.i.

David Merrill
10-22-12, 10:51 PM
As of September, 2012 - the amount outstanding and in circulation is currently $239 MILLION in United States notes.

See mid way down on page 11 in the link provided below:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2012/opdm092012.pdf

Between the $239 Million currently outstanding and remaining in circulation + the $25 MILLION they think may have been lost or destroyed ($264 MILLION), there would only be $39 MILLON left that could be currently issued in United States currency notes to reach the $300 MILLION Dollar limit.

F.y.i.

I wonder how much that one coin collection is worth?

martin earl
10-22-12, 11:15 PM
It should be noted the 300 million limit in circulation of lawful money was YEARLY.

The 300 million in US Notes recirculated yearly, thus there would actually be a 300 million dollar "principle payment" to the national debt should all 300 million be demanded and used in any year. Notes that wore out were "retired" and new notes were issued, and accounted for.

Since there are not that many people "demanding redemption" until the accounting for our demands catches up to the amount of notes unaccounted for, there is no reason to actually have more printed or new serial numbers assigned to balance the books.

This is why the Treasury needs to know about every dollar demanded redeemed. These are principle payments to the national debt and NEED to be accounted for or our voice and actions are not counting for all they could.

"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."

Also, everything we pay for with "lawful money" is also redeemed from the collateral "specifically held" to back the FRN.

Right now, I think the IRS is participating in a little monkey business by just issuing "refunds+interest" for income tax, when in reality, they are possibly not letting the Treasury and congress know there are principle payments and goods and services they no longer have as backing via non-endorsement.

IF that is the case, it is no longer "fraud by omission" it is, at the very least, fraud and theft and destruction of public monies (by adding them fractional reserves) among other crimes.

While I forgive them of their trespasses, I doubt congress and the Treasury would be so forgiving...?

David Merrill
10-23-12, 08:45 AM
Indeed it has been at least seven years since a suitor got a rubber paycheck back - and the bank's attorneys tore off his non-endorsement verbiage:

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/469/nonendorsementstamptorn.jpg

JohnnyCash
10-23-12, 02:40 PM
Jethro, I took the initiative and created a mockup of the proposed [-]scam[/-]... banknote:

David Merrill
10-23-12, 03:04 PM
I am not sure you meant the Pun!

JETHRO is the name/title of Moses' father in law who initiated the equity functions of the first Sanhedrin.

JohnnyCash
10-23-12, 03:55 PM
NO! I am no bible scholar.

BTW, I know of a nice Club (http://www.jekyllislandhistory.com/federalreserve.shtml) off the coast of Georgia where you can discuss banking ideas in secret. Although you should probably meet under the cover story of "duck hunt."

David Merrill
10-23-12, 09:06 PM
NO! I am no bible scholar.

BTW, I know of a nice Club (http://www.jekyllislandhistory.com/federalreserve.shtml) off the coast of Georgia where you can discuss banking ideas in secret. Although you should probably meet under the cover story of "duck hunt."


Where did you get JETHRO BANK?

stoneFree
10-23-12, 10:49 PM
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?705-Basis-in-Law&p=8259&viewfull=1#post8259

Jethro
10-24-12, 03:48 AM
Jethro, I took the initiative and created a mockup of the proposed [-]scam[/-]... banknote:

I like it, JohnnyCash! Only thing is since, under Jethro's Tax Code, everyone owes me One Million Bux, perhaps it's best to start with a One Million Dollar Note and go up from there. Like video game scores, bigger numbers give you the feeling of greater accomplishment than was actually accomplished. Jethro promised "A chicken in every pot and a millionaire in every apartment" and Jethro shall deliver on one of those promises.

Nice work, JohnnyCash. I shall appoint you Treasurer to collect my Tax. Deem anyone who argues they don't owe the tax to be "frivolous" and a "tax protestor" and confiscate their Jethro Bank MONEY anyway. Soothe them by saying, "Don't worry. We'll make more."

David Merrill
10-24-12, 07:35 AM
Thanks for explaining.

My imagination is still traversing the numero-linguistic interface about Eldad and Medad "staying behind" in the Camp when Moses assembled the initial Sanhedrin by Jethro's suggestion. Most people feel that the Sanhedrin is comprised of seventy jurists when it is actually comprised of seventy-two. Seventy-two times three (216) is the Code for miracles (Exodus 14:19-21 are all 72 Hebrew letters) in the Seventy-Two Fold Name of God (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImOGMxZjIxYmItNTM3NC00ZWMzLWJjOWQtZDhmO DUyMzcxMGYx/edit). 72x5=360 degrees or a pentagram and Moses was Levite - the Sanhedrin became judiciary - the priest class is the judiciary...

The basis in law is right there. The fabrications abound. What a delightful spoof!

JohnnyCash
10-24-12, 12:42 PM
Excellent!

When the fog lifts I do hope NYGMan and his ship is still afloat; he's great fun to have about.

David Merrill
10-24-12, 01:24 PM
Excellent!

When the fog lifts I do hope NYGMan and his ship is still afloat; he's great fun to have about.

I will be kind as I believe that he and I have spoken by phone. I think his outline of intention is genuine as one member pointed out he might even be looking for an edge to provide full refunds to the $250K+ clientelle. So the esoteric will get picked up on another thread. I think I will call it The Thread of Priestcraft. That sounds better than The Oath-mongering.

We discuss some of this in detail among Bible scholars and it is quite difficult to distinguish the religion of government and judiciary from the Bible. The first Constitution in America was the Fundamental Orders of 1639 and the first written constitution (of detail more than the Code of Hammurabi etc.) is found at Nehemiah 10. So I come to an impasse trying to "prove" redeeming lawful money is viable by testimony from the appeals process when the IRS agenst know better than to prosecute.


Regards,

David Merrill.



http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5069/capitallaws.jpg

American_National
10-24-12, 01:28 PM
It should be noted the 300 million limit in circulation of lawful money was YEARLY.

The 300 million in US Notes recirculated yearly, thus there would actually be a 300 million dollar "principle payment" to the national debt should all 300 million be demanded and used in any year. Notes that wore out were "retired" and new notes were issued, and accounted for.



Yes - good point, and what you have stated above is based on the ongoing transfer and use of Lawful Money United States (currency) notes, which remain outstanding and in circulation within the economy - and accounted for, but not currently being held by the Dept. of the Treasury.

American_National
10-24-12, 02:29 PM
I promise to address all questions, I just need time. I do have a life outside tax, and forum debate. Feel free to carry on discussing, I will get back.

Let's just say, If I can validate this approach, I can write an opinion, and can use that to support an audit, but it has to be grounded in current tax law with specific code sections regulation and cases cited.

I would recommend that you gather the applicable background research material (Congressional acts, Public Laws, regulatory codification of such acts/public laws, applicable case cites that support various fact elements, etc.) as if you were moving forward in composing a brief for a U.S. Supreme court case in support of a Lawful Money by demand position.

An opinion letter would then be a piece of cake when all the foundational research and work backing up such an opinion letter had already been conducted, composed and is available should you have to assert such a position on behalf of your client in court.

Our role in this regard would be to provide you with questions like I had posted earlier that can act as guideposts to direct your research, but you must physically do the research work for yourself to gain the foundational knowledge in this regard.

When you answer those initial 5 questions I had posted earlier, please provide your court admissible research material references that supports each of your answers to these initial questions as well.

At that time others on this forum can see about providing additional references you may have missed that may also be helpful in support of your answers.

I doubt that anyone here on this forum is not more than willing to pitch in and help others who are making a genuine effort to educate themselves and gather such reference material in support of their position regarding Lawful Money.

:-)

David Merrill
10-24-12, 03:03 PM
Yes - good point, and what you have stated above is based on the ongoing transfer and use of Lawful Money United States (currency) notes, which remain outstanding and in circulation within the economy - and accounted for, but not currently being held by the Dept. of the Treasury.


My understanding is that there are some that get snagged up for collectors items in coin shops. The vast majority of US notes though are being held in the Federal Reserve banks.

JohnnyCash
10-24-12, 03:29 PM
I own a few. You can find them on eBay but they sell for more than face value: http://www.ebay.com/sch/United-States-Notes-/40033/i.html

John Howard
10-24-12, 03:46 PM
Interesting that they began counterfeiting the notes (1963, no "Will Pay the Bearer on Demand") before they began counterfeiting the coins in 1965.

David Merrill
10-24-12, 03:48 PM
Interesting indeed! Can you show us an example of an earlier rendition? Let me check... nope.



http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1720/2usnote.jpg

John Howard
10-24-12, 03:51 PM
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1934-5-Silver-Certificate-/261117954165?_trksid=p2047675.m1982&_trkparms=aid%3D333005%26algo%3DRIC.FIT%26ao%3D1%2 6asc%3D112%26meid%3D2969969771411193420%26pid%3D10 0009%26prg%3D1064%26rk%3D3%26sd%3D280975187511%26

John Howard
10-24-12, 03:53 PM
http://www.ebay.com/itm/VERY-NICE-SCARCE-Bold-Crisp-VF-1928-1-RED-SEAL-Legal-Tender-FREE-SHIP-/251172783095?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a7b1083f7

John Howard
10-24-12, 03:55 PM
The note was a promise to pay, not the actual payment. They wanted to hide that first.

John Howard
10-24-12, 04:02 PM
Its easy to miss the fine print, look under Jefferson.

John Howard
10-24-12, 04:21 PM
Interesting indeed! Can you show us an example of an earlier rendition? Let me check... nope.



http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1720/2usnote.jpg

Ok suitors, one of us is having a senior moment. I see "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" on the above note.

Keyser Soze
10-24-12, 07:16 PM
Was looking for the definition of a "Dollar" http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/D/d0387.jpg

So pay to bearer 2 units of gold or silver?

Also couldn't help but notice the phrase Dolus dans locum contractui

Chex
10-25-12, 01:27 AM
Quote martin earl ""As of June 2011, the U.S. Treasury calculates that $230 million in United States notes are in circulation, and excludes this amount from the statutory debt limit of the United States. This amount excludes $25 million in United States Notes issued prior to July 1, 1929, determined pursuant to Act of June 30, 1961, 31 U.S.C. 5119, to have been destroyed or irretrievably lost. www.treasurydirect.gov

They read your post martin earl at post #71 &#75 http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/treasury-state-facing-million-shortfall-in-revenues/article_94628144-ae53-5bc9-8772-9d9a2fe5156a.html

NYGMan-tax here is a remedy Link (http://www.google.com/search?q=failure+to+state+aclaim+where+releif+can+ be+granted&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7MEDA#hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&rlz=1I7MEDA&spell=1&q=failure+to+state+a+claim+where+relief+can+be+gra nted&sa=X&ei=1ZaIUMT1LNDK0AGUkYH4Aw&ved=0CB4QvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=d3ddaee4ee84f1b4&bpcl=35466521&biw=1024&bih=627)

973 and 974

Noah
10-25-12, 04:24 AM
So pay to bearer 2 units of gold or silver?
Depends on when you're asking. Using the date on the US note above, 1928, we have only to look up the controlling Act of Congress.

Act of 1900, Chapter 41:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the dollar consisting of twenty-five and eight-tenths grains of gold nine-tenths fine, as established by section thirty-five hundred and eleven of the Revised Statutes of the United States, shall be the standard unit of value, and all forms of money issued or coined by the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard, and it shall be the duty of the secretary of the Treasury to maintain such parity.

So in 1928 a dollar was 25.8 grains of standard gold (standard meaning 9/10s fine), or 23.2 grains of pure gold
or, 412.5 grains of standard silver (90%), or 371.25 grains of pure silver.

1 grain = 1/480 ounce troy = 0.0648 grams

Restated, one dollar = 1.672 grams of std. GOLD = 26.73 grams of std. SILVER

David Merrill
10-25-12, 09:38 AM
I focused on the verbiage on the red seal - sorry.

Pay to the Bearer...

John Howard
10-25-12, 01:59 PM
Not to worry, I've had my share of senior moments.

I seem to remember that there are 4 essential elements to a legal note:

1. The absolute signature of the maker-

2. A specific amount of money-

3. A payee-

4. A time/date of redemption.

As in 1. The United States, 2. Shall pay 5 Dollars, 3. To the Bearer, 4. On Demand.

David Merrill
10-25-12, 03:54 PM
Not to worry, I've had my share of senior moments.

I seem to remember that there are 4 essential elements to a legal note:

1. The absolute signature of the maker-

2. A specific amount of money-

3. A payee-

4. A time/date of redemption.

As in 1. The United States, 2. Shall pay 5 Dollars, 3. To the Bearer, 4. On Demand.

So in context of the latest posts you are saying that even "bearer" as payee has been removed?

John Howard
10-25-12, 04:15 PM
So in context of the latest posts you are saying that even "bearer" as payee has been removed?

Exactly. Once upon a time I admired a man named Armen Condo, the founder of Your Heritage Protection Association. But it turned out that he did not understand equity (http://www.hiscovenantministries.org/mans_law/arman_condo.htm) the way George Mercier did. His letter to Mr Condo is very interesting and almost reaches to the point of redeeming lawful money. If only I knew then what I know now.

I was reminded of all of this when I found an old stamp from YHPA. I'll try to post it.

John Howard
10-25-12, 04:34 PM
Here it is. 976 Its a shame that judges are not required to tell people WHY their position is frivolous.

David Merrill
10-25-12, 04:57 PM
Here it is. 976 Its a shame that judges are not required to tell people WHY their position is frivolous.

Thank you for finding that image.

In context again your point is that the US notes at that time no longer promise to PAY anybody at all?

Then there is this link with equity that you are showing us...

John Howard
10-25-12, 05:03 PM
More proof of the type that Mr NYG is seeking.

John Howard
10-25-12, 05:09 PM
Judges in tax cases frequently say " the constitution does not apply here". What a shame the defendant did not ask "Why not?" Its an equity case, that's why.

John Howard
10-25-12, 05:13 PM
In context again your point is that the US notes at that time no longer promise to PAY anybody at all?


That was the position expressed by Mr Condo. I know, it is an easily destroyed position in court. Don't try this at home, boys and girls.

David Merrill
10-26-12, 02:31 PM
Here is some crosstalk. The researcher has made comment about his perspective that I cannot leave out:



26 USC ? 2002 - Liability for payment

The tax imposed by this chapter shall be paid by the executor.



All of this presumes that you are receiving a 1099 or a W-2 which is classified as a Gift Tax under IRS 6209 Manual.
--------------------------------


Subject: Re: transfer of the taxable estate of every decedent



Understand I am just exploring here - Let it be known I have found that Redemption per 12USC411 is recognized by the IRS, the banks, etc. Think of this as an exercise in turning over rocks.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1040



(a) General rule



If the executor of the estate of any decedent transfers to a qualified heir (within the meaning of section 2032A (e)(1)) any property with respect to which an election was made under section 2032A, then gain on such transfer shall be recognized to the estate only to the extent that, on the date of such transfer, the fair market value of such property exceeds the value of such property for purposes of chapter 11 (determined without regard to section 2032A).


(b) Similar rule for certain trusts



To the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a rule similar to the rule provided in subsection (a) shall apply where the trustee of a trust (any portion of which is included in the gross estate of the decedent) transfers property with respect to which an election was made under section 2032A.


(c) Basis of property acquired in transfer described in subsection (a) or (b)



The basis of property acquired in a transfer with respect to which gain realized is not recognized by reason of subsection (a) or (b) shall be the basis of such property immediately before the transfer increased by the amount of the gain recognized to the estate or trust on the transfer.



(e) Definitions; special rules - For purposes of this section?

(1) Qualified heir



The term ?qualified heir? means, with respect to any property, a member of the decedent?s family who acquired such property (or to whom such property passed) from the decedent. If a qualified heir disposes of any interest in qualified real property to any member of his family, such member shall thereafter be treated as the qualified heir with respect to such interest.

David Merrill
10-27-12, 09:44 PM
I am guessing that we have seen the last of NYGman.

The big NY tort attorney (http://www.iromlaw.com/Bio/WesleySerra.asp) slurring remedy on 'that other place' has been enlisting collegues to search out Libels of Review using PACER and has been discovering a few. This example (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6379/defaultjudgmentrecovery.pdf) caught his eye and they must have run searches on the deputy clerk initials or whatever and found the case. It being dismissed SERRA jumped on it for ridicule in that infantile way of theirs.

But what he did was only to show the side of it for his own purposes. He did not show the Default Judgment properly published at the Register of Deeds and also marked FILED (as a foreign judgment) in the USDC. Of course not.

As I explained above to NYGman the purpose of the case is not to win it in the USDC. The federal judge is a taxpayer and is recused by the simple fact and conflict of interest. That is difficult for many conditioned into politically correct sociopathy (understanding only what is necessary of the law to function and stay out of jail) to comprehend. The judge is a taxpayer therefore he is recused. He cannot judge matters of tax liability. Period. If you can accept that then you might have a chance of comprehending this post.

The suitor utilizes the dismissed case for an evidence repository. So I took a look at the docket report and even with people using my intellectual property that I have not met I will not post links that breach a certain trust, more a hope that home addresses and other billing information will not be splashed about the Internet. So you are free to surf and probe for yourself I suppose. I prefer you consider accepting my word true because any of you who want to verify I am speaking the truth will find out that I am.

Since I have been heavily moderated on that ugly website to avoid the frustration of having my posts deleted I have opened another thread on a website where many of them read. So I will just copy the post from there:


Hilarious!

You should ask about Doc 23 showing that the husband is being assessed for about $1K in back taxes while the joint filing is being fined the frivpens for $10K. Both bills were Refused for Cause around 2/27/12. Then Doc 25 shows that the same jointly-named account to have dropped the frivpen and be billing the both of them for the $1K in back taxes only around 8/7/12. The bill was of course Refused for Cause and apparently forgiven completely, so far.

Like I said above, when the R4C's stop, that means there are no more bills coming. Think about it! Why would the couple stop Refusing for Cause when the IRS dropped $10K in frivolous filing penalties? No more R4C's means that the IRS quit pestering them. If the IRS does anything more it will show up on the docket as a R4C!

The hilarious part is that it is indeed Wserra being dishonest. No wonder he is threatening to banish me for defending against his accusations - LOL! This is fraud by omission and parataxic distortion too.


Regards,

David Merrill.


Not only was that post rejected on SERRA's thread, he has permanently banished me from the Website. I really detest him ridiculing honest and intelligent people even more than misusing PACER to splash private information around the web. So please respect I have a sore spot about direct links and quoting names etc. here. I am enjoying that his antics feel so crappy except to a certain very small crowd that since he started this breach of anonymity that site is enjoying an average of less than 5 guests. My presumption is that it feels bad and most people just jockey their little mouses to more pleasant and interesting reading - like here. So this is about as ugly as I want it to be around here.

The Libel of Review is fluff around an initial Refusal for Cause. It opens up a process of record forming because the 'saving to suitors' clause (www.savingtosuitorsclub.net)guarantees us the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government. Therefore about any docket of a LoR reveals that the suitor uses it for R4C's for a while, and then stops when the IRS attorneys find they cannot proceed, even with laibilities from before the suitor began redeeming lawful money - fraud by omission vitiates all contracts. Especially naked contracts where the consideration is not plainly understood and utilized (fractional lending and FDIC rescue as a "state bank").

I find it amusing that SERRA posted this knowing he was distorting the truth for the readers there - but more that he stipulated that if I defended against his accusations he would be banishing me. Amazing!

shikamaru
10-28-12, 04:03 PM
Let me see if I have this ...

a) The district courts' subject matter of taxation is an admiralty/maritime issue. You take advantage of saving to suitors to ask for a remedy in accordance with common law where the common law is competent to give it.

b) You create your own evidence repository of this request.

Do I have this correct?

Seosaidh
10-28-12, 04:12 PM
Let me see if I have this ...

a) The district courts' subject matter of taxation is an admiralty/maritime issue. You take advantage of saving to suitors to ask for a remedy in accordance with common law where the common law is competent to give it.

b) You create your own evidence repository of this request.

Do I have this correct?

That's how it appears to me. My next question is how does one begin a suit in District Court? Can it be done by mail? What about fees, if they're exhorbitant?

Treefarmer
10-28-12, 04:15 PM
That's how it appears to me. My next question is how does one begin a suit in District Court? Can it be done by mail? What about fees, if they're exhorbitant?

$350.00 for a civil suit.

Seosaidh
10-28-12, 04:55 PM
$350.00 for a civil suit.

Okay, not too awful bad. Thanks.

David Merrill
10-28-12, 05:12 PM
Let me see if I have this ...

a) The district courts' subject matter of taxation is an admiralty/maritime issue. You take advantage of saving to suitors to ask for a remedy in accordance with common law where the common law is competent to give it.

b) You create your own evidence repository of this request.

Do I have this correct?

That evidence repository is by and large the common law remedy, in light of the fact the "judge" is a taxpayer. You become the court of record.

Be forewarned that the case gets dismissed and often the taxpayer writes a few nasty jabs.

I recall the first blatant demonstration. A suitor told me the federal judge had ordered his default judgment removed from the county clerk and recorder's office. Of course he wrote a R4C for that promptly. Then he went to the C&R and bought a certified copy. It did not take long to convince him that the filing had not been removed as ordered.

There were apparently phone calls and other inconsequential squabbles but nothing in writing. After about three weeks of not removing the default judgment from the C&R publication the DoJ did all they could do. They filed the order to remove it with the C&R!!

Something really tickles me about that.

JohnnyCash
10-30-12, 04:39 PM
I can't bear to look ...

David Merrill
10-30-12, 05:01 PM
Yet I just cannot avert my gaze.