Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920
Results 191 to 196 of 196

Thread: Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

  1. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I keep thinking this is one of the more productive threads on StSC. Does anybody know of any new Memorandums?
    It appears that the Treasury's position on redeeming FRNs has changed. See its link below, and notice its excerpt below, especially the first sentence of the last paragraph:

    https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...al-tender.aspx

    What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

    Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.

    Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.

    Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

    Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.
    Then see “Commodity” definition below:
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity



    Now, if one cannot redeem FRNs anymore for anything per above stated policy, is that not in violation of 12 USC 411 and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act?

    Is that not also in violation of Public Policy (Public Res. 73-10, 48 Stat 112) by demanding a particular KIND of currency for payment of obligations?

    If now one can only "promise to pay" all obligations with only one KIND of currency (FRNs), then why not use this same KIND of currency (a promise to pay) to "pay" all obligations, following this same stated Treasury policy on non-redemption?

    When the Messiah paid the tax in Mt 17:27, did He tender a coin with Caesar's image on it, in accord with His decision in Mt 22:21?

    Likewise, should we simply tender currency that bears a "promise to pay" image, in accord with this system's monetary policy and instruments?


  2. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Sometimes I feel this thread is the very most productive thread on the entire website. God I miss Allodial though. Does anybody have a clue what happened to Allodial?
    Yes, very productive thread. No info on what happened to Allodial but my guess is ... his/her objective was reached here; mission accomplished. And then told to stand down or, left on their own.

    We are consistently winning versus the IRS with lawful money remedy. I have seen them occasionally threaten a lawful money tax return with a frivolous penalty. Probably these letters have worked so well for the IRS in the past they continue to send them. Here is a recent example:

    Name:  2016illusion.jpg
Views: 56
Size:  195.2 KB

    Here the IRS tries to create an illusion, saying the tax return claims a frivolous position when in fact it does not. Bit of a psychological operation at play. Gamesmanship. Responding with the law will cause the IRS to back down, eventually. And the threats melt away like January snow.

  3. #193
    Now, if one cannot redeem FRNs anymore for anything per above stated policy, is that not in violation of 12 USC 411 and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act?
    I don't read the webpage that way. The law reads: They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

    FRN shall be redeemed in lawful money, on demand.



    Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post
    Yes, very productive thread. No info on what happened to Allodial but my guess is ... his/her objective was reached here; mission accomplished. And then told to stand down or, left on their own.

    We are consistently winning versus the IRS with lawful money remedy. I have seen them occasionally threaten a lawful money tax return with a frivolous penalty. Probably these letters have worked so well for the IRS in the past they continue to send them. Here is a recent example:

    Name:  2016illusion.jpg
Views: 56
Size:  195.2 KB

    Here the IRS tries to create an illusion, saying the tax return claims a frivolous position when in fact it does not. Bit of a psychological operation at play. Gamesmanship. Responding with the law will cause the IRS to back down, eventually. And the threats melt away like January snow.
    Thank you Lorne. This is pleasing to the ear. If you authorize the redemption it "goes through".

  4. #194
    Hello, I have redeemed lawful money for over 3 years and did the deduction on 2014, 2015, and 2016 returns which I filed a bit late. Just this week I received a CP15 notice of penalty charge for my 2014 return. The notice says due by Feb 5, 2018. How are people successfully refuting the frivolous filing penalty? Some have mentioned phone calls to the IRS. What information is being conveyed in the phone conversation? Are suitors just writing back to the IRS and explaining that the redemption of lawful money is not mentioned in any of the frivolous filing categories that are listed in the IRS documentation? Advice or links are greatly appreciated.

    Regards, kevin in Phoenix

  5. #195
    Did Congress & Trump Provide the Ultimate TAX Remedy? Hidden In the Rules?

    https://www.youarelaw.org/did-congre...-the-new-bill/

    I am researching this...

    This may also be the "exigent circumstances" justifying a Garnishment action in Admiralty by a Clerk in USDC to bypass the seditious Judges!

    And use those funds to offset damages from current IRS collections.

    See Rule B (1)(c) below:

    https://www.federalrulesofcivilproce...d-garnishment/

    Last edited by doug555; Yesterday at 01:49 AM.

  6. #196
    Something settled into my mind while having a delightful phone conversation with Francon.

    With five garnishments in admiralty underway in the USDC DC, wherein the Garnishees (TRUMP and MNUCHIN) reside, that admiralty rules might not apply to the redeemed. Admiralty as a jurisdiction in America must arise from below the high tide mark, or be related to an insurance contract. The insurance contract can be drawn up at sea or anywhere inland.

    The fractional lending requires insurance (FDIC or a Credit Union assurance). Suppose after all these years we have been pressuring the system into actual special deposit? I recall how a chain of credit unions closed down but years back is when some intrepid redeemed trustees began opening many trust accounts and moving large amounts of money through the credit union chain.


    Name:  closed credit union s.jpg
Views: 9
Size:  489.1 KB


    Out of the blue, trustees began hearing that they must quit all non-endorsing of checks. When the trustees claimed that they would sign as they pleased, the chain shut down.

    I have always advocated that we do not bother patrolling or even monitoring the lawfulness of the activity happening behind the teller window. So my presumption has always been that nobody gives a flip and all the money is processed the same, in the vault. That it is all insured and fractionalized upon. The branch managers do nothing to make sure that those bills deposited or set aside upon a check deposit were set aside "special deposit" in the vault for when that particular redeemed customer came back for "his or her money". And for amounts less that (let me guess) $1000 that is still true.

    My imagination has that the board of trustees for this credit union chain serving at the pleasure of the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) realized they had been breaking the law, by treating these deposits as though they are insured for fractional lending/reserve banking. Or maybe the OCC looked over the books and noticed a discrepancy worth mentioning?

    The closure was silent correction. No discussion. Like pulling a weed and burning it.

Posting Permissions

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