Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: Lawful Money Stops IRS Proposal

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post
    I was going through my canceled checks and discovered ... someone I wrote a check to did not endorse private credit of the Fed:

    http://ctcwarrior.com/lawful_money_BackImage.jpg

    Not even a signature and the Bank honored it too. The secret is getting out!

    § 3-401. SIGNATURE.

    (a) A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument, or (ii) the person is represented by an agent or representative who signed the instrument and the signature is binding on the represented person under Section 3-402.

  2. #22

    So much contradiction

    If the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, is a non governmental,
    private agency, and in addition giving one trouble, simply
    DECLARE yourself, and all that you own, even in a court
    need be, as nothing BUT a sole subject and citizen under the Constitution
    of the United States of America, and thereby exercise and reserve
    every power and right vested to you therein, and say nothing more.
    By doing so, you thereby reclaim and re enter yourself in a jurisdiction
    of safety. Do not say what you are not, where you are not, who
    they are not , or why they can not. Why play there game, by filing
    forms and even acknowledging them as an authority, and claim yourself
    in their jurisdiction as one does when they do so? They are one of the
    most insidious Agencies to begin with, does one think they can be
    reasoned with, or not have pretensions and pretexts to injure you?
    You think they will handle you with justice. Their principles do not
    even stem from what is just, so what else could be expected,
    but problems? If one must contend with wolves, then fight them off.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by whirlingwonder View Post
    If the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, is a non governmental,
    private agency, and in addition giving one trouble, simply
    DECLARE yourself, and all that you own, even in a court
    need be, as nothing BUT a sole subject and citizen under the Constitution
    of the United States of America, and thereby exercise and reserve
    every power and right vested to you therein, and say nothing more.
    By doing so, you thereby reclaim and re enter yourself in a jurisdiction
    of safety. Do not say what you are not, where you are not, who
    they are not , or why they can not. Why play there game, by filing
    forms and even acknowledging them as an authority, and claim yourself
    in their jurisdiction as one does when they do so? They are one of the
    most insidious Agencies to begin with, does one think they can be
    reasoned with, or not have pretensions and pretexts to injure you?
    You think they will handle you with justice. Their principles do not
    even stem from what is just, so what else could be expected,
    but problems? If one must contend with wolves, then fight them off.

    Welcome Whirlingwonder;

    I think you will be enjoying it here. My take is quite contrary:

    YOU CANNOT FIGHT YOUR WAY OFF THE BATTLEFIELD.

    Since redemption is built into the Fed Act then redemption is the law. This requires forgiveness. It is an Instrumentality of the US Government but that, only because Congress has sanctioned stock in it, that depreciates over time. - Quite contrary to traditional fiduciary responsibility.

    Then again, what does that say about endorsers of the private credit. If a stock has a history of being worth less the day following...

    What's in your wallet?

  4. #24
    Attachment 4560

    So, last week, I received some debt as change for exchange...found this 'where's george' bill..., I thought the only place it should be is back where it came from...so it was redeemed...interested in seeing if anyone will be able to receive it down the line? thought to share a side eperiment

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    254
    Great idea. Here's another to add to your database.

    Name:  20161013.jpg
Views: 343
Size:  191.2 KB

  6. #26

    Title 4 section 111 makes federal employees liable for income tax.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
    Good point there IMM, I am just enjoying the jurisdiction subject and getting a better grasp on it

    Federal Power Limited

    The fiction, "that because it was an excise tax, it was legal," is not true. The power of the federal government is limited to its own property, as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. 18 U.S.C., Section 921, Definitions, states,

    "The term 'interstate or foreign commerce' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)."

    Only employees of the federal government, residents of the District of Columbia, residents of naval bases, residents of forts, U.S. citizens of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions were lawfully required to file and pay the Victory Tax.

    I think this is where MJ states "you" must understand "Trust Law" ?

    In 1953, the United States relinquished its control over the Philippines.
    Why do the Philippine pure Trusts #1 (customsduties) and
    #2 (internal revenue) continue to be administered today?
    Who are the Settlers of the Trusts?
    What is done with the funds in the Trusts?
    What businesses, if any, do these Trusts operate?
    Who are the Beneficiaries?

    Coincidentally, on July 9, 1953, the Secretary of the Treasury, G. K. Humphrey, by "virtue of the authority vested in me," changed the name of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue, BIR, to Internal Revenue Service when he signed what is now Treasury Order 150-06.

    TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 Page Content

    SUBJECT: Designation as Internal Revenue Service
    CANCELLATION DATE: August 22, 2005
    REASON FOR CANCELLATION: TO 150-06, dated July 9, 1953. The entity formerly known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be known as the Internal Revenue Service. TO 150-06 is cancelled http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-o.../to150-06.aspx

    This was an obvious attempt to legitimize the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
    Without the approval of Congress or the President, Humphrey, without any legal authority, tried to turn a pure trust into an agency of the Department of the Treasury.

    Treasury Decision 2313 Under Internal Revenue Laws of the United States
    Even Pete. I have come to a more forgiving perspective, and no longer believe that anyone who has vigorously deployed the edited TD 2313 is guilty of deliberate fraud or ill-intent After all, the actual text of TD 2313 not only does not support the point for which the edited portion is presented, but does, in fact, discredit the entire 'argument' on behalf of which that edited portion is used. http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misu...ngs/TD2313.htm

    Know Your identity “Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law, but are liable for the normal and additional tax upon the entire net income "from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States," computed upon the basis prescribed in the law.”

    T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.


    They agreed to income taxation when they took the job

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Bentley View Post
    They agreed to income taxation when they took the job

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111
    Very enlightening! Thank you!

  8. #28
    Originally Posted by Bentley
    They agreed to income taxation when they took the job

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111
    12 USC 411 still governs whether said tax is incurred by FRN Usage.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    12 USC 411 still governs whether said tax is incurred by FRN Usage.
    Depending on where the loan (credit) is coming from
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  10. #30
    So my lady is FINALLY *(exhausted) starting to notice things I show her. She is starting to wake up from her nap. Anyhow, she has these Treasury Bonds from '73-'75...to the best of my knowledge, I believe United States Currency Notes by then is considered 'lawful money' ...

    To my knowledge... Treasury Bonds are issued by those who wish to exchange credit (SSN) 'bonding' such trust for 25$ in exchange for credit back with interest made off such 'bet'

    To cash such bond would bring the (Equity) bond to a financial institution to allow holder of legal title to administer the public trust...

    Redeeming it accordingly with 12 USC 411 would restrict access to the trust in exchange for credit even though it is unfortunate such is connected to public funds...if that is the case and I'm correct, redeeming it would force the Treasury to replace all credit underwrote by bond to be set-off with lawful money?

    Anxious to read responses...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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