hi everyone,
say you have a private business reprogramming computers and you only accept cash and dont use banks.
how would you convert the FRNs that youve earned this way to Lawful money?
thanks
hi everyone,
say you have a private business reprogramming computers and you only accept cash and dont use banks.
how would you convert the FRNs that youve earned this way to Lawful money?
thanks
One could write or stamp the demand on each bill.
But unless that cash is going to be deposited into a bank, I don't believe it's necessary.
but in this case, what is the best way to demand and then record your demand? to have a record of the newly lawful money for future transactions with that lawful money.
One could give a receipt stating he received lawful money, couldn't he?Originally Posted by george
hi Keith Alan, that was my first thought too. "PAID IN LAWFUL MONEY CASH IN FULL" but that is not technically a demand is it?
+ Keith Allen
I just got this explanation in my e-mail.
Its long but explains the subject so everyone can understand.
You might find what you are looking for in it.
Public Money vs. Private Credit
July 4, 1861 Abraham Lincoln re-convenes congress under an ‘extraordinary occasion’ that is technically still in-place today [Lincoln's order convening Congress was by proclamation set forth 15 April 1861]. It had adjourned sine die since March 28 1861 [by March 28, the southern congressmen had walked out of session. That, combined with uncertainty as to Lincoln's military intentions, led the remaining members of the 37th Congress to agree to adjourn without setting a day to reconvene — sine die means without day]. The congress today is still a [Lincoln convened, executive] de-facto congress. [To my knowledge, congress still adjourns sine-die, informing members of the re-convention date during the recess]
Twenty eight days prior to congress adjourning sine die, we find that the territory of Colorado was formed and would have taken 30 days to form properly. President Buchannan was actually lining up Colorado with the gold claims found in Aurora and Central City to be the war chest for prosecuting the war between the states [erroneously referred to by many as a civil war — which it was not] from the union side. Colorado was basically a union state.
President Lincoln got the election, so he moved into President Buchanan’s plans. The first territorial governor, governor Gilpen, issued notes. These are the predecessors to the United States notes called green-backs. If we take a look at the treasury, their website, we find this particular page regarding legal tender
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq...altender.shtml
Legal tender status. Now pay particular notice to the bottom of the page:
United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.
[Article published by Freedom League 1984:]
When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 US 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example: suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion.
To finance the appropriation, Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air [actually, created upon a presumption — see David's comment below] and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury’s checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed.
Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed.
Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned. However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters.
Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1914 ed.), is “a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own”.
This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.
In Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty — i.e., charge or fee — which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance) Bouvier, p 459.
Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated, the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation.
The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. “A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations”: 50 Am.Jur.: 12 p 28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur.: 33. pg. 58, 59.
The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 US 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).
A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.
Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law “relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large.”It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 158 US 601 (1895), theSupreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment.
However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank, issuing private credit and currency, but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated.Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title. [In other words, you cannot really 'buy' anything with Federal Reserve Notes.]
Today, we have two competing monetary systems: The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States Notes and coins.One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: United States v. Berg, 636 F.2d 203 (1980).
If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit — e.g. bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc — voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file.
A Taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc, and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.
According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution. We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government.
The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government is founded upon private law and funded by private credit. What we really have is private government. Federal Agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to bankers via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the UN, foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution.
The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution. Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 Am.Rep. 39, Cooley, Prin. Const. Law, ch IV.
Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund. It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution.
The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy. The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed.
Never forget that private credit [central bank credit] is funding the destruction of our country.
[Reprinted from 'Freedom League', Sept/Oct 1984]
By demanding non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes at the time of cashing any paycheck, you’re avoiding the taxable event:
Redeemed in lawful money Pursuant to 12 USC 411
:True Name: dba LEGAL NAME
You’re avoiding the activity — or the verb — of endorsement. [Actually, I believe it is a restrictive endorsement because it 'restricts' how the bank may negotiate the instrument.]
Negotiable instruments can be exchanged for other and presumably higher forms of currency. So a nonnegotiable Federal Reserve Note is a way of saying that you’re getting United States Notes instead. This is domestic emergency currency, instead of foreign emergency currency (Federal Reserve Notes). The problem with this non-endorsement as far as the bank is concerned, is that the bearer of the check is not pledging any credit; any private credit behind the check.
[The Story of Money — Federal Reserve Bank of New York]
The only bond behind the check is the presumed goods or services, and the full amount has to come out of the bank account of the drafter — whoever drafted the check. This means that the bank cannot do any fractional lending; for every $10 that’s put into the vault, they can’t lend out $90 more. And so this is what it means in the article by it diminishes the private credit. You’re actually redeeming the private credit from the Federal Reserve and putting it into public money form — non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes. They still look like Federal Reserve Notes…
****************************************
*************************
*******
So there you have it; Income tax is a tax for using PRIVATE 'MONEY", i.e. CREDIT extended to Congress by Federal Reserve. And what do you think will happen when you start using CREDIT that Congress got from the FedRes, and is liable for? Do you think that Congress will be paying interest on that debt, when YOU are USING IT? NOPE, they pass that obligation on to YOU, since you're the last user of that credit. And that's why they established the Internal Revenue Service; to COLLECT the interest/fee for use of PRIVATE FedRes credit from YOU, since you're the one using it!
Don't wanna be liable for that? Then STOP USING that FRN DEBT instead of real money! And the 12 USC 411 demand, is the MAIN step everyone needs to take in order to return to the REAL law of the Republic, where the people are sovereign, rather than being gov't subjects and paying private bankers for the use of their credit.
Oh, and I hope everyone realizes that the more FRN debt notes are in circulation, the HIGHER the national debt. And the higher the national debt, the FEWER FREEDOMS there are in a nation. So you can whine, shout or protest all you want, but as long as the ND keeps on increasing, your freedoms are going to keep disappearing. So it's YOUR CHOICE, you can either wait until you're a total slave before doing anything, or you can START NOW, by making DEMANDS for LAWFUL MONEY.
And the latest demand for lawful money that we now use as endorsement on paychecks is:
Special Deposit.
Demand is made for lawful money,
pursuant to Title 12 USC 411.
Jaro Henry Smith; dba JARO HENRY SMITH
How about when writing a check -- cross out "the order of"? Anything else?
I think it technically is a demand. I certainly don't want unlawful money, and I won't accept it. I'm demanding payment in lawful money for goods provided or services rendered. The receipt is for the buyers protection, in case I forget he paid.
Last edited by Keith Alan; 09-01-14 at 11:42 AM.
You mean for buying a car with cash, stuff like that?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote