Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: What exactly makes Lawful Money untaxable ?

  1. #1
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752

    What exactly makes Lawful Money untaxable ?

    I have seen it mentioned in here a letter from IRS David put up showing that when someone demands Lawful Money is telling them the person is not in the FR system.
    Another thing I have not found yet is the connection through on this statutorily, lets take a look:

    Title 18 Section 8 defines a FRN as an "obligation of the United States."
    Section 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined
    The term "obligation or other security of the United States" includes all bonds certificates
    of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank
    notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates,
    fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or
    upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value,
    of whatever denomination, issued."
    Title 31 Section 3124 states that "obligations of the United States are EXEMPT FROM
    TAXATION BY A STATE."
    "Section 3124. Exemption from taxation
    (a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by
    a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation
    that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered
    in computing a tax.


    I am sure others will have something to add here, it would make for good edification with new people in the movement on this forum.

  2. #2
    The Fed is an instumentality (case attached) of the United States government because it is allowed to have stock (notes) that devalues intentionally.

    The priests are commonly misperceived to have no inheritance from God; but that is untrue - the priests inherited METRO; the cities and the suburbs. [Do you get it - in your face - Federal Reserve Board v. METROCenter! It gets no plainer than that. Incestual infighting brought it out - fiduciary responsibility. If the Fed were not an instrumentality of the US government it would be illegal to devalue its own stock!]



    Of course I thought to take my GPS phone to the Center of the Spiral.



    The Heart of the City - Facilities Operations!

    So instead of trying to justify the distortions you bring with your misdirection, by trying to convince readers here that I have proven nothing better, you might just be straighforward and admit you have no evidence of Coresource Solutions yourself Motla68.

    This is exactly what I am saying:

    I have seen it mentioned in here a letter from IRS David put up showing that when someone demands Lawful Money is telling them the person is not in the FR system.
    That is untrue!

    Yes. Thank you David.


    I was pushing my friend to discuss our redemption of lawful money with his sister that works in a legal department at IRS.


    She was very resistant and she would not discuss it even privately. I think they have a policy there at IRS.


    It has been 4 weeks since IRS has received my 1040 and my continuous insistence and questioning whether there are any new developments at the IRS regarding demanding lawful money per Title 12 USC 411; this Monday she finally said that typically IRS has 6 weeks to respond (sort of legal zone) and when someone is demanding lawful money he is considered out of the FR System. The IRS is creating a special file and that person's activities are being scrutinized by them.
    That is not a letter from the IRS.

    You insist on challenging my patience with the simple obfuscation of the contents of the robin egg-blue wrapper Motla68. The thing that is never going to happen though, is that you detract from the enjoyment I get out of this Website. I think what you are failing to comprehend is that most of the members here know too, like you, that this is only one side of the brain trust you should be interested in, rather than interested in disrupting with implications of Coresource Solutions - rather than showing us blatantly what that is. You try to be a guru here but you have nothing in your bag of tricks so it is time to reveal that.

    The only reason I get to come off such a narcissist around here is that I show people what I am basing my assertions in. There is plenty of room for more narcissists though; it is just when you have an empty bag of source materials for which to convince us you are so very smart, we are smart enough to become annoyed with your wasting our reading time!

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

    It is constitutional for the Congress to define money in the US. And with the Emergency since 1861 that is fiat. The fiat is based in a good faith premise that the signatures on the bill, of the Secretary and US Treasurer are good IN GOD WE TRUST. However in 1913 we entered into another trust outside the scope of God; elastic currency.

    Pro 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.
    The Fed banks were given the choice to redeem the notes - it has been so since 1913. That is §16 of the Fed Act and codified into Title 12 U.S.C. §411 - the Banker's Code. In 1933 we the people were given the opportunity to become Fed banks too - to enter into that trust with the Fed. [Link is from The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt; 1933 - The Year of Crisis.]

    I can keep enjoying explaining the simple truth. That is why I am here (both places).

    Yours is an old attorney trick though. You want to keep me explaining it differently so that you can pick up on the deviations in the renditions and distort them like you did here with this new thread. - By saying I presented a letter from the IRS that says if you demand lawful money you are out of the Fed system.

    It is obvious by Title 12 it is true, but you want me to feed your distortion with more misdirection for a Quatloser-style attack on my credibility. I unabashedly tease the Quatlosers because I enjoy it Motla68. So grow a pair and show us what is in the robin egg-blue wrapper already so that we may find your 200 Posts might be worth the time we spent reading after all!



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-02-11 at 11:22 AM.

  3. #3
    That's easy. Lawful means REAL, like in common law real. That means they actually PAY debts, not just discharge them like FRN's do. Lawful money buys you ownership and all the rights of ownership that come with it, while FRN's only buy you possession, because they're not real, i.e. they have no real value, b/c they're not redeemable in anything of value.

    FRN's are private 'money' of Federal Reserve, use of which is a PRIVILEGE, and privileges are taxable. Lawful money is real national money, not a private privilege, therefore it's not taxable. The corporate State just has no authority to tax what's TRULY YOURS, like lawful money. They only can tax private script like the FRN's, b/c using those is a State-provided privilege.

    Last edited by Jaro; 05-26-11 at 04:09 AM.

  4. #4
    I suggest that it is the bond behind the money that should be considered.

    If you endorse private credit from the Fed your signature represents that you are part of the bonding process. Since the value of the note is already bonded by the Secretary and the US Treasurer's signatures, that would leave the extra money created by the fractional lending of the elastic nature of the Fed notes.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaro View Post
    That's easy. Lawful means REAL, like in common law real. That means they actually PAY debts, not just discharge them like FRN's do. Lawful money buys you ownership and all the rights of ownership that come with it, while FRN's only buy you possession, because they're not real, i.e. they have no real value, b/c they're not redeemable in anything of value.
    Could you please present any documents, case law, evidence, or treatise to support your claim that lawful means REAL?
    Also, what is common law REAL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaro
    FRN's are private 'money' of Federal Reserve, use of which is a PRIVILEGE, and privileges are taxable. Lawful money is real national money, not a private privilege, therefore it's not taxable. The corporate State just has no authority to tax what's TRULY YOURS, like lawful money. They only can tax private script like the FRN's, b/c using those is a State-provided privilege.

    You do realize there was taxation of income in English Common Law history?

  6. #6
    "Jaro is the demon lorde that fights the Illuminati." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaro

    Is there a coincidence with the nick and the diversionary aroma around the post?

    I don't know, it doesnt matter, the fruits will bear or they wont.

    Bienvenue, Jaro

  7. #7
    Cool Internet Name!!

    Fighting the Illuminati? I suppose I prefer to be a peaceful inhabitant with full access to their libraries and museums.

  8. #8

    Puzzle Complete - Irrecusable Obligation

    Use federal reserve notes and incur an Irrecusable obligation. The puzzle is complete!!!
    Convincing Congress to Abolish the Fed http://www.silverbearcafe.com/
    Irrecusable obligation, which according to '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 Income Tax succinctly described is an irrecusable obligation.
    The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation. 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.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo1 View Post
    Use federal reserve notes and incur an Irrecusable obligation. The puzzle is complete!!!
    Convincing Congress to Abolish the Fed http://www.silverbearcafe.com/
    Irrecusable obligation, which according to '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 Income Tax succinctly described is an irrecusable obligation.
    The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation. 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.
    Thank you for getting to the meat. My question is: What purpose, then, does the source of income serve in determining tax liability? If all one need do is demand lawful money to avoid taxation, what relevance is the source of the income? Or is it simply if you're receiving public money, you're not receiving income? And how would receiving public money from interest earned be interpreted?
    Last edited by Keith Alan; 01-28-13 at 02:51 AM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
    Thank you for getting to the meat. My question is: What purpose, then, does the source of income serve in determining tax liability? If all one need do is demand lawful money to avoid taxation, what relevance is the source of the income? Or is it simply if you're receiving public money, you're not receiving income? And how would receiving public money from interest earned be interpreted?
    Interesting perspective. The diversity of citizenship would seem to create a distinction between profit and gain (income) and compensation - an honest day's wages. Whereas if you endorse private credit from the Fed, you are paying for the use of that credit.

    You prompt a new perspective overlaid on the old paradigm so I hope it makes sense; what I just said.

Posting Permissions

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