12USC411 does not exist.

Printable View

11-11-14, 07:01 PM
Chex

12USC411 does not exist.

We had an opportunity to meet with Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP partner Kirk A. Pinkerton

Mr. Pinkerton has substantial experience in both federal and state tax matters, corporate law, health care law, employee benefits and business litigation. He has implemented stock and asset sales, acquisitions and mergers of client businesses.

Pinkerton said there is no “lawful money” there is only income.

We showed the “lawful money” stamp on the bill , Pinkerton said it doesn’t matter its income "You have to pay the tax."

I forgot to mention he said we were "tax protesters."

David Lee "Dave" Camp won’t entertain it. Visclosky said take it to tax court and let a judge "interpret" the law.

Judicial Watch Thomas Fitton – President, Paul Orfanedes – Director of Litigation, Board of Directors Secretary & Treasurer, Chris Farrell – Director of Research and Investigation, Geoff Lyon won’t address it.

The Institute for Justice Institute President Chip Mellor won’t address it, the speakers won’t address it, but you can donate

Because they all work for her

The only way you can get lawful money is if a judge "interprets" in your favor doesn't matter what The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 51 titles has to say. even if Congress writes the laws, the Executive carries them out, and the Judiciary decides controversies that arise under those laws between real people or institutions with something genuine in dispute.

Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy, looks at how the upcoming Obamacare case in the Supreme Court is a classic one of interpreting statutes. http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-c...-politics.html "The Constitution, however, provides no guidance to the federal courts on the right way, or wrong way, to read a statute.

But there is a constitutional principle that is very much at work when a court sets out to interpret a law; it is the structural concept of separation of powers."

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...2142#post12142
11-11-14, 08:56 PM
David Merrill

That it exists proves that it exists.
11-11-14, 09:06 PM
walter

Ask Kirk A. Pinkerton for the case law he is using that brought him to that conclusion.
11-11-14, 09:13 PM
Chex

Quote:

Originally Posted by walter

Ask Kirk A. Pinkerton for the case law he is using that brought him to that conclusion.

He was like a deer looking into headlights, he was lost for words. Cant image how his other clients were treated. We were called tax protesters and was laughing in our face.
11-11-14, 11:04 PM
Jethro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chex

Pinkerton said there is no “lawful money” there is only income.

We showed the “lawful money” stamp on the bill , Pinkerton said it doesn’t matter its income "You have to pay the tax."

Notably absent is any explanation as to WHY there is no "lawful money". They can laugh and mock all they want, but no evidence = they're just talking out of their fundament. (But they also know who's buttering their bread).
11-11-14, 11:37 PM
Chex

I told Pinkerton in this free consultation that the Federal Rules of Evidence (902) states the relevance that depends on a fact and I gave him a copy of the United States Code which I sure this law firm has in their legal zoom library a copy of 12 U.S. Code § 411 that states “Federal reserve notes of the Federal Reserve System through the Federal reserve agents the said notes shall be obligations of the United States and Federal reserve banks 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.

I said IRS refunds are on Treasury Department checks. I gave him 12 U.S. Code § 95a (2) - Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

Its income and will be taxed no matter who, how or why said Pinkerton.

So I guess the laws of the United States don’t mean jack to attorney or a judge?
11-11-14, 11:58 PM
David Merrill

1 Attachment(s)

I like to use the stamp on cash. That has caused a lot of speculation that I might think I am converting the cash into lawful money by putting the stamp on the paper cash.

I do it so that people will get curious and look up the law.
11-12-14, 12:59 AM
Michael Joseph

One who sleeps on his rights has no rights. It exists in an unrebutted claim. I gave them 60 days when I only had to give 21 and yet noone showed. Apparently BAAL was taking a bathroom break?

Regards,
MJ
11-12-14, 05:24 AM
Chex

Met a BAAL child today
11-12-14, 10:53 AM
doug555

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chex

We had an opportunity to meet with Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP partner Kirk A. Pinkerton

Mr. Pinkerton has substantial experience in both federal and state tax matters, corporate law, health care law, employee benefits and business litigation. He has implemented stock and asset sales, acquisitions and mergers of client businesses.

Pinkerton said there is no “lawful money” there is only income.

We showed the “lawful money” stamp on the bill , Pinkerton said it doesn’t matter its income "You have to pay the tax."

I forgot to mention he said we were "tax protesters."

David Lee "Dave" Camp won’t entertain it. Visclosky said take it to tax court and let a judge "interpret" the law.

Judicial Watch Thomas Fitton – President, Paul Orfanedes – Director of Litigation, Board of Directors Secretary & Treasurer, Chris Farrell – Director of Research and Investigation, Geoff Lyon won’t address it.

The Institute for Justice Institute President Chip Mellor won’t address it, the speakers won’t address it, but you can donate

Because they all work for her

The only way you can get lawful money is if a judge "interprets" in your favor doesn't matter what The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 51 titles has to say. even if Congress writes the laws, the Executive carries them out, and the Judiciary decides controversies that arise under those laws between real people or institutions with something genuine in dispute.

Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy, looks at how the upcoming Obamacare case in the Supreme Court is a classic one of interpreting statutes. http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-c...-politics.html "The Constitution, however, provides no guidance to the federal courts on the right way, or wrong way, to read a statute.

But there is a constitutional principle that is very much at work when a court sets out to interpret a law; it is the structural concept of separation of powers."

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...2142#post12142

I believe the SOURCE of 12 USC 411 stems from the INTENT in HJR 192 to provide a real remedy to mitigate McFadden's charges for theft and treason, which is stated as "discharge upon payment, dollar for dollar".

12 USC 411 is merely the CODIFICATION of this INTENT.

Lawful money is required for PAYMENT.

Ask the attorney about this!
11-12-14, 02:09 PM
David Merrill

Payment was in gold until 1933. But I get your point. I think you have described the reason Congress cannot get rid of Title 12 USC §411 as much as attorneys would like to.
11-12-14, 03:38 PM
Chex

When Pinkerton was asked what is a dollar he said you take a one hundred dollar bill and cash it for one hundred singles it’s the same thing.

The word "dollar" is one of the words in the first paragraph of Section 9 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. In that context, "dollars" is a reference to the Spanish milled dollar, a coin that had a monetary value of 8 Spanish units of currency, or reales.

In 1792 the U.S. Congress adopted legislation titled An act establishing a mint, and regulating the Coins of the United States.
Section 9 of that act authorized the production of various coins, including "DOLLARS OR UNITS—each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver".

Section 20 of the act provided, "That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars, or units... and that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation".
In other words, this act designated the United States dollar as the unit of currency of the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar

People are confused on this point because of the insidious manner in which FRNs "evolved" - actually, degenerated is a more appropriate verb - from the late 1920s until today.

FRNs of Series 1928 through Series 1950E carried the obligation "The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand [some number of] dollars.”
Prior to 1934, the notes carried the inscription "Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.”

After 1934, the notes carried the inscription "this note * * * is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank" (post-1934).

Starting with Series 1963, the words "will pay to the bearer on demand" no longer appear; and each FRN simply states a particular denomination in "dollars.” http://www.constitution.org/mon/what_is_a_dollar.htm

United States coins. The situation with coinage is more complex, but equally (if not more) confusing. The United States Code provides for three different types of coinage denominated in "dollars": namely, base- metallic coinage, gold coinage, and silver coinage.

(1) The base-metallic coinage consists of "a dollar coin,” weighing "8.1 grams,” "a half dollar coin,” weighing "11.34 grams"; "a quarter coin,” weighing "5.67 grams": and "a dime coin,” weighing "2.268 grams.”8 All of these coins are composed of copper and nickel.9 The weights of the dime, the quarter, and the half dollar are in the correct arithmetical proportions, the one to each of the others.10 But the "dollar" is disproportionately light (or the other coins disproportionately heavy). In this series of base metallic coins, then, the questions naturally arise: Is the "dollar" a cupro-nickel coin weighing "8.1 grams"? Or is it two cupro- nickel coins (or four or ten coins) collectively weighing 22.68 grams? Or is it both? Or is it neither, but something else altogether, to which the weights of these coins are irrelevant?

(2) Similarly, the gold coinage consists of "[a] fifty dollar gold coin" that "weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of fine gold"; "[a] twenty-five dollar gold coin" that "contains one-half ounce of fine gold"; "[a] ten dollar gold coin" that "contains one fourth ounce of fine gold"; and "[a] five dollar gold coin" that "contains one tenth ounce of fine gold.”11 The "fifty dollar,” "twenty-five dollar,” and "five dollar" coins are in the correct arithmetical proportions each to the others. But the "ten dollar" coin is not. Therefore, is a "dollar" one-fiftieth or one-fortieth of an ounce of gold? Or both? Or neither?
The present monetary statutes do not define the “dollar” intelligibly.
a. Federal Reserve Notes. Most people mistake the Federal Reserve Note (FRN) “dollar bill” for a “dollar.” But no statute defines or ever defined the “one dollar” FRN as the “dollar” or even a “dollar.” Moreover, the United States Code provides that FRNs “shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States . . . or at any Federal Reserve bank.”3Thus, if FRNs are not themselves “lawful money,” they cannot be “dollars,” the units in which all “United States money is expressed.”

b. United States coins. The situation with coinage is equally confusing. The United States Code provides for base-metallic coinage, gold coinage, and silver coinage, all denominated in “dollars.” The base-metallic coinage includes “a dollar coin,” weighing “8.1 grams,” and composed of copper and nickel.4The gold coinage includes a “fifty dollar gold coin” that “weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of fine gold.”5Finally, the silver coinage consists of a coin that is inscribed “One Dollar,” weighs “31.103 grams,” and contains one ounce of “.999 fine silver.”6What is the rational relationship between this “dollar” of 31.103 grams of silver, a “fifty- dollar” coin containing 33.931 grams of gold alloy, and a “dollar” containing “8.1 grams” of base metals? Obviously, these are not the amounts of the metals that exchange against each other in the free market—that is, the different weights of different metals do not reflect equivalent purchasing powers. So, on what theory are each of these disparate weights, and purchasing powers, equally “dollars”?

c. Currency of “equal purchasing power.” The United States Code mandates that the latter question should not even be capable of being asked. http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/what-is-a-dollar/

2012 RON PAUL vs. BEN BERNANKE -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hepi...layer_embedded
11-13-14, 04:49 AM
allodial

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chex

...a. Federal Reserve Notes. Most people mistake the Federal Reserve Note (FRN) “dollar bill” for a “dollar.” But no statute defines or ever defined the “one dollar” FRN as the “dollar” or even a “dollar.” Moreover, the United States Code provides that FRNs “shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States . . . or at any Federal Reserve bank.”3Thus, if FRNs are not themselves “lawful money,” they cannot be “dollars,” the units in which all “United States money is expressed.”

It might make more sense in view of each Federal Reserve Bank being a clearinghouse and the FRN being a clearinghouse certificate with the 'cashout' and local currency of that clearinghouse being U.S. dollars. The confusion in the United States being a term or name for both a singularity called "the United States" and also for a plurality of states is another issue. The FRNs are for banks in 'the District'--this is made clear.

What do you do when you leave the Casino? You exchange your chips for 'real money' (i.e. you redeem them).
11-13-14, 11:58 AM
David Merrill

The amusing part is that the stock certificate is designed to depreciate over time. People are fools to even walk into such a casino!
11-13-14, 01:20 PM
Keith Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The amusing part is that the stock certificate is designed to depreciate over time. People are fools to even walk into such a casino!

I think it's greed that induces people to enter. Greed and ignorance. The temptation of being able to buy things with inflated currency - before that inflation becomes known and prices are changed to reflect it - is just too great.
11-13-14, 01:36 PM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Alan

I think it's greed that induces people to enter. Greed and ignorance. The temptation of being able to buy things with inflated currency - before that inflation becomes known and prices are changed to reflect it - is just too great.

looks to me like the mind has been put to bed and the body [flesh] is ruling the house. This is akin to the five lords of the Philistines [five senses] ruling the earth. I suppose folks think that things will bring joy, peace, contentment and happiness. Unfortunately those only come with purpose. A man told me once that I was a success because I was working toward my goal. I now see the wisdom in that statement. I am happiest in the work. While the fruits of the work are pleasant the work itself gives me purpose.

the system is erected on pacifying the people into a false contentment - it is like a cistern that requires new water once it goes dry. Purpose is a spring. Until then the house will be filled with vanity in things obtained - a house filled up with useless things.

An implied trust is built upon discourse. Why would I ask a question if I don't trust your answer? When the attorney general tried to tell me what I was to do by way of "friendly advise" my response is "I have no trust in you".

I can govern my affairs.

Regards,
MJ
11-13-14, 02:49 PM
David Merrill

Confidence = competence.

I find that through biofeedback my pineal gland will release dimethyltryptamine on command. Meanwhile many cities still load up the drinking water with calcium flouride, turning people's pineal glands into bone.

That is the heart of commercial priestcraft, render a people to accept that prophecy is so scarce they actually go through the expense to record Prophets and even renew the parchments, word for word over the centuries.
11-13-14, 05:01 PM
allodial
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The amusing part is that the stock certificate is designed to depreciate over time. People are fools to even walk into such a casino!

At least in 1964 you could go from the casino to the State of Nevada (a post Civil War "State" (organized district?) nonetheless)--you could get silver coin. Eventually thanks to Nixon & co., you could (from 1971 and after) hope to go from the casino to the nearest Federal Reserve District.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...9&d=1384318207

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...2&d=1375038552

Related:
11-13-14, 06:00 PM
Chex

Reminds me of the Old Pancake. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Comstock_Lode.aspx and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining_in_Nevada
11-13-14, 09:36 PM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Meanwhile many cities still load up the drinking water with calcium flouride, turning people's pineal glands into bone.

not to toot my own horn but that is exactly why I got into the water business. Years ago when I practiced as a professional engineer a colleague and I wrote a local municipality demanding to know why they insist on flouridation of the water supply. After some inconsequential responses from the front line know nothings - we approached the city attorney. He of course fell into he works for the city. Which is a way of saying this is a closed loop here boys. So we persisted to the city manager. Who then decided to answer our RFI. He was so very instructional as to say "it is policy of the State". So we wrote the State. BIG SURPRISE we were stone walled by an attorney with the same ole routine: "I cannot give you advise, I work for the State".

IMO I see the STATE as no different than WALMART or GMAC or any other corporation. So then why would I want to purchase water that is IMO contaminated with poison? So I got into the water game. See my signature below. I work as a civil engineer or did at one time and I designed water treatment and collection facilities. I know the "minimal" measures to treat water and the pros and cons of each treatment. Which is why I purify all of our drinking water and strip the chlorine out of all of our shower water. The skin being the largest organ - do a little study on chlorine and the third reich. They used chlorine to PACIFY the prisoners.

Now then why would I make any filings if I don't have an obligation to file?

Regards,
MJ
11-14-14, 01:22 AM
Mark Allan
Quote:
Originally Posted by allodial

At least in 1964 you could go from the casino to the State of Nevada (a post Civil War "State" (organized district?) nonetheless)--you could get silver coin. Eventually thanks to Nixon & co., you could (from 1971 and after) hope to go from the casino to the nearest Federal Reserve District.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...9&d=1384318207

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...2&d=1375038552

Related:

The Gaming Tokens of 1965
Casino Chips vs American Currency
New World Banking Order?
As Chex so fully describes, the dollar is the unit of account.
The dollar is, in fact, a measurement, like an inch, a gallon, an acre...

I am trying to understand how a "dollar" can be priced at $1.29 per ounce, {as shown in the article clipping}?
If a dollar is a unit of measure, & a dollar is 371.25 grains of fine silver, how can it have any other "value" like ~ its equal to $1.29?
I say its equal to 371.15 grains of fine silver, Period.

Anything spoken beyond that is nonsense. The dollar can have no relative value. It has already been stated --> in law.

One could say a gallon of gasoline is priced at $1.29 dollar(s).
As the monetary unit of measure ALL OTHER items must be priced relative to the dollar, but that dollar could never be priced relative to itself.

And so today, when somebody states "...the dollar gained ground against the Yen today...", its like saying the "the inch had a much better showing against the yard, today!".
Nonsense.

Or am I missing something?
11-14-14, 01:26 AM
allodial

The U.S. dollar in terms of lawful money is defined per the Coinage Act of 1792. All currency is a unit of measure. Relatedly, a "charge" is an "amount" or a "quantity". As for cyclic redundancies, circular arguments or confusion caused by Congress or by Banksters or by whoever--I'm unaware of making apologies for that. One old treatise suggested that despite the term dollar, pound, peso--any payment in money is effectively 'universal' (i.e. exchange rates).

It might be worth noting the difference in laws in the territories of the United States and in the organic states which formed the United States. Each Federal Reserve District is likely construed to be a territory of the United States. Also, as I have indicated in private discussions, the British pounds sterling a standard currency in the colonies and possibly before the Coinage Act of 1792.
11-14-14, 01:30 AM
David Merrill

That discrepancy describes what brought on the need for Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements.
11-14-14, 01:32 AM
allodial

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That discrepancy describes what brought on the need for Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements.

Exactly. It all adds up...or does it? ;) On a Plantation, the servants are still servants no matter how much they Monopoly Money or Cottonbux they pile up. In all of their glee, they still might wonder (and giggle a little ) as to why the Master or his heirs might have such long, sad faces and walk around with holes in their shoes. Did he forget who he is? Did they forget who the are ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Allan

One could say a gallon of gasoline is priced at $1.29 dollar(s). As the monetary unit of measure ALL OTHER items must be priced relative to the dollar, but that dollar could never be priced relative to itself.

And so today, when somebody states "...the dollar gained ground against the Yen today...", its like saying the "the inch had a much better showing against the yard, today!".
Nonsense.

Or am I missing something?

In terms of balance of trade between "countries", it could be significant. On that note, the idea of speculating in currency seems a bit sketchy. However, IMHO to really get a grip on money one ought to comprehend seigniorage and is significance.