That is an interesting perspective.
Printable View
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!
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
Thank you for posting here.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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-cen...al-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/r...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.)
Logically, there is probably only $300 million in gold backing the certificates that back the notes.
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.
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?
"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-h...-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.inf...blic_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? 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 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 - 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. 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.
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 ....
LOL Oh my gosh.
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 has done a very good job of documenting how one becomes a taxpayer person via SSN, W-2, etc.
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.
Thank you for that Treefarmer;
I think this photo might better amplify your point.
Suitors are the wealthiest people I know for sure. They understand wealth as energy and that the only thing anybody can truly own is what they can create - meaning ego. So it comes down to perceptions.
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2...shopcastle.jpg
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.
"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]
Thanks!
I am hoping to relate that somehow to this Treasury vault in Colorado Springs at the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle.
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/r...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.
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...?
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...tstamptorn.jpg
Jethro, I took the initiative and created a mockup of the proposedscam... banknote:
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.
NO! I am no bible scholar.
BTW, I know of a nice Club 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."