Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 137

Thread: Treasury Letter from 1984

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by ag maniac View Post
    Click "Reply", under the text box click "Go Advanced", top row of icons click the "paperclip", top right of new pop-up click "add files"


    Don't forget to sanitize doc before upload --> you don't want a valentines card from me in 6 weeks
    ag maniac, thank you for the quick lesson for attachments! After sanitizing I will attach the doc in my reply to Doug555's last reply to my post, of which you greciously replied to here.

    Most grateful,

    imm

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    IMO, the first banking record created with the "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" on it is when you have admissible evidence of breaking your contract with the FED through usage of FRNs.

    County records I believe are also evidence... however, subsequent inadvertent usage of FRNs re-establishes the FED contract, IMO.

    The Affidavit in the county record memorializes the exact date when you created that first 12 USC 411 demand on record with the bank.

    I think you have it now!

    Now, just go write yourself a check and deposit it today, Dec 26, 2014, with the above exact demand on both instruments under your name & address on the front, and then go out and celebrate!

    You are now free... you have just "broken the bonds"!

    Thanks for your patience and perseverance!

    BTW: I continue to write this exact wording on all my checks and deposit slips, just to establish a "preponderance of evidence" in case it is ever needed.
    Doug555,

    My replies, a few last questions, and a pasted sanitized text version of the letter sent to the Treasury and recorded at the County almost 2 years ago. Look forward to your/anyone's review and comments.


    Doug555: "County records I believe are also evidence... however, subsequent inadvertent usage of FRNs re-establishes the FED contract, IMO."
    IMM: The pasted 'Treasury letter' has no mention of 'all transactions' and implies or otherwise stipulates RILM of 'Net Pay'. Therefore, all prior RILM attempts are null and void until new Affidavit is sent and recorded effective Jan 1, 2015. Agree?

    Doug555: Now, just go write yourself a check and deposit it today, Dec 26, 2014, with the above exact demand on both instruments under your name & address on the front, and then go out and celebrate!"
    IMM: I recognize handwriting (not stamping) '411 and 95a(2)' on the front of checks/deposit slips. I currently have been stamping the '411' language on deposit slips and BACK of checks (the stamp is my signature and the 'standard USC 411 language' demand). As for the required signature on the BACK of the check, is there harm in continuing to use my stamp (although w/o the 95a(2) language, just USC 411), or since the front of both deposit instruments (check/slip) are in proper accordance with RILM can I simply handwrite my signature as normal on the back?

    Doug555: You are now free... you have just "broken the bonds"! Thanks for your patience and perseverance!
    IMM: Doug555 and everyone on this great Forum, THANK YOU for you patience, guidance and perseverance! ...

    I welcome anyone's thoughts on my 'empty RILM demand from the Treasury' letter below (sent/recorded almost 2 years ago) of which I have pasted from the original. As you stated Doug555, perhaps this is a good lesson for what NOT to do, and perhaps you can emphasize that in your reply as a reference to this letter assuming it is completely ineffective as a RILM evidence record, of which I believe has been proven true, unfortunately. I may add a line to the new Demand Affidavit to be recorded at County, that "the new Demand (effective Jan 1, 2015), null and voids any prior demand made by me effective the date of this new Demand, Jan 1, 2015". Or something to that effect.

    Thankful,

    imm



    02/19/2013
    Prepared by, and Return to:
    ‘imm’

    Department of the Treasury
    1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20220*
    Attn: Secretary of the Treasury

    Re: Lawful Money Demand


    Dear Secretary of the Treasury,

    THIS IS NOTICE TO ONE AND ALL that I, ‘imm’, a man, hereby make a DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY pursuant to Title 12 USC 411 for redeeming all monies that are deposited into and withdrawn from any bank or depository institution, as performed by me or for me; hereinafter ‘events’.

    Events include but are not limited to the following: direct-deposit from any company paying me in such manner; check cashing or deposit; cash deposits; bank cards; ATM; debits or withdrawals or payments; electronic transfers, or any other means relating to all accounts I have at any financial institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act. Said events are subject to a superseding DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY with the express intent to redeem any private credit instrument into lawful money pursuant to, albeit absent any benefit or privilege from, Title 12 Section 411 of the United States Code.

    This demand is made pursuant to law binding all parties subject to Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, now codified at Title 12 United States § 411. This demand is made for the express purpose of exercising my remedy under the law and to rebut the false and presumptive notion that I voluntarily endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. I expressly do not endorse private Federal Reserve credit in any form.

    This Notice also applies retroactively to any existing accounts I have at any institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act. It was only by fraudulent omission that I was prevented from invoking the remedy available within 12 USC §411 from the start of any relationship I have made with any financial institution subject to the Federal Reserve Act.

    Any current or previous contractual obligation I may have made due to the fraudulent omission of the remedy found in Title 12 USC §411 is unequivocally subordinate to this Notice and Demand letter, and, shall not be construed to modify any provision contained within this Notice and Demand letter.
    I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

    ________________________________
    ‘imm’ – All rights reserved

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Doug555,

    My replies, a few last questions, and a pasted sanitized text version of the letter sent to the Treasury and recorded at the County almost 2 years ago. Look forward to your/anyone's review and comments.




    IMM: The pasted 'Treasury letter' has no mention of 'all transactions' and implies or otherwise stipulates RILM of 'Net Pay'. Therefore, all prior RILM attempts are null and void until new Affidavit is sent and recorded effective Jan 1, 2015. Agree?

    IMO, this Affidavit is what should be recorded, AFTER you have a copy of your check and deposit with your demand on it showing on your next bank statement, as proof that it is in the bank's records. The date on that is when your demand starts. I do not send a copy of this Affidavit to any government agency or bank since I believe it is unnecessary being redundant, and probably discarded by them. As long as the IRS has been accepting the non-hearsay bank records that I upload to Google Drive for their inspection, that is all that matters to me for now.


    IMM: I recognize handwriting (not stamping) '411 and 95a(2)' on the front of checks/deposit slips. I currently have been stamping the '411' language on deposit slips and BACK of checks (the stamp is my signature and the 'standard USC 411 language' demand). As for the required signature on the BACK of the check, is there harm in continuing to use my stamp (although w/o the 95a(2) language, just USC 411), or since the front of both deposit instruments (check/slip) are in proper accordance with RILM can I simply handwrite my signature as normal on the back?

    IMO, the Back of the check is Private (belongs to FRS). I believe adding restrictive conditions on the Back is impinging on their domain. I only sign on the Back as I did before. That's all. Remember, there is no CFR regulation for 12 USC 411 specifying HOW & WHEN & WHERE this demand is made. So I put it on the Front, the Public side of the instruments, IMO. Not one bank has ever complained to me about my demand.


    IMM: Doug555 and everyone on this great Forum, THANK YOU for you patience, guidance and perseverance! ...

    I welcome anyone's thoughts on my 'empty RILM demand from the Treasury' letter below (sent/recorded almost 2 years ago) of which I have pasted from the original. As you stated Doug555, perhaps this is a good lesson for what NOT to do, and perhaps you can emphasize that in your reply as a reference to this letter assuming it is completely ineffective as a RILM evidence record, of which I believe has been proven true, unfortunately. I may add a line to the new Demand Affidavit to be recorded at County, that "the new Demand (effective Jan 1, 2015), null and voids any prior demand made by me effective the date of this new Demand, Jan 1, 2015". Or something to that effect.

    IMO, keep it simple to avoid any possible rebuttal by them. Use this Affidavit. Edit its wording as you see fit.


    Thankful,

    imm

    See above in blue...
    Last edited by doug555; 12-27-14 at 03:19 PM.

  4. #54
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    Thank you for this major theological discussion - "How many LM angels can dance on the head of a 1040 pin?"
    You should consider submitting your work to the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR).

    Here's the bottom line.... the IRS runs away screaming from LAWFUL MONEY tax returns.
    I say that based on my 7 yrs as a successful nontaxpayer and eyewitness to 5 LM tax filings with no subsequent CP letters nor friv pens. In fact LAWFUL MONEY isn't on the Friv Pen List... take a look. Here's the glaring omisson: CONTENTION: Lawful money is not income.
    It's not there because it's true.

    Lawful Money on a tax return is like kryptonite or contagion to the IRS. They run away screaming. They'll give you what you want and hope you won't tell anyone. Been there, done it. Whether you take a 1 cent or 100% earnings LM deduction doesn't seem to matter to the IRS. They won't block it. It makes sense they wouldn't too. Can you imagine an IRS auditor asking:
    "about this deduction, exactly what date/amount did you demand lawful money?"
    "Why should that matter?"
    "Oh, well, it doesn't really. I'm just a... trying to, um, understand your reasoning... nevermind then."

    You think a black robe is gonna allow a lawful money discussion in his courtroom? On the record? HA! Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it. Take it from me, the first to determine and announce the LH forum was fully infiltrated & dominated by quatloser agents. Fake users, fake questions, fake discussions.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    Thank you for this major theological discussion - "How many LM angels can dance on the head of a 1040 pin?"
    You should consider submitting your work to the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR).

    Here's the bottom line.... the IRS runs away screaming from LAWFUL MONEY tax returns.
    I say that based on my 7 yrs as a successful nontaxpayer and eyewitness to 5 LM tax filings with no subsequent CP letters nor friv pens. In fact LAWFUL MONEY isn't on the Friv Pen List... take a look. Here's the glaring omisson: CONTENTION: Lawful money is not income.
    It's not there because it's true.

    Lawful Money on a tax return is like kryptonite or contagion to the IRS. They run away screaming. They'll give you what you want and hope you won't tell anyone. Been there, done it. Whether you take a 1 cent or 100% earnings LM deduction doesn't seem to matter to the IRS. They won't block it. It makes sense they wouldn't too. Can you imagine an IRS auditor asking:
    "about this deduction, exactly what date/amount did you demand lawful money?"
    "Why should that matter?"
    "Oh, well, it doesn't really. I'm just a... trying to, um, understand your reasoning... nevermind then."

    You think a black robe is gonna allow a lawful money discussion in his courtroom? On the record? HA! Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it. Take it from me, the first to determine and announce the LH forum was fully infiltrated & dominated by quatloser agents. Fake users, fake questions, fake discussions.
    You're welcome... real LH Forum agent...

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Doug555,

    Some follow-up here if I may.


    IMO, this Affidavit is what should be recorded, AFTER you have a copy of your check and deposit with your demand on it showing on your next bank statement, as proof that it is in the bank's records. The date on that is when your demand starts. I do not send a copy of this Affidavit to any government agency or bank since I believe it is unnecessary being redundant, and probably discarded by them. As long as the IRS has been accepting the non-hearsay bank records that I upload to Google Drive for their inspection, that is all that matters to me for now.
    I thought the idea was to record the 'intent' to RILM prior to one's actual execution. Where for example, I record with the County Registrar my demand effective Jan 1, 2015. My first 2015 check is RILM on Jan 7. The Demand was made public record a week earlier therefore I'm 'covered' because my RILM occurred after that public-record date (evidenced later by RILM checks/slips/etc). Are you saying the date on the deposit slip (and evidenced on your next bank statement) is THE date the AFFIDAVIT should reference? The AFFIDAVIT (recorded AFTER the actual first Demand date) would therefore reference a 'retro-active' date back to the actual first Demand date (evidenced by RILM checks/slips/etc). Correct? If true, please see my question re. "nunc pro tunc" below. If not, please clarify.


    Regarding the example AFFIDAVIT (saw that earlier - thanks!), specifically "nunc pro tunc". It appears this term may only be executed/enforced by a court order. If I'm understanding correctly, wouldn't 'we' (common man, not in a court situation), be prohibited from using this language in an AFFIDAVIT? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding this, but perhaps you or someone could explain this. This goes to my first question above about 'THE' RILM Demand date that should be referenced in the AFFIDAVIT.


    Also, after getting my AFFIDAVIT witnessed/stamped by the Notary, is it possible to get the Notary's Certification at the County during the same time as recording the AFFIDAVIT there? I'm guessing that's too much work for them at once. Maybe a 'work order/application/request' for the Notary Certification must be submitted to be mailed to you later. Then the trip back to record THAT. Please clarify if I'm misunderstanding.

    Learning a lot here. Much appreciated.

    P.S. To JohnnyCash: Thanks for your insights over at CB's and here.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    Thank you for this major theological discussion - "How many LM angels can dance on the head of a 1040 pin?"
    You should consider submitting your work to the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR).

    Here's the bottom line.... the IRS runs away screaming from LAWFUL MONEY tax returns.
    I say that based on my 7 yrs as a successful nontaxpayer and eyewitness to 5 LM tax filings with no subsequent CP letters nor friv pens. In fact LAWFUL MONEY isn't on the Friv Pen List... take a look. Here's the glaring omisson: CONTENTION: Lawful money is not income.
    It's not there because it's true.

    Lawful Money on a tax return is like kryptonite or contagion to the IRS. They run away screaming. They'll give you what you want and hope you won't tell anyone. Been there, done it. Whether you take a 1 cent or 100% earnings LM deduction doesn't seem to matter to the IRS. They won't block it. It makes sense they wouldn't too. Can you imagine an IRS auditor asking:
    "about this deduction, exactly what date/amount did you demand lawful money?"
    "Why should that matter?"
    "Oh, well, it doesn't really. I'm just a... trying to, um, understand your reasoning... nevermind then."

    You think a black robe is gonna allow a lawful money discussion in his courtroom? On the record? HA! Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it. Take it from me, the first to determine and announce the LH forum was fully infiltrated & dominated by quatloser agents. Fake users, fake questions, fake discussions.
    Johnny, regarding your statement, "Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it." ...

    The gracious Doug555 has been sharing knowledge here regarding how I have been 'attempting' (not actually executing) RILM for almost 2 years. My public-record demand AFFIDAVIT I pasted above (see 'Department of the Treasury' addressee') reads as taking only a 'Net Pay' Demand (deposits/withdrawals/etc.). I would agree with Doug555 that the Demand on 'all transactions' - first and foremost being the 'Gross Pay' of which is the actual initial payment/taxable-activity before deductions - is the proper way to evidence the on-the-record demand. I'm somewhat crushed that I have been restricting checks/deposit slips/ATM withdrawals for almost 2 years now, however my public-record AFFIDAVIT seems to be 'incomplete' or 'empty' as it reads like only a 'Net Pay' demand. Based on that, and my penalty history with 'them', I am wary of filing using the RILM deduction for upcoming TY 2014. I already filed 'sheeple' version for 2013.

    Would like your thoughts based on your comments above, and Doug's observations. It's a great discussion, regardless. Thanks.

    Sincerely,

    imm

  8. #58
    It seems to me that the living are the source of all value and it is that value which is utilized as evidence of security behind the issued notes of the United States. No "goods and services" produced means no collateral property to point to as the value backing such issuance of notes. So the "private credit" of each living man is the value behind the public or "lawful" money in circulation.

    If the people acting in offices of the United States (Congress) have the power to issue currency and regulate the value thereof, then FRNs can be deemed "lawful" money - just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411). It's all legal wordplay and the more words used to declare one's right, the greater the chance of error and misinterpretation.

    Keep it simple, I find, makes for good results in most every scenario.

    "It is my wish to make demand in lawful money, as expressed in Title 12 Sec. 411, for all transactions in [insert Name here]"

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by BLBereans View Post
    It seems to me that the living are the source of all value and it is that value which is utilized as evidence of security behind the issued notes of the United States. No "goods and services" produced means no collateral property to point to as the value backing such issuance of notes. So the "private credit" of each living man is the value behind the public or "lawful" money in circulation.

    If the people acting in offices of the United States (Congress) have the power to issue currency and regulate the value thereof, then FRNs can be deemed "lawful" money - just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411). It's all legal wordplay and the more words used to declare one's right, the greater the chance of error and misinterpretation.

    Keep it simple, I find, makes for good results in most every scenario.

    "It is my wish to make demand in lawful money, as expressed in Title 12 Sec. 411, for all transactions in [insert Name here]"

    All trust indentures, corporations, are amoral persons capable of suit and being sued. However the rumor that government has declared or defined Federal Reserve notes "lawful money" is greatly exaggerated. All the citations seem to be directed to MILAM, that simply says the same thing you say, That Congress has the power to define money. MILAM does not specifically say that Congress has defined Federal Reserve notes to be lawful money.
    Attached Images Attached Images   
    Last edited by David Merrill; 12-28-14 at 11:02 AM.

  10. #60
    If one googles, "mobley m milam us asst attorney" one may find some interesting pages to view regarding MILAM's past employment. It seems that it would have been the ultimate incompetent oversight for MILAM to not mention to his attorney that Title 12 USC 152 clearly defined what "lawful money" as it relates to Title 12:

    Sec. 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes;
    receiving notes of other associations


    "Every association organized under section 151 of this title shall
    at all times keep on hand not less than 25 per centum of its
    outstanding circulation, in gold or silver coin of the United
    States; and shall receive at par in the payment of debts the gold
    notes of every other such association which at the time of such
    payment is redeeming its circulating notes in gold coin of the
    United States, and shall be subject to all the provisions of title
    62 of the Revised Statutes: Provided, That, in applying the same to
    associations organized for issuing gold notes, the terms ''lawful
    money'' and ''lawful money of the United States'' shall be
    construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States
    ; and the
    circulation of such associations shall not be within the limitation
    of circulation mentioned in title 62 of the Revised Statutes."


    This may have been repealed in 1994, however, in 1974 it was still in full force. Why was this citation never brought up in the MILAM case? Apparantly, in 1974, MILAM could redeem his note in gold or silver coin. Was a former US Attorney and his legal team that absent minded to not cite §152 when the section relied upon for bringing the case (§411) exists in the same Title of US Code? Makes one wonder about this case and what exactly the purpose of pursuing it was. Precedent anyone???

    If you had read my post, you would have seen this part, "then FRNs can be deemed "lawful" money - just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411)" so your comment in response, "rumor that government has declared or defined Federal Reserve notes "lawful money" is greatly exaggerated" is misguided except as it relates to §411.

    'lawful money' can be a single phrase noun or a an adjective describing a noun, it all depends upon the one evoking it and how clearly one articulates one's intent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •