Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 188

Thread: Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

  1. #21
    Great stuff David, thanks for posting it. KISS. fB

  2. #22
    Thank you fB.

  3. #23
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    I scanned through and read that "2011 Dirty Dozen Tax Scam" posting and it further reinforced how powerful and lawful the TRUE remedy is...

    "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."

    There is ZERO mention of "frivolousness" upon those who demand lawful money rather than engage in signature endorsed contract with the FED, in their own right and by the operation of law found at §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 now codified at Title 12 U.S.C. §411 which is binding law upon the IRS, and any other United States claiming entity, to accept and recognize the non-taxable nature of lawful money of exchange.

    Let me repeat... ZERO MENTION OF THIS EXERCISE OF TRUE REMEDY ANYWHERE ON THEIR "WARNING" POSTING.

    I would like to thank David Merrill, again, for being God's "conduit of truth" for those who truly seek it out. I am not aware of anyone else who openly and freely teaches this specific remedy to more people than him and for as long as he has been doing it. I for one am grateful.

  4. #24
    I'm still having trouble though. I notice that citizens were paying income taxes well before 1933.

    "In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_States

    I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the redemption as per 12 USC 411 and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution:
    Amendment XVI
    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.
    Although I think the Amendment was made in 1913 (first 20 year charter?)

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    I scanned through and read that "2011 Dirty Dozen Tax Scam" posting and it further reinforced how powerful and lawful the TRUE remedy is...

    "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."

    There is ZERO mention of "frivolousness" upon those who demand lawful money rather than engage in signature endorsed contract with the FED, in their own right and by the operation of law found at §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 now codified at Title 12 U.S.C. §411 which is binding law upon the IRS, and any other United States claiming entity, to accept and recognize the non-taxable nature of lawful money of exchange.

    Let me repeat... ZERO MENTION OF THIS EXERCISE OF TRUE REMEDY ANYWHERE ON THEIR "WARNING" POSTING.

    I would like to thank David Merrill, again, for being God's "conduit of truth" for those who truly seek it out. I am not aware of anyone else who openly and freely teaches this specific remedy to more people than him and for as long as he has been doing it. I for one am grateful.
    That is some high praise indeed! - A servant of the Most High...

    That sure explains the consistency! Thanks AJ, for honorable mention. I recall one moonless summer night I was playing around with night vision and was going through a pitch black field. Passing some bushes I found a rolled up carpet with feet protruding from the end. I approached figuring I had discovered a discarded body. After closer study though if found breathing. The drunken fellow apparently had rolled himself up in the carpet and then fell down in it for a nap. I was heading for the grocery anyway so I prepared a bag of snacks and $20 with some cheap sandals too and dropped them off to him on the way back. I woke him and gave him the charity bag. He said, God bless you.

    I walked away thinking that the highest treasure ever! It seems a little silly now. But for my charity, I received a genuine blessing from the Creator of the entire Universe! [The next time I walked by I found an empty bottle of vodka... hmm.]


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Earl View Post
    I'm still having trouble though. I notice that citizens were paying income taxes well before 1933.

    "In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_States

    I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the redemption as per 12 USC 411 and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution:


    Although I think the Amendment was made in 1913 (first 20 year charter?)
    That is an interesting observation. I recall mention of this earlier, in the article I produced the first video about.

    In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution...
    The fiat currency began around 1863 and there is some history of fractional lending (reserve banking) beginning in Canada at that time with Crown Dominion Notes. I believe that was shock testing in preparation for the same dishonest (elastic) currency practices here in America.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Earl View Post
    I'm still having trouble though. I notice that citizens were paying income taxes well before 1933.

    "In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_States

    I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the redemption as per 12 USC 411 and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution:


    Although I think the Amendment was made in 1913 (first 20 year charter?)
    Pages 12-17 might yield some historical context to your questions. Good book...but incomplete.
    http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf

    Note the time frame where the overall trend turns up. Hmmm
    http://www.taxhistory.com/graphs/14a.html

    Here is my understanding of this. Pollock was about the direct taxation of "income" from government sponsored bonds, notes, funds, etc that were personally owned "real property" by the people involved in the suit. The SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. The 16th amendment was designed to overturn this ruling and allow the Gov to direct tax "income" aka gain or profit from Gov sponsored entities/privileged activities. It was also sold as an amendment to tax the rich. Brushaber essentially confirmed this saying the 16th conferred no NEW taxing power but returned the Pollock issue back to an excise, or a tax on an activity or privilege.

    So now turning to Title12/411. Congress gave the FED an enormous privilege to create private credit with CONgresses blessing. A massive coup occurred that no one realized. Most people's revenue back then was way less then the exemptions aka no filing. There were also many other alternative flavors of money in competition with the FRN. The Fed managed to drive the competing forms of money out of existence and inflate the common person's revenue up into the taxing range (greater then the exemption level). Add the depression and WW2 into the mix (victory tax/withholding) and we are left where we are today.

    However that one section 411 leaves a choice. It has too or this whole system WOULD be unconstitutional. They had to leave one very narrow path with a cliff on one side and an abyss on the other. The statutory language regarding issuance USN's is still in effect. The treasury says that a FRN can perform as either. It all boils down to the nature of the money. Private or Public?

    One more thing: Ron Paul's new bill has this section in it.
    (2) no State may assess any tax or fee on any currency, or any other monetary instrument, which is used in the transaction of interstate commerce or commerce with a foreign country, and which is subject to the enjoyment of legal tender status under article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution.

    Why put that there if there is not already something to that effect in action now?
    Last edited by Brian; 04-13-11 at 11:49 PM.

  7. #27
    thank you David & Brian!
    Last edited by Richard Earl; 04-14-11 at 08:08 AM. Reason: adjust thanks yous! :)

  8. #28
    More like; Thank You Brian!

    That is very enlightening.

    The warning I always give with Pete's CtC though is that without remedy written in the law, he leaves people hoping to argue certain interpretations of the IR Code. Fatal!


    P.S. Please link us to PAUL's new bill.

  9. #29
    stoneFree
    Guest

  10. #30
    Thank you for the links. I am really quite happy that StSC is growing and busy so that I cannot even keep up. The content, like that link though - icing on the cake!

Posting Permissions

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