PDA

View Full Version : Make Demand At Treasury



Keith Alan
04-05-13, 06:30 PM
What's to stop someone from making their demand for lawful money on their tax return?

Brian
04-05-13, 10:14 PM
What's to stop someone from making their demand for lawful money on their tax return?

Nothing, but a big fat "denied" letter from them. However I don't think that is the proper place for it. They don't care. All they care about is that someone filed an info return with your mark of the beast number in which there are digits saying you received money. They then automatically "determine" that those digits constitute income per mountains of statues and regs and the SOP of the banks UNLESS you have something that disproves their presumption.

Keith Alan
04-05-13, 10:30 PM
Nothing, but a big fat "denied" letter from them. However I don't think that is the proper place for it. They don't care. All they care about is that someone filed an info return with your mark of the beast number in which there are digits saying you received money. They then automatically "determine" that those digits constitute income per mountains of statues and regs and the SOP of the banks UNLESS you have something that disproves their presumption.

Hmm... If that is the expected response, why should someone expect a different response by making the demand through the Federal Reserve? Isn't Treasury where all these various processes ultimately terminate?

I'm looking at 12 USC 411, and Treasury is one of the proper places, and IRS is the Treasury's agent, is it not?

At any rate, I'm exploring the possibility of including the demand right on the 1040. This is where a person declares his income, so it also seems to be the correct place to demand redemption of the income.

I recognize there may be problems though. That's why I opened the discussion.

David Merrill
04-05-13, 11:27 PM
People are learning how and getting full refunds without evidence repositories. I teach that one should copy (record) the demands and have some kind of evidence repository. This tends to prevent FrivPens.

Keith Alan
04-05-13, 11:47 PM
People are learning how and getting full refunds without evidence repositories. I teach that one should copy (record) the demands and have some kind of evidence repository. This tends to prevent FrivPens.
I want to thank you for all the work you've done. I never would have even contemplated making a demand for lawful money, except for reading you here and elsewhere on the net.

Now I am looking at filing 1040, not taking any benefits offered there, and making the demand in the margin, while simultaneously using 31 USC 3113 as a gift to the US to pay down the debt. Wouldn't the net result be no further tax liability? And the debt being lowered by the total amount of my income?

David Merrill
04-06-13, 02:04 PM
The only way that makes sense to me is to Notify them you will be redeeming lawful money for the upcoming year. If you have not been redeeming lawful money for 2012 then you cannot do so on the 2012 tax return and expect a refund.

However there is some evidence that the IRS agents are not resisting lawful money redemption at all. I should wait for more information before I go into that though.

Keith Alan
04-06-13, 04:09 PM
The only way that makes sense to me is to Notify them you will be redeeming lawful money for the upcoming year. If you have not been redeeming lawful money for 2012 then you cannot do so on the 2012 tax return and expect a refund.

However there is some evidence that the IRS agents are not resisting lawful money redemption at all. I should wait for more information before I go into that though.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the 1040. Isn't it a financing statement? Isn't it notice - in and of itself - to Treasury of whatever demands, claims, or declarations the taxpayer makes?

Since the 1040 is filed in arrears, couldn't the demand be made in arrears as well? Why would a person need to make the demand in advance?

I realize people are successfully making their demands through the Federal Reserve, and thereby reducing their tax liability. But my understanding is the fiduciary duties of the Secretary of Treasury arise from his powers as trustee, overseeing the estates he holds in trust for the people. Therefore, as beneficiaries of the trust, we have the opportunity to claim whatever remedies are available, and the Secretary's office is the proper place for making them.

I've been following many discussions here for several months now, and so far I've held off making a demand for lawful money, because of all the problems I see people having. I'm looking for a simple way to cut through all the red tape, and also avoid a confrontation.

I very much appreciate that you provide a good sounding board for people to discuss this subject.

PS - I'm not looking for a refund. I'm self employed, so I don't have that issue to contend with.

Brian
04-06-13, 05:11 PM
Keith,
I'm not trying to make light of your idea's. I try to come at things from the other sides perspective. The taxable event occurs quite simply when you deposit a paycheck into a bank account without the proper verbiage. When you follow what the bank recommends they use your paycheck as an asset and credit your account with "bank credit" that is derived from "Fed Credit". The check then shifts "bank/Fed credit" from your employer's bank to your bank via the settlement of accounts performed at the Federal Reserve through each banks individual reserve account. When you restrict your endorsement to demand money issued directly from the US treasury that throws an extra step into their process.

Normally: Bank A owes Bank B $1000, Bank B owes Bank A $1500. The net effect is $500 of credit is transferred to Bank A's reserve account from Bank B's reserve account.

LMUS is demanded: Bank A has a check (from Bank B) where $1000 of LMUS is demanded. The Fed transfers $1000 of LMUS (coin) to Bank A, then deducts $1000 from Bank B's reserve account. The Fed then needs to replenish it's LMUS supply and orders $1000 of coin from the US Mint, it then credits the Treasury with $1000.

This is logically how I see it working. Again the taxable event occurs at the bank when you have an incoming transfer of money substitutes (bank credit). However when you invoke a demand for money properly created by the Treasury you are using the money properly authorized by the Constitution (coinage clause 1:8:5). Anything other then that CAN be taxed as an excise (1869: Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533).

I hope this makes sense to you. The "event" is not when filing a return form. That is the part where you try to recover $$ that were not taxable in the first place. You need to restrict your endorsements on your checks AND MAKE COPIES! As David said.

Keith Alan
04-06-13, 11:42 PM
Keith,
I'm not trying to make light of your idea's. I try to come at things from the other sides perspective. The taxable event occurs quite simply when you deposit a paycheck into a bank account without the proper verbiage. When you follow what the bank recommends they use your paycheck as an asset and credit your account with "bank credit" that is derived from "Fed Credit". The check then shifts "bank/Fed credit" from your employer's bank to your bank via the settlement of accounts performed at the Federal Reserve through each banks individual reserve account. When you restrict your endorsement to demand money issued directly from the US treasury that throws an extra step into their process.

Normally: Bank A owes Bank B $1000, Bank B owes Bank A $1500. The net effect is $500 of credit is transferred to Bank A's reserve account from Bank B's reserve account.

LMUS is demanded: Bank A has a check (from Bank B) where $1000 of LMUS is demanded. The Fed transfers $1000 of LMUS (coin) to Bank A, then deducts $1000 from Bank B's reserve account. The Fed then needs to replenish it's LMUS supply and orders $1000 of coin from the US Mint, it then credits the Treasury with $1000.

This is logically how I see it working. Again the taxable event occurs at the bank when you have an incoming transfer of money substitutes (bank credit). However when you invoke a demand for money properly created by the Treasury you are using the money properly authorized by the Constitution (coinage clause 1:8:5). Anything other then that CAN be taxed as an excise (1869: Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533).

I hope this makes sense to you. The "event" is not when filing a return form. That is the part where you try to recover $$ that were not taxable in the first place. You need to restrict your endorsements on your checks AND MAKE COPIES! As David said.

Thank you for your well explained reply. Yes, the taxable event doesn't take place when the return is submitted. I should have added before that I would not be taking any benefit from the fractional reserve system like earning interest, nor from Treasury's 1040 form (like exemptions and such).

It appears I am stuck on the scenarios you laid out. What I see you providing is your idea about what happens behind the counter of the Fed bank. But what about the person making the deposit? Doesn't he take his check from bank A to bank B? And isn't his account credited the corresponding amount, no matter how he makes the endorsement? He's still using bank credit, and banks deal in FRNs.

This brings up another thought. Since FRNs are for advances to Federal reserve banks and no other purpose, when a person receives a check, isn't he holding bank credit representing FRNs? So isn't that the time when the taxable event occurs?

Also, since anyone holding bank credit representing FRNs is a Federal reserve bank, why isn't a person able to make the demand to himself from his private capacity as a living man? (PS-The answer is obvious: he's not one of the 12 Fed Banks, nor is he Treasury. But it makes as much sense as making a demand at a local bank.)

I envision a veritable sea of metaphysical principles at work here. But there are only a few rock solid elements, namely the demand, the Treasury, the person, and the statutes. The subject is credit, whether denominated as FRNs or USNs.

This is why I see the 1040 as the proper vehicle: it is the well settled and customary practice for the Treasury to receive notice of claims and declarations on the form. This is where income is declared and made known. It's where the NAME conducts business with the gov't. Why not fill out the form, taking no benefits, then make the demand on the form? Isn't the return filed as required? Aren't the taxes paid? Didn't the taxpayer exercise his rights timely?

I don't want to discount what people already know regarding making demand through the Federal Reserve. I'm simply exploring another possible avenue.

Brian
04-07-13, 08:23 AM
"But what about the person making the deposit? Doesn't he take his check from bank A to bank B? And isn't his account credited the corresponding amount, no matter how he makes the endorsement? He's still using bank credit, and banks deal in FRNs."

Yes, and yes. The bank credits your account with the face value of the check. To me the check says "pay to the order of". So on the back of the check I give them an order "redeem for current U.S. coin and deposit in acct#XXX signed me" How they handle it at that point does not matter. I have specified the nature of the payment, I have not left them a naked endorsement whereby they can just utilize bank credit between them and the other bank. What matters is that my initial deposit that backs those digits on the account screen is backed up by coin. Where they store it, whether or not I take delivery matters not in my view.

"when a person receives a check, isn't he holding bank credit representing FRNs? So isn't that the time when the taxable event occurs?"

As far as I can tell a check is a negotiable debt instrument (bill of credit). It's nature is not set in stone until negotiated in some manner (cashed, deposited,transferred). (See David's Simpsons episode clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH9OIIJcQM8 ).

"The subject is credit, whether denominated as FRNs or USNs."

This is where I have altered course for myself. I'm sticking with U.S. current coin (Lawful money of the U.S.). FRN's as USN's, I get the metaphysics of it, but try explaining that to one of the drones within an agency or a bank. Everyone knows what coins are. Anyone younger then probably 40 has no idea what a USN is.

"This is why I see the 1040 as the proper vehicle: it is the well settled and customary practice for the Treasury to receive notice of claims and declarations on the form. This is where income is declared and made known. It's where the NAME conducts business with the gov't. Why not fill out the form, taking no benefits, then make the demand on the form? Isn't the return filed as required? Aren't the taxes paid? Didn't the taxpayer exercise his rights timely?

I don't want to discount what people already know regarding making demand through the Federal Reserve. I'm simply exploring another possible avenue. "

OK, I see where you going. You had better have some proof. Either by photocopied checks, signature cards, coin only interest free account, etc. Otherwise the Income Redistribution Service might get snotty with you. Oh and this part "the statutes". The way I see it, using bank credit opens the door to the nightmare known as 26USC. Using coinage minted under the Coined money clause of the U.S. Constitution keeps that door mostly closed. All of my answers are MYOP, keep digging, the puzzle pieces are out there scattered all over the damn place. The nature of the money is heart of the matter. Emitted by a bank or the Treasury is the key distinction.

I found this most helpful..fyi: http://www.lockeanliberty.org/supreme-court-timeline/

Ultimately we are all after the same thing, but it will probably not be easy or easily agreed upon. Collaboration of ideas! Make up your own mind.

Keith Alan
04-07-13, 06:41 PM
Brian,

I really liked that link! Bookmarked for future reference.

It actually sparked yet another thought: the difference between lawful money and legal tender. It appears to me that lawful money is money held under the common law, whereas legal tender is in admiralty.

The way I see it, this relates to saving to suitors and demanding redemption by highlighting what happens when someone makes their demand. Would it be incorrect to say that: one is demanding his currency be redeemed from one jurisdiction, and brought into another?

The funds made subject to a tax are legal tender, and subject to siezure, correct? Now it's occurring to me that in the case of filing a return, the legal person taxpayer is also in admiralty, which is why he must file a return. He is in admiralty because he - being simply the NAME - is the res of a trust.

The living man however is not the res. Rather he is the beneficiary of the trust.

Now then, if the NAME files his return as required, but the living man makes his demand on the return, I can see why this would be confusing for IRS to process.

If, as someone said, the result would be a denial of the claim by IRS, it seems the ball would then be handed back to the taxpayer/living man. Here is where the benefit of experience in dealing with them is most necessary. I do not know what form a denial would take. Do they list their reason(s) for denial?

In any case, I would accept their denial on the condition they show proof of claim that I am not entitled to make the demand.

Does this sound realistic? Reasonable? Workable?

allodial
04-08-13, 12:53 AM
On the tax return? Seems that appropriate and applicable would be:

(1) redeeming the treasury check for lawful money
(2) properly dealing with the account to which a tax refund might be electronically deposited.

Keith Alan
04-08-13, 04:19 AM
On the tax return? Seems that appropriate and applicable would be:

(1) redeeming the treasury check for lawful money
(2) properly dealing with the account to which a tax refund might be electronically deposited.

I'm not looking for a refund. I guess the real goal is to establish the difference between the living man and the trust in the office of the Secretary of Treasury.

Brian
04-08-13, 07:21 AM
"the difference between lawful money and legal tender. It appears to me that lawful money is money held under the common law, whereas legal tender is in admiralty."

I think legal tender refers to what the government will take in payment of taxes. The government conveys the status upon certain forms of money. Like USN's, they are legal tender for everything EXCEPT payment of duties on imports and interest on the public debt. So they are not a FULL/unlimited legal tender like gold coin was prior to 1933. See page 17 of this: http://archive.org/details/sciencemoney00margoog

Lawful money in my view is that which is authorized by law. Lawful money of the United States (LMUS) is authorized by law and issued by the U.S. Treasury. I think where the admiralty/equity part gets into the mix is by using bills of credit (checks). Admiralty/equity law was in part created for the passing of bills of credit between countries with dissimilar mediums of exchange so that an equitable exchange/trade system could be set up. This was so that merchants did not need to send ships full of gold or silver risking the loss of that metal in order to buy goods overseas. Bills of credit were implimented to avoid the risk, and I think (i'm going off memory of something I read awhile ago) the jurisdiction governing these devices were within admiralty and or equity. I could be totally off base here, but that is my understanding at this point in time. That is I think why the IRS sometimes goes after people's stuff "in rem"...they are going after the thing (money), and not particularly you.

The trust aspect is something I have not devoted a large part of my time into unwinding. Many others on here are probably way better versed then I in dealing with that. My thinking is that by dealing in LMUS authorized by the US Constitution 1:8:5. I can avoid the sticky issues of admiralty/equity and remain in common law. However I'm always open to other ideas as everyone should be.

Keith Alan
04-08-13, 12:38 PM
The trust aspect is something I have not devoted a large part of my time into unwinding. Many others on here are probably way better versed then I in dealing with that. My thinking is that by dealing in LMUS authorized by the US Constitution 1:8:5. I can avoid the sticky issues of admiralty/equity and remain in common law. However I'm always open to other ideas as everyone should be.

Very clever of you to choose 'unwind'! For the benefit of anyone reading this thread, one of its definitions is: unwind a trade - to reverse a securities transaction through an offsetting transaction. Now I do not want to unwind the trust, but rather begin using it skillfully in commerce. Perhaps this is why I'm perceiving a bit of reluctance from people in accepting the idea of making the demand on the tax return. My goal is different than their's, and the subject so esoteric, that the mental models pass each other without ever really connecting.

My theory is this: if I can establish the difference between the NAME and the living man with Treasury - as in accepted by Treasury - I would automatically become recognized as inhabiting the de jure republic, without ever having to jump through any other hoops. I would then be using the Social Security account as a friendly national citizen, as opposed to an enemy of the state. There would be no need to fill out forms declaring myself to be a non resident alien, or anything like that.

I would be free to enter and do business in the jurisdiction of the United States at will, and leave again unmolested. Do you see what I'm driving at? The Social Security number is a vehicle, a very useful vehicle, and the government is set up to work with people through it. Why not use it as it was intended?

David Merrill
04-08-13, 01:41 PM
Now I do not want to unwind the trust, but rather begin using it skillfully in commerce.

A new suitor quickly learns his or her true name. This seems like silliness or even idiocy to any attorney reading here. And it has very little effect on the surface. The effect is however profound.

True Name gains the choice of being the trustee for the Legal or Full Name (http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7013/generalpublictrust.pdf). First Middle Last becomes the name of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust that is available for First Middle to use.

Keith Alan
04-08-13, 01:50 PM
A moment ago I was reviewing another thread - http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form - where there is contained a supporting schedule for 1040 with the dmand made at the top of the page!

Now I need to rethink everything again.

I've been reluctant to make demands on checks, because I don't see what is in it for the banks. After seeing the supporting schedule referenced above, I now understand the motivation for keeping a good record, but still question why it's necessary. I noticed that the suitor's supporting schedule reserved the right to make another demand nunc pro tunc to an earlier date.

Why is this in the mind of the suitor, if his documentation only reaches the last three months of 2011?

Keith Alan
04-08-13, 01:58 PM
A new suitor quickly learns his or her true name. This seems like silliness or even idiocy to any attorney reading here. And it has very little effect on the surface. The effect is however profound.

True Name gains the choice of being the trustee for the Legal or Full Name (http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7013/generalpublictrust.pdf). First Middle Last becomes the name of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust that is available for First Middle to use.
Yes! I am very happy to have learned the difference, and agree the effect is profound. I have new insights every day regarding its meaning, and feel empowered by it.

shikamaru
04-08-13, 07:18 PM
It actually sparked yet another thought: the difference between lawful money and legal tender. It appears to me that lawful money is money held under the common law, whereas legal tender is in admiralty.


Only problem is that much of lawful money is fiat currency i.e. demand notes, greenbacks, etc.

The key difference I have seen concerning lawful money vs legal tender is who the issuer is.

The U.S. Treasury issues lawful money. The Federal Reserve issues legal tender.
By the above, US Treasury Notes and Bonds would be considered lawful money.

Interestingly enough US Treasury Notes and Bonds are, in part, reserve currency for the issuance of FRNs.

Keith Alan
04-08-13, 08:33 PM
Only problem is that much of lawful money is fiat currency i.e. demand notes, greenbacks, etc.

The key difference I have seen concerning lawful money vs legal tender is who the issuer is.

The U.S. Treasury issues lawful money. The Federal Reserve issues legal tender.
By the above, US Treasury Notes and Bonds would be considered lawful money.

Interestingly enough US Treasury Notes and Bonds are, in part, reserve currency for the issuance of FRNs.

Well, aren't we saying the very same thing? Treasury and Congress are not authorized to issue private equity currency, which is why (I think) the Federal Reserve was created/authorized. I don't think the issue of fiat currency matters as long as - like you say - the issuer complies with its jurisdictional authority. What matters is under which jurisdiction the currency is operating. Upon being redeemed, the same physical (including digital) currency becomes lawful money, not legal tender.

What started me along this way of thinking was, demanding lawful money results in the currency being removed from admiralty (where it's subject to siezure) and coming into common law (where it is not) as per the saving to suitors clause. After all, there is no physical alternative to what appear to be FRNs. But as we all know, the right side of the note belongs to Treasury. Also, there exists a potential that all FRNs in existence could be redeemed, resulting in $ trillions of lawful money in circulation, all fiat.

David Merrill
04-09-13, 12:10 AM
I noticed that the suitor's supporting schedule reserved the right to make another demand nunc pro tunc to an earlier date.

Why is this in the mind of the suitor, if his documentation only reaches the last three months of 2011?

That probably stems from a notion one might get all their taxes back because of a social fraud by omission. Bottom line though is that if David Merrill can find it (remedy), anybody can.



Yes! I am very happy to have learned the difference, and agree the effect is profound. I have new insights every day regarding its meaning, and feel empowered by it.

That makes my day!

doug555
04-09-13, 01:57 AM
Each individual transaction that uses FRNs generates more debt BECAUSE each one is a PROMISE to pay, an IOU-based transaction because it is based on liability (PROMISE) instruments. Each one of these needed to be backed-out by a corresponding REDUCTION entry!!! AWESOME!!!

One is actually helping to PAY debts and thereby reduce the national debt. One is helping correct the mistake THEY made by PRESUMING that FRNs were being used in such transactions. These must include all withholding-based transactions as well, since both the debt and the reduction is TRANSACTION-BASED! THIS IS S KEY CONCEPT THAT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD! Each transaction that assumes FRN usage must be backed-out (reversed) to settle the national debt.

One could easily prove each FRN transaction increases the national debt by auditing any check deposits at any bank and see if these funds are included in the reserve required for fractional reserve lending (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm). One can see the multiplier effect in the diagram at that website, and also see why bank employees get fired for not respecting demands for lawful money, because all of the multiplier "ripples" of mistakenly-created and un-bonded debt that has to be backed-out/reversed!

By following FRCP 803(6) rule of hearsay exceptions (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803), one is making a substantive record on documents used in the normal course of business. By writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all commercial instruments (deposit slips, checks, etc), one enables the equitable title transfer of the credit (labor) held by the the United States Treasury via the Federal Reserve Banks since the April 5, 1933 Executive Order 6102 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14611) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which transfer then enables the Trustee to setoff the national debt to that extent.

This reduction therefore, in effect if not in essence, constitutes FOR-GIVENESS of the national debt. It is applying the prepaid labor credit of the people loaned to the corporations that enabled them to pro-duce goods and services for the people.

The Beneficiaries have NOT been doing their duty of authorizing the application of lawful money to PAY debts, by demanding lawful for all transactions. Using FRNs is only a PROMISE to pay, and each such PROMISE is fractionalized, as well as each derivative transaction from the prime transaction which mainly is one's GROSS PAY-check.

Keith Alan
04-09-13, 01:18 PM
This reduction therefore, in effect if not in essence, constitutes FOR-GIVENESS of the national debt. It is applying the prepaid labor credit of he people loaned to the corporations that enabled them to pro-duce goods and services for the people.

The Beneficiaries have NOT been doing their duty of authorizing the application of lawful money to PAY debts, by demanding lawful for all transactions. Using FRNs is only a PROMISE to pay, and each such PROMISE is fractionalized, as well as each derivative transaction from the prime transaction which mainly is one's GROSS PAY-check.

Doug555, I had not thought of it that way. Thank you for pointing out that a person is actually forgiving the debt when he makes his demand. This is a new concept for me, so I will think about what it means to me. The idea of paying down the debt was one of my motivations for considering making demand at Treasury.

But now I'm seeing that, instead of paying it down (as a surety for the state) a person can actually forgive the debt!

Freed Gerdes
04-10-13, 04:46 AM
Before you get too far along with your concept of reducing the (Federal Reserve) debt, let's look at how the banking system views your transaction. Suppose your employer (?) sends you a paycheck (actually sends a computer file from payroll to the bank, instructing them to credit your account). The "money" exists only as a computer balance in the employer's bank account. Since you noticed the bank that you want to redeem lawful money, the bank must credit your account with LM, ie, it must not add your new balance to their 'reserve balance' which they report weekly to the FR, and upon which they can advance fractional reserve lending to others. Your balance exists as LM, but there are no actual dollars involved. Now suppose you buy a car, pay the dealership $30k in LM; your LM balance is reduced by $30k. The dealership deposits your check in their Federal Reserve account, having endorsed the credit. Presto! the LM is now back to being 'fiat money,' now endorsed by the dealership. No new debt was accepted by you, so the FR debt was not reduced, it was just not enlarged by your non-endorsement. But as soon as you circulate (spend) your LM, it goes right back to being legal tender, and now can be used to increase fractional reserve lending (thus increasing the debt). If everyone would demand lawful money, the bank's fractional reserve lending balance would be driven to zero, and they could not increase the debt by creating more unbacked fiduciary media, but as long as the total users of LM remain trivial, there is no effect on the national (Federal Reserve) debt. Note also that the FR is creating over $1 trillion in new unbacked fiduciary media this year, by their program of buying $40 billion per month of bad MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) paper from the banks and from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and $45 billion per month of new Treasury bonds (interest bearing debt notes). [see this link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-20/fed-keeps-85-billion-pace-of-bond-buying-as-job-market-improves.html] The 'money' the Fed creates when it buys the newly-issued Treasury bonds is actually just computer entries in the government accounts at various FR banks; these 'credits' are then transferred to SNAP cards, SS checks, and other government giveaway programs, and shows up as credits in those voter's bank accounts, thus increasing the reserve balance at those banks, thus allowing more creation of unbacked fiduciary media by those banks.

So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.

David Merrill
04-10-13, 01:53 PM
I hear the buzz is that nearly half of the IRS agents are going into retirement.

Keith Alan
04-10-13, 02:06 PM
So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.

How can LM - the way it currently manifests - be backed by silver? And how is LM not fractionalized, seeing that it is the resulting trust created by demanding redemption of fractionalized FRNs?

Keith Alan
04-10-13, 02:20 PM
I hear the buzz is that nearly half of the IRS agents are going into retirement.

Well that's interesting. I wonder if it has anything to do with IRS hiring more agents as per the Affordable Care Act?

Chex
04-10-13, 02:51 PM
Reminds me of this story: http://www.unclefed.com/TxprBoR/JWWade.html

David Merrill
04-10-13, 03:21 PM
By following FRCP 803(6) rule of hearsay exceptions (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803), one is making a substantive record on documents used in the normal course of business. By writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all commercial instruments (deposit slips, checks, etc), one enables the equitable title transfer of the credit (labor) held by the the United States Treasury via the Federal Reserve Banks since the April 5, 1933 Executive Order 6102 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14611) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which transfer then enables the Trustee to setoff the national debt to that extent.

This reduction therefore, in effect if not in essence, constitutes FOR-GIVENESS of the national debt. It is applying the prepaid labor credit of the people loaned to the corporations that enabled them to pro-duce goods and services for the people.

The Beneficiaries have NOT been doing their duty of authorizing the application of lawful money to PAY debts, by demanding lawful for all transactions. Using FRNs is only a PROMISE to pay, and each such PROMISE is fractionalized, as well as each derivative transaction from the prime transaction which mainly is one's GROSS PAY-check.

Wonderful contribution - thank you! I had not thought about checking for the law curing 30 days after the Bankers' Holiday. I think the Note in my Public Papers and Addresses book might help shed light. Image attached.

You also bring to light why this Schedule (http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3932/1040supportingschedules.jpg) was refunded in full. - GROSS Paycheck.



http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3932/1040supportingschedules.jpg

Chex
04-10-13, 07:15 PM
and a newspaper cliping http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/48423796

doug555
04-10-13, 09:02 PM
Before you get too far along with your concept of reducing the (Federal Reserve) debt, let's look at how the banking system views your transaction. Suppose your employer (?) sends you a paycheck (actually sends a computer file from payroll to the bank, instructing them to credit your account). The "money" exists only as a computer balance in the employer's bank account. Since you noticed the bank that you want to redeem lawful money, the bank must credit your account with LM, ie, it must not add your new balance to their 'reserve balance' which they report weekly to the FR, and upon which they can advance fractional reserve lending to others. Your balance exists as LM, but there are no actual dollars involved. Now suppose you buy a car, pay the dealership $30k in LM; your LM balance is reduced by $30k. The dealership deposits your check in their Federal Reserve account, having endorsed the credit. Presto! the LM is now back to being 'fiat money,' now endorsed by the dealership. No new debt was accepted by you, so the FR debt was not reduced, it was just not enlarged by your non-endorsement. But as soon as you circulate (spend) your LM, it goes right back to being legal tender, and now can be used to increase fractional reserve lending (thus increasing the debt). If everyone would demand lawful money, the bank's fractional reserve lending balance would be driven to zero, and they could not increase the debt by creating more unbacked fiduciary media, but as long as the total users of LM remain trivial, there is no effect on the national (Federal Reserve) debt. Note also that the FR is creating over $1 trillion in new unbacked fiduciary media this year, by their program of buying $40 billion per month of bad MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) paper from the banks and from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and $45 billion per month of new Treasury bonds (interest bearing debt notes). [see this link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...improves.html] The 'money' the Fed creates when it buys the newly-issued Treasury bonds is actually just computer entries in the government accounts at various FR banks; these 'credits' are then transferred to SNAP cards, SS checks, and other government giveaway programs, and shows up as credits in those voter's bank accounts, thus increasing the reserve balance at those banks, thus allowing more creation of unbacked fiduciary media by those banks.

So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.

I agree that the effect of demanding lawful money for all transactions is MUCH greater at a PERSONAL level than the effect at the national debt level, due to few people doing it at this time.

However, the MAIN point I am trying to make, and which your LM/FRN transaction scenarios above support, is that both the FRN-based Debt and the USN-based Reduction are TRANSACTION-BASED! This is WHY the 1040 Supporting Schedule for Lawful Money Demand Reduction has to include the Withholding transactions - to reverse these corresponding unauthorized and un-bonded debt transactions.

I believe that these Withholding transactions transfer amounts to other Federal and State government agencies that are presuming these amounts to be FRN-based Debt funds, which are deposited in a bank and are included in their "reserve" amounts since they may have no notice (plausible deniability) to the contrary if the government agencies have not performed their fiduciary duty under the Principal-Agent Doctrine to pass along the substantive record one has made with one's local Federal Reserve member bank.

Therefore, the Form 1040 may be the only instrument that "catches" these "Mis-Takes" and enables the government agencies to correct their books and records and ledgers and truly settle (PAY) the corresponding obligations with the "For-Given" credit of the people held in trust for this purpose, and also then reverse the prime and derivative debts and their multiplied "ripples" as the diagram in this 'How Banks Work' article (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm) clearly illustrates.

NOTE: This diagram suggests that the effect on the national debt may not be so "trivial" after all. Such a lawful money reduction procedure, if done by everyone, would certainly improve our economy and national security!

Freed Gerdes
04-11-13, 05:04 AM
You are quite correct about the GROSS pay/withheld issue, Doug. And I agree that the legal issues are transaction based. And I concur that the Federal Reserve and its subsidiary corporations (IRS) presume that all transactions are conducted in their debt money (but a rebuttable presumption). I am retired and do not get paychecks with taxes already withheld, so had not considered that issue. The paycheck you deposit (in LM) is already reduced by the amounts withheld. However, if you redeem all your (now reduced) income in LM, you can ask for a full refund of all income taxes paid. Whether the IRS then unwinds these previously credited transactions I know not, but based on their disregard of other legal issues, I would guess they ignore them. I believe that all money collected by the IRS for the Federal Reserve is delivered to the IMF.

It is clear to me that the banksters intended ab initio to bankrupt the government and all businesses, as debt loaned at interest, and not invested in productive enterprises that earn a sufficient return to pay the interest, can have no other outcome. [the debtor is servant to the lender; by keeping everyone in debt, the banksters can live by the work of other's hands] Borrowing trillions to spend on social programs, which generate no return, makes this conclusion a slam dunk.

I suspect that the only record that is corrected is the total amount of FRN credit that you used, which is then the subject of income tax, and SS tax. (The IRS keeps a permanent record of your reported transactions in FRN's for your entire life, or until you opt out of Title 26.)

Freed Gerdes
04-11-13, 05:47 AM
How can LM - the way it currently manifests - be backed by silver? And how is LM not fractionalized, seeing that it is the resulting trust created by demanding redemption of fractionalized FRNs?

Lawful money is/was issued by the US Treasury, and was limited to $300 million because that was the amount of silver available at the time. It is public money, can only be issued by the Treasury, and cannot be over-issued beyond the $300 million of silver backing it. And it cannot be counted as reserves for fractional reserve lending. FRN's are private money, issued by the Federal Reserve. Their rules allow their member banks to lend more money out than they have in deposits. This is fractional reserve banking; it is fraud, and it results in inflating the money supply, thus diluting its value (same as counterfeiting). Title 12, which created the right of the Fed to issue private debt money, could not force citizens to use it, thus incurring the obligation to pay taxes (the interest on the private debt), as people have a right to contract, and to refuse to contract, with whomever they choose. So Title 12 had to allow an exit from the private money debt scheme: demand public money, which cannot be taxed by the IRS (it can only be taxed by Congress, following the rules for taxation found in the Constitution). And it cannot be used as reserves for fractional reserve lending, because that is a private scheme, carried out by a corporation (the Fed). Such lending would be un-Constitutional if conducted by the Treasury; thus public money cannot be used in the private scheme.

Keith Alan
04-11-13, 12:08 PM
Lawful money is/was issued by the US Treasury, and was limited to $300 million because that was the amount of silver available at the time. It is public money, can only be issued by the Treasury, and cannot be over-issued beyond the $300 million of silver backing it. And it cannot be counted as reserves for fractional reserve lending. FRN's are private money, issued by the Federal Reserve. Their rules allow their member banks to lend more money out than they have in deposits. This is fractional reserve banking; it is fraud, and it results in inflating the money supply, thus diluting its value (same as counterfeiting). Title 12, which created the right of the Fed to issue private debt money, could not force citizens to use it, thus incurring the obligation to pay taxes (the interest on the private debt), as people have a right to contract, and to refuse to contract, with whomever they choose. So Title 12 had to allow an exit from the private money debt scheme: demand public money, which cannot be taxed by the IRS (it can only be taxed by Congress, following the rules for taxation found in the Constitution). And it cannot be used as reserves for fractional reserve lending, because that is a private scheme, carried out by a corporation (the Fed). Such lending would be un-Constitutional if conducted by the Treasury; thus public money cannot be used in the private scheme.

Yes, but there are potentially trillions of lawful money dollars in circulation. Since FRNs are fractionalized, so is lawful money. I'm also fairly sure that all silver for backing is linked to US notes, and not the lawful money people are demanding today.

Freed Gerdes
04-12-13, 02:27 AM
You are wrong about there being trillions of lawful money in circulation. Per my prior discussion of the banking industry's approach, there are almost no dollars of lawful money in circulation. When you write a demand on a check for deposit, the bank credits your account; no dollars are involved. When you write a check on your lawful money account, the recipient endorses the check, and the 'dollars' involved revert to FRN's. What the silver held by the Treasury backs is now irrelevant, as the option to redeem in specie has long been vacated. But the key feature of lawful money is that it cannot be 'fractionalized;' it cannot be used for fractional reserve lending, and it cannot be issued without backing, of which the Treasury has none. So the amount of lawful money 'in circulation' is limited to $300 million. And since now when you demand to redeem lawful money as cash, the FR bank will give you FRN's (which you can stamp as lawful money if you like). Even the stamped cash notes, when deposited at a FR bank, revert to FRN's, since the person depositing did not know to express his demand, and the bank teller will ignore the stamp. (BofA says in their account agreement that they will ignore any writing on the back of your check!) Since lawful money now trades at par with FRN's, which are being counterfeited at an alarming pace (20+% per year during the last 5 years), the intrinsic 'value' of lawful money has been eliminated, so its only value now is that the demand for it takes your transaction out of the purview of Title 26. And I believe that lawful money is required to do business with the District Courts of the United States (Article III courts).

Others have said that when you endorse FRN's, you make the debt notes lawful money. Based on the distinction of inelastic public money vs elastic private money, this is clearly not possible. When you endorse FRN's, they remain legal tender, but they are still debt notes, not money. As debt notes, they cannot pay off debt, as they themselves are debt. Only lawful money can actually discharge a debt.

Finally, the lawful money people are demanding today are US Notes. The fact that the Treasury has not re-issued any such notes since 1971, and the FR makes no effort to have said notes available for people who demand them is just an indication that the Treasury/Federal Reserve syndicate is trying to blur the distinction in the public mind, in hopes that everyone will forget that Constitutional money still exists in the US, just as they are trying to make people forget that they have common law rights. All part of the continuous propaganda to further enslave the populace.

Keith Alan
04-12-13, 03:25 AM
You are wrong about there being trillions of lawful money in circulation. Per my prior discussion of the banking industry's approach, there are almost no dollars of lawful money in circulation. When you write a demand on a check for deposit, the bank credits your account; no dollars are involved. When you write a check on your lawful money account, the recipient endorses the check, and the 'dollars' involved revert to FRN's. What the silver held by the Treasury backs is now irrelevant, as the option to redeem in specie has long been vacated. But the key feature of lawful money is that it cannot be 'fractionalized;' it cannot be used for fractional reserve lending, and it cannot be issued without backing, of which the Treasury has none. So the amount of lawful money 'in circulation' is limited to $300 million. And since now when you demand to redeem lawful money as cash, the FR bank will give you FRN's (which you can stamp as lawful money if you like). Even the stamped cash notes, when deposited at a FR bank, revert to FRN's, since the person depositing did not know to express his demand, and the bank teller will ignore the stamp. (BofA says in their account agreement that they will ignore any writing on the back of your check!) Since lawful money now trades at par with FRN's, which are being counterfeited at an alarming pace (20+% per year during the last 5 years), the intrinsic 'value' of lawful money has been eliminated, so its only value now is that the demand for it takes your transaction out of the purview of Title 26. And I believe that lawful money is required to do business with the District Courts of the United States (Article III courts).

Others have said that when you endorse FRN's, you make the debt notes lawful money. Based on the distinction of inelastic public money vs elastic private money, this is clearly not possible. When you endorse FRN's, they remain legal tender, but they are still debt notes, not money. As debt notes, they cannot pay off debt, as they themselves are debt. Only lawful money can actually discharge a debt.

Finally, the lawful money people are demanding today are US Notes. The fact that the Treasury has not re-issued any such notes since 1971, and the FR makes no effort to have said notes available for people who demand them is just an indication that the Treasury/Federal Reserve syndicate is trying to blur the distinction in the public mind, in hopes that everyone will forget that Constitutional money still exists in the US, just as they are trying to make people forget that they have common law rights. All part of the continuous propaganda to further enslave the populace.

Potentially in circulation. And I don't share the view that the Fed is an evil entity.

Brian
04-12-13, 03:39 AM
Freed, Why not just demand these and forget all the metaphysical things?

http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2011/11/05/2016699255.jpg

Oh and I should add...didn't the Federal Reserve bitch and complain that they had too many of them and had to build all kinds of new storage space for them. Why not relieve them of some of that burden and distribute them to the local banks?

gdude
04-12-13, 04:04 AM
And I don't share the view that the Fed is an evil entity.

I beg to differ Sir.

The Fed and their collection agency, the IRS, are parasites upon this once great nation.

"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws"- Amschel Rothchild

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

The FED is nothing more than a conglomerate of Bankers that have taken over the control of the USA's monetary issuance, thereby able and willing to control it's government and it's servants by inflation and deflation of the currency.

Brian
04-12-13, 04:13 AM
I beg to differ Sir.

The Fed and their collection agency, the IRS, are parasites upon this once great nation.

"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws"- Amschel Rothchild

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

The FED is nothing more than a conglomerate of Bankers that have taken over the control of the USA's monetary issuance, thereby able and willing to control it's government and it's servants by inflation and deflation of the currency.

THIS ^^
The Fed is the Genesis of the cancer that is very much destroying this country. The nature of the money was hijacked and all other (common law) forms suppressed or driven out of circulation.

The bankers know damn well the implications if the intended original monetary system was allowed to flourish:

"1865 London Times editorial directed against Lincoln's debt-free Greenbacks:

If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

Keith Alan
04-12-13, 04:22 AM
Potentially in circulation. And I don't share the view that the Fed is an evil entity.


I beg to differ Sir.

The Fed and their collection agency, the IRS, are parasites upon this once great nation.

"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws"- Amschel Rothchild

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

The FED is nothing more than a conglomerate of Bankers that have taken over the control of the USA's monetary issuance, thereby able and willing to control it's government and it's servants by inflation and deflation of the currency.
I want to be polite, and respond out of respect, but I'm pereceiving anger on your part. Or maybe frustration. At any rate, I'm not here to call into question anyone's world view. I firmly believe everyone has the God given ability to reason, and people often reach different conclusions from the same data points. My conclusions are simply different than yours.

If you like, I would be happy to discuss my views on the subject, but I think another thread would be a more appropriate place.

Chex
04-12-13, 02:13 PM
Freed Gerdes posts; You are wrong about there being trillions of lawful money in circulation. Per my prior discussion of the banking industry's approach, there are almost no dollars of lawful money in circulation. money is required to do business with the District Courts of the United States (Article III courts).

Finally, the lawful money people are demanding today are US Notes. The fact that the Treasury has not re-issued any such notes since 1971, and the FR makes no effort to have said notes available for people who demand them is just an indication that the Treasury/Federal Reserve syndicate is trying to blur the distinction in the public mind,........

Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes Legal Tender Status http://www.richmondfed.org/faqs/currency/

Published: December 8, 1865: http://www.nytimes.com/1865/12/08/news/currency-greenbacks-circulation-report-comptroller-currency.html?pagewanted=all

Withdrawal Of Circulation

Should a bank reduce its circulation, either by depositing lawful money or by permitting notes to be redeemed by the Treasurer and destroyed and asking for no new notes to take their place, the amount of the 5 per cent fund may be correspondingly reduced. In such case the Treasurer will, upon receiving the proper advice, surrender any excess in the 5 per cent fund that may result from such destruction or reduction of notes; but he will not so release a portion of the 5 per cent fund until the details of the reduction of circulation are completed by depositing lawful money and withdrawing the bonds.

The bank must pay the charges for transportation and the cost for assorting redeemed notes. At the end of each fiscal year, account having been kept of its expenses by the National Bank Redemption Agency, the several banks are assessed in proportion to the amount of their notes redeemed, and this sum is then charged to their 5 per cent funds respectively. If a bank deposits lawful money for the retirement of its circulation, it is assessed at the time it makes such deposit for the cost of transporting and redeeming the notes then outstanding, the assessment being equal to the average cost of the redemption of national bank notes during the preceding year. The rate charged to the national banks in 1915-1916 for redemption expenses was $.817229 per $1,000 redeemed.

Any bank desiring to withdraw all of its circulation, or any part of it, may do so by depositing with the Treasurer of the United States lawful money to an amount equal to the notes it wishes to retire. The Treasurer will then reassign the bonds to the bank which is withdrawing circulation, and will destroy the redeemed circulation. The retirement of circulation by depositing lawful money is limited to $9,000,000 in any one calendar month.2 In certain cases, however, this limitation does not apply: (1) when a bank reduces its capital stock to an amount below its outstanding circulation; (2) when a bank retires its circulation by surrendering the notes for cancellation without reissue, as in this case no deposit of lawful money is required; (3) when bonds are called for redemption by the Secretary of the Treasury and circulating notes are withdrawn in consequence thereof. The purpose of limitation on the rate of retirement of national bank notes is to prevent too sudden reduction in the volume of currency, with its train of undesirable consequences.
2 See Acts Of July 12, 1882, March 4, 1907, And May 30, 1908.

Dear Mr. XXXXX X. XXXXX: "The terms 'lawful money' or 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." {Title 12 United States Code, Section 152] Can a note that PROMISES to PAY ' LAWFUL MONEY' be the "Lawful money'? Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/151

Keith Alan
04-12-13, 03:20 PM
Dear Mr. XXXXX X. XXXXX: "The terms 'lawful money' or 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." {Title 12 United States Code, Section 152] Can a note that PROMISES to PAY ' LAWFUL MONEY' be the "Lawful money'? Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/151

This brings up a very pertinent question. Section 152 has been repealed. Also, later editions of US notes bear the condition: This note is legal tender, good for all debts, public and private.

When demand for lawful money is made, what is the thing (of the resulting trust) received?

Clearly not US notes, since there are none available, and they are limited by statute to $300 million, and they are legal tender.
Clearly not the lawful money of account of the United States, since gold or silver coin is not available.
Clearly not legal tender, since legal tender is being redeemed for lawful money.

PS - Whatever the thing is, it must be as good as gold.

doug555
04-12-13, 04:39 PM
This brings up a very pertinent question. Section 152 has been repealed. Also, later editions of US notes bear the condition: This note is legal tender, good for all debts, public and private.

When demand for lawful money is made, what is the thing (of the resulting trust) received?

Clearly not US notes, since there are none available, and they are limited by statute to $300 million, and they are legal tender.
Clearly not the lawful money of account of the United States, since gold or silver coin is not available.
Clearly not legal tender, since legal tender is being redeemed for lawful money.

PS - Whatever the thing is, it must be as good as gold.

Lawful Money is Equitable Title to Labor-Credit Asset (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_dHV5TWtxMkhRaG8/edit?usp=sharing).

And, YES, it is as good as GOLD...

Keith Alan
04-12-13, 04:41 PM
Withdrawal Of Circulation

Should a bank reduce its circulation, either by depositing lawful money or by permitting notes to be redeemed by the Treasurer and destroyed and asking for no new notes to take their place, the amount of the 5 per cent fund may be correspondingly reduced. In such case the Treasurer will, upon receiving the proper advice, surrender any excess in the 5 per cent fund that may result from such destruction or reduction of notes; but he will not so release a portion of the 5 per cent fund until the details of the reduction of circulation are completed by depositing lawful money and withdrawing the bonds.

The bank must pay the charges for transportation and the cost for assorting redeemed notes. At the end of each fiscal year, account having been kept of its expenses by the National Bank Redemption Agency, the several banks are assessed in proportion to the amount of their notes redeemed, and this sum is then charged to their 5 per cent funds respectively. If a bank deposits lawful money for the retirement of its circulation, it is assessed at the time it makes such deposit for the cost of transporting and redeeming the notes then outstanding, the assessment being equal to the average cost of the redemption of national bank notes during the preceding year. The rate charged to the national banks in 1915-1916 for redemption expenses was $.817229 per $1,000 redeemed.

Any bank desiring to withdraw all of its circulation, or any part of it, may do so by depositing with the Treasurer of the United States lawful money to an amount equal to the notes it wishes to retire. The Treasurer will then reassign the bonds to the bank which is withdrawing circulation, and will destroy the redeemed circulation. The retirement of circulation by depositing lawful money is limited to $9,000,000 in any one calendar month.2 In certain cases, however, this limitation does not apply: (1) when a bank reduces its capital stock to an amount below its outstanding circulation; (2) when a bank retires its circulation by surrendering the notes for cancellation without reissue, as in this case no deposit of lawful money is required; (3) when bonds are called for redemption by the Secretary of the Treasury and circulating notes are withdrawn in consequence thereof. The purpose of limitation on the rate of retirement of national bank notes is to prevent too sudden reduction in the volume of currency, with its train of undesirable consequences.
2 See Acts Of July 12, 1882, March 4, 1907, And May 30, 1908.

There's quite a lot here to digest, but it appears to me to be a process where - at a time in the past - banks were able to retire their outstanding obligations by depositing lawful money with the Treasurer (interesting, not the Sec'y of Treasury) according to a corresponding rate of exchange.

Also, the Secretary of the Treasury had the option to call in the bonds and make demand. I find this extremely interesting, in that it appears to indicate the Sec'y might retain the option to invoke 12 USC 411 at any time.

Now then, how I see all this pertaining to making demand for lawful money on a 1040 return is this way: when a taxpayer presents his return to the Treasury, and demands lawful money redemption thereon, the effect is to withdraw FRNs he holds from circulation, effectively assuming the role as creditor. His demand must be interpreted as instructions to the Sec'y to call in the bonds.

If this indeed is the case, and the taxpayer's role as debtor is flipped to that of being creditor, well, I find that astounding! Isn't he forgiving the obligations of the United States corporate? Doesn't that indicate the existence of an unincorporated association, which I will call the united States of America?

Chex
04-12-13, 04:51 PM
Nice doug555

Sound crazy? It is. http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/the-nature-of-money-greater-fools-frns/

Our monetary system is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland, economic madness with Ben Bernanke starring as the “Mad Hatter”.

Will you pay—or merely promise to pay? That is the question.

FRNs are like IOUs. Suppose I want to sell ten acres of Texas ranchland for $100,000. Suppose no one wants to buy my land, except my friend Rick who not only lacks gold or silver to buy, but doesn’t even have enough FRNs to purchase my land. But if I’m a “motivated seller,” I might agree to accept Rick’s $100,000 IOU (promise to pay) for the land. http://www.landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/

Keith Alan
04-12-13, 04:52 PM
Lawful Money is Equitable Title to Labor-Credit Asset (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_dHV5TWtxMkhRaG8/edit?usp=sharing).

And, YES, it is as good as GOLD...

It appears a creditor is forgiving a debt! This is very cool. :cool:

doug555
04-12-13, 05:40 PM
It appears a creditor is forgiving a debt! This is very cool. :cool:

Lawful Money is Equitable Title to Labor-Credit Asset. (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_dHV5TWtxMkhRaG8/edit?usp=sharing)

EXACTLY... The forgiving is the for-giving (pre-PAYMENT) of labor as the credit of the Nation en-trusted to the Government-Usufructuaries-Trustees!

The Estate re-vests upon Infant Proof of Life (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_ZVpUam45MEZGMU0/edit?usp=sharing), and at that point the Living Beneficiary appears and the Trustees must perform said lawful money requests.

Usufructuary must give Security (Surety) to Owner (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_SFFDS1Z6S2xDT3M/edit?usp=sharing) to indemnify him/her. Said Surety is the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), given as a receipt for our indemnification.

My Proof of Life (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_cm83TVY5dGNraXc/edit?usp=sharing) now requires the Trustee to perform said indemnification, for example, honoring "EQUITABLE TITLE TRANSFERS" for true PAYMENT of debts/charges to COLB NAME account!



P.S. USUFRUCT and The Parable of the Landowner (Mt 21.33-41) (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_eGtwM3U2WGtZQWs/edit?usp=sharing) adds the spiritual dimension to this "calling"...

Chex
04-12-13, 06:35 PM
If this indeed is the case, and the taxpayer's role as debtor is flipped to that of being creditor.

There is no question about it. Isn’t it that your signature [endorsement] that creates the printing machine to start rolling? Indeed without me there is no you.

Keith Alan
04-12-13, 08:14 PM
I'm understanding the concept of redemption better now.

allodial
04-13-13, 12:27 AM
I'm not looking for a refund. I guess the real goal is to establish the difference between the living man and the trust in the office of the Secretary of Treasury.

With respect to an 1040, likely the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't necessary have concerns as to the distinction. It was related that "{State/Federally-chartered} banks dont open accounts for men". Makes sense to me. A living man or a living soul may act in various capacities with respect to any given taxable entity: (i) accommodation party, (ii) some representative or fiduciary capacity.

P.S. I get the impression that some folks are trying to read too much into things. Playing Monopoly, sure there are rules but there is a difference between Monopoly and Reality, no?

Keith Alan
04-13-13, 12:08 PM
With respect to an 1040, likely the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't necessary have concerns as to the distinction. It was related that "{State/Federally-chartered} banks dont open accounts for men". Makes sense to me. A living man or a living soul may act in various capacities with respect to any given taxable entity: (i) accommodation party, (ii) some representative or fiduciary capacity.

P.S. I get the impression that some folks are trying to read too much into things. Playing Monopoly, sure there are rules but there is a difference between Monopoly and Reality, no?

I took the time to think about carefully what you have to say (ironic, no? lol), and I'm not really too sure there is much difference between reality and Monopoly. The biggest difference I can see is we don't move a physical tophat around a board. Our tophat resides on our legal papers. Other than that, the games are very similar to each other.

I like what you say about how people can play different roles such as accommodation party or fiduciary. When I said I wanted to establish the difference between the living man and the trust in the Secretary's office, I was looking to say something more along the lines you describe. After all, when a living man who is in charge of his estate files a return, with the intention of settling any accounts his trust is involved with, he is acting as the accomodation party.

allodial
04-17-13, 02:03 AM
If you are talking about making a distinction its pretty easy to distinguish between Keith Alan Doe and Keith Alan. 1040 can be signed KEITH ALAN DOE By: Keith Alan, as Manager or w/e. Or Keith Alan d/b/a KEITH ALAN DOE. Depends.

Keith Alan
04-17-13, 03:50 AM
If you are talking about making a distinction its pretty easy to distinguish between Keith Alan Doe and Keith Alan. 1040 can be signed KEITH ALAN DOE By: Keith Alan, as Manager or w/e. Or Keith Alan d/b/a KEITH ALAN DOE. Depends.

This is one reason I started the thread, to try and figure out how to sign the return. I'm thinking I will be appearing on the return in two capacities - as you suggest - first as the legal person, and second as an accomodation party. But how do I set the stage? In other words, the legal person incurred a tax liability, but the accomodation party is demanding lawful money, and offering to set off the legal.person's tax liability with his exemption (since lawful money is exempt from siezure).

The supporting schedule shown elsewhere on the site makes clear that a suitor was demanding lawful money through the Fed for Sep through Dec 2011. That same schedule reserves the right to make further demand nunc pro tunc to Jan 2011, but apparently the suitor has no documentation to justify doing that. Otherwise, why not do it right away?

Now I'm taking a slightly different tact, exploring the idea of making the demand directly to Treasury (on the 1040), as the statute directs. But doing so should not rely on supporting documentation such as photocopies of checks with non-endorsements. Rather, it takes into account the act of clearly delineating the two different capacities of legal person and accomodation party on the return. The question is how to do that.

I think signing the return on the bottom left (as the form indicates) might be incorrect for making the operating capacities clear. I think the signature should go on the right somewhere - like a check, and in the margin, vertically - so as to make the distinction that I am not in debt to the Treasury, but rather am setting off and settling any debt my legal person might incur.

David Merrill
04-17-13, 09:58 AM
One thing members and readers should keep in mind is that I do not carefully screen examples like the Schedule one I presented by attachment here. That example in fact does not agree precisely with the W-2 Form amount and the suitor was at first concerned that he should correct that Schedule before I could sanitize it and present it. As I recall he was thinking that the discrepancy was because he was including the SSI amounts. Then he thought through it again...

He asked me to black out a few more figures and it would be okay to share it so there you have it. He had already filed that Schedule when we were discussing it.

I have not gone through his taxes as with any and all suitors - I do not do taxes. The suitors do not expect that from me and the readers and members here should keep that in mind. I have on several occasions listened to a suitor go through his or her figures over the phone and more than anything I am listening for the confidence that they feel the figures are correct - rather than the figures themselves of course.


Regards,

David Merrill.

allodial
04-19-13, 10:42 PM
This is one reason I started the thread, to try and figure out how to sign the return.

It might be vanity that has some people injecting themselves into situations where they ought not (personation). I get the impression that you might be mistaking the 1040 (assessment process) with the bank-side redemption process applicable to checks/deposits. I would treat KARL ALAN DOE as distinct and separate from myself. If the mail is to KARL ALAN DOE, and I were acting in the capacity of agent, rep. or it was a d/b/a... Is it vanity that makes John Henry want to stick his whole head and body into JOHN HENRY DOE's affairs? Or would it be foolishness?

/s/ KARL ALAN DOE
By: Karl Alan, as Authorized Representative. ( Executor, Administrator, Treasurer...).

Alternative is Karl Alan for KARL ALAN DOE. I could not in good suggest signing the form "Karl Alan". Be not confused. One way.. or another. A workable model IMHO shouldn't be confusing although it might take adjusting to at times to go from lesser light into more marvelous light.


I have not gone through his taxes as with any and all suitors - I do not do taxes. The suitors do not expect that from me and the readers and members here should keep that in mind. To reiterate from my learned perspective I perceive the redemption for lawful money is taking the position of the creditor and thusly the tax liability disappears from underlying and related reasons--by operation of law.

Fair enough. Redemption for lawful money is more of a bank/treasury side. Not a revenue side matter. However, it may be that endorsing/accommodating private credit can lead to revenue ramifications. I 'strongly suspect' that the tax liability becomes moot in consequence of a redemptioner taking the position of being originator of the credit rather than not.

**

Back to Keith Alan: obviously they aren't paying you in gold coin, you do the redemption with the checks they give you whether they come from the U.S. Treasury or one of their many delegates (US charter banks).

David Merrill
04-20-13, 01:06 AM
A suitor on the brain trust feels that his signature on the redeemed lawful money return caused some problems with the IRS agent. I have been suggesting that if the mail and letterhead addresses JOHN H DOE to write exactly that on the return.

"JOHN H DOE" neatly written or better yet typed in the form.

ManOntheLand
06-22-13, 07:21 PM
I have been re-reading G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island and found the following anecdote about redeeming lawful money (apparently the anecdote described happened in 1947, when M.E. Slindee was acting Secretary of Treasury) on page 136:

Even the government cannot define money. Some years ago, a
Mr. A.F. Davis mailed a ten-dollar Federal Reserve Note to the
Treasury Department. In his letter of transmittal, he called attention
to the inscription on the bill which said that it was redeemable in
"lawful money," and then requested that such money be sent to
him. In reply, the Treasury merely sent two five-dollar bills from a
different printing series bearing a similar promise to pay.

Mr. Davis responded:

Dear Sir:
Receipt is hereby acknowledged of two $5.00 United States notes,
which we interpret from your letter are to be considered as lawful
money. Are we to infer from this that the Federal Reserve notes are not
lawful money?
I am enclosing one of the $5.00 notes which you sent to me. I note
that it states on the face, "The United States of America will pay to (he
bearer on demand five dollars." I am hereby demanding five dollars.


One week later, Mr. Davis received the following reply from Acting Treasurer, M.E. Slindee:

Dear Mr. Davis:
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 23rd,
transmitting one $5. United States Note with a demand for payment of
five dollars. You are advised that the term "lawful money" has not
been defined in federal legislation.... The term "lawful currency" no
longer has such special significance. The $5. United States Note
received with your letter of December 23rd is returned herewith.

The phrases "...will pay to the bearer on demand" and "... is
redeemable in lawful money" were deleted from our currency
altogether in 1964.

1. As quoted by C.V. Myers, Money and Energy: Weathering the Storm (Darien,
Connecticut: Soundview Books, 1980), pp. 161,163. Also by Lawrence S. Ritter, ed-,
Money and Economic Activity (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967), p. 33.

ManOntheLand
06-22-13, 07:42 PM
From another source, I found the purported letter from Treasury that accompanied the two $5 United States notes in reply to the demand for redemption of the $10 FRN:


December 11, 1947

Mr. A.F. Davis
12818 Colt Road
Cleveland 1, Ohio

Dear Mr. Davis,

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 9th with enclosure of one ten dollar Federal Reserve note.

In compliance with your request, two five-dollar United States notes are transmitted herewith.

Very truly yours,
M.E. Slindee,
Acting Treasurer

David Merrill
06-22-13, 08:44 PM
Thank you for sharing that. I had never known the source of the anecdote until now.

doug555
07-27-13, 06:01 PM
Lawful Money is Equitable Title to Labor-Credit Asset. (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_dHV5TWtxMkhRaG8/edit?usp=sharing)

EXACTLY... The forgiving is the for-giving (pre-PAYMENT) of labor as the credit of the Nation en-trusted to the Government-Usufructuaries-Trustees!

The Estate re-vests upon Infant Proof of Life (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_ZVpUam45MEZGMU0/edit?usp=sharing), and at that point the Living Beneficiary appears and the Trustees must perform said lawful money requests.

Usufructuary must give Security (Surety) to Owner (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_SFFDS1Z6S2xDT3M/edit?usp=sharing) to indemnify him/her. Said Surety is the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), given as a receipt for our indemnification.

My Proof of Life (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_cm83TVY5dGNraXc/edit?usp=sharing) now requires the Trustee to perform said indemnification, for example, honoring "EQUITABLE TITLE TRANSFERS" for true PAYMENT of debts/charges to COLB NAME account!



P.S. USUFRUCT and The Parable of the Landowner (Mt 21.33-41) (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_eGtwM3U2WGtZQWs/edit?usp=sharing) adds the spiritual dimension to this "calling"...

Notice that there is no corresponding CFR regulation to restrict anyone's method of demanding lawful money. I think that is VERY significant. The Parallel Table of Authorities (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ptoa/uscode/12) has no entry for 12 USC 411. This table's entries go in sequence from 12 USC section 391 to section 418. Section 411 is missing. This is confirmed at http://www.gpo.gov/help/parallel_table.txt, excerpted below:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Parallel Table]
[Revised as of January 1, 2011]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES

12 U.S.C. <---------------------------> Corresponding C.F.R.
================================================== =====
378............................................... .........12 Part 303
391....31 Parts 202, 203, 209, 210, 225, 240, 306, 317, 321, 341, 346,
351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 363, 375, 380
418............................................... .........31 Part 601
461........................................12 Parts 201, 204, 208, 217


Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, for example:

"lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)"

*** IMPORTANT *** Using this exact wording enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on the 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!! See more info at 1040 Help (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?844-1040-help&p=10099&viewfull=1#post10099) post where this post has also been added and highlighted as *** I M P O R T A N T ***.

Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? Even in their fiction fraud system.

One does not need to put it on any specific document or in any particular wording or even on every commercial transaction.

One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract. Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper lefthand corner of the document. This then stands as nunc pro tunc thereafter and forever as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) and is unrebuttable.

This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!

Robert Henry
07-28-13, 03:19 AM
You also bring to light why this Schedule (http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3932/1040supportingschedules.jpg) was refunded in full. - GROSS Paycheck.

David Merrill, it seems perhaps I have misunderstood. I was under the impression that attempting to get a refund for ALL deductions (Fed + State SDI/Med in addition to actual TAXES withheld) was asking for trouble. After all, i'm assuming these don't get paid to IRS (or do they?) so why would IRS be expected to re-imburse for them? Also, would effectively "opting out" of SS in this fashion negate the ability to claim the benefits that have already been paid in to the system from half a life of being ignorant of redemption?

Any clarification you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

ManOntheLand
07-28-13, 05:12 AM
David Merrill, it seems perhaps I have misunderstood. I was under the impression that attempting to get a refund for ALL deductions (Fed + State SDI/Med in addition to actual TAXES withheld) was asking for trouble. After all, i'm assuming these don't get paid to IRS (or do they?) so why would IRS be expected to re-imburse for them? Also, would effectively "opting out" of SS in this fashion negate the ability to claim the benefits that have already been paid in to the system from half a life of being ignorant of redemption?

Any clarification you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

I can't speak for David Merrill, but I will give you my two cents worth: I have observed that claiming refund of FICA on a tax return often leads to your return being routed to the "frivolous" department in Ogden Utah, simply because they are confused by the numbers and think you are claiming more refund than you paid in tax.

IRS is responsible for issuing refunds of FICA tax where appropriate. The Form 843 can be used to properly request a refund of "erroneously collected" FICA and is not subject to being declared "frivolous" under IRC 6702.

As for SSA benefits: under current rules, you are vested after 40 qualifying financial quarters of making contributions. The only advantage to continuing to contribute to FICA might be to increase your eventual (and very theoretical at this point) retirement benefit amount, as they base your benefit amount on your highest 40 quarters of earnings.

doug555
07-28-13, 01:53 PM
David Merrill, it seems perhaps I have misunderstood. I was under the impression that attempting to get a refund for ALL deductions (Fed + State SDI/Med in addition to actual TAXES withheld) was asking for trouble. After all, i'm assuming these don't get paid to IRS (or do they?) so why would IRS be expected to re-imburse for them? Also, would effectively "opting out" of SS in this fashion negate the ability to claim the benefits that have already been paid in to the system from half a life of being ignorant of redemption?

Any clarification you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

See post #31 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=10401&viewfull=1#post10401)

See post #32 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=10405&viewfull=1#post10405)

The above relays the logic and rationale based on law.

The proof in actuality is the confirmation of the above by 2 state governments and the federal government for the past 2 years, at least for me.

However, my situation and status may be one special profile that is being honored. The only thing "different" about me is that I have never registered to vote, and I have registered in the county a Proof of Life and a Solemn Act and Deed. And this is so, even though there is currently in place an Installment Agreement for back taxes, which by the way, is being paid with Lawful Money as well. And I am NOT a financial broker or in banking profession.

But I believe others on this site are getting refunds without proof of life or other declarations. I believe making a clear public record that creates substantive evidence of all transactions demanding lawful money is the key, all done in good faith reliance on 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2), AND on the Father and His Son, and the red line in the sand they commanded to be observed by all parties (including Satan) in this issue, namely Mt 22:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=mt+22%3A21&t=kjv).

Beware of becoming an unwitting tool of the Adversary by undermining and doubting the remedy provided by the Creator that He promised to provide to His People in 1 Cor 10:13 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=1+Cor+10%3A13&t=kjv).

Remember the words given to Joshua in Joshua 1:9 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Joshua+1%3A9&t=kjv), and to Peter by the Messiah in Mt 14:31.

So claim this promise of remedy. Be courageous. Have faith!

Peace.

Richierich
09-24-20, 02:23 PM
See post #31 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=10401&viewfull=1#post10401)

See post #32 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=10405&viewfull=1#post10405)

The above relays the logic and rationale based on law.

The proof in actuality is the confirmation of the above by 2 state governments and the federal government for the past 2 years, at least for me.


However, my situation and status may be one special profile that is being honored. The only thing "different" about me is that I have never registered to vote, and I have registered in the county a Proof of Life and a Solemn Act and Deed. And this is so, even though there is currently in place an Installment Agreement for back taxes, which by the way, is being paid with Lawful Money as well. And I am NOT a financial broker or in banking profession.

But I believe others on this site are getting refunds without proof of life or other declarations. I believe making a clear public record that creates substantive evidence of all transactions demanding lawful money is the key, all done in good faith reliance on 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2), AND on the Father and His Son, and the red line in the sand they commanded to be observed by all parties (including Satan) in this issue, namely Mt 22:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=mt+22%3A21&t=kjv).

Beware of becoming an unwitting tool of the Adversary by undermining and doubting the remedy provided by the Creator that He promised to provide to His People in 1 Cor 10:13 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=1+Cor+10%3A13&t=kjv).

Remember the words given to Joshua in Joshua 1:9 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Joshua+1%3A9&t=kjv), and to Peter by the Messiah in Mt 14:31.

So claim this promise of remedy. Be courageous. Have faith!

Peace.

Doug, as you can see I'm doing some digging and first want to thank you for your contributions here! I wanted to see if you could share with me more information on the Proof of Life and a Solemn Act and Deed and how to properly file these ?