Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?

[bobbinville]

Even if I was Pottapauq, so what? I've certainly avoided stirring up arguments like you see regularly on Quatloos; and as I said in my last post, that's not why I'm here. As for experts, there are plenty to choose from. If you're talking about the law, I have several college classmates who are lawyers (one, who works for the IRS, has been very helpful about how the IRS just doesn't bother with some people because the collection effort isn't worth the expected recovery. If coins, several of my friends are nationally prominent in the hobby.

As for being wrong about the German coin: I tend to concentrate on the minor coins, not on the German states silver/gold issues; and lately I have tended to work much more on Swiss coins (1850 to date). I only began a significant German collection within the last 10 years; before that, it was mostly British Commonwealth.

[David Merrill]

Even if I was Pottapauq, so what? I've certainly avoided stirring up arguments like you see regularly on Quatloos; and as I said in my last post, that's not why I'm here. As for experts, there are plenty to choose from. If you're talking about the law, I have several college classmates who are lawyers (one, who works for the IRS, has been very helpful about how the IRS just doesn't bother with some people because the collection effort isn't worth the expected recovery. If coins, several of my friends are nationally prominent in the hobby.

As for being wrong about the German coin: I tend to concentrate on the minor coins, not on the German states silver/gold issues; and lately I have tended to work much more on Swiss coins (1850 to date). I only began a significant German collection within the last 10 years; before that, it was mostly British Commonwealth.

and

As for whether any Quatloosians are over here under other guises... so what? If you believe in what you say, you should be able to defend it to anyone.

That is fairly convincing - not Jay but Poppycock. So what? Primarily it means that you would be casting direct slurs about remedy as I present interpretation of §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411 in accord with Wserra's blog on "Q". - But rather with me having to display directly intrusive privacy violations I can continue to enjoy the people exercising remedy from this website do so from their own understanding of it, rather than depending on proven examples. Around here most members seem to believe JohnnyCash and other sanitized examples as true. More importantly though, the metaphysics around successful application of remedy comes from heart math.

I maintain my theory that what killed Q in popularity and interesting reading was when Wserra began linking the Libel of Review cases published on PACER. Showing good people's private information for ridicule feels bad and that is what does it - when people identify with being "outed" from anonymity on the Internet.

This is Bobbinville's first Post:

Isn't there a difference between numismatic value and the value of a piece of currency? I've got some US Notes; but there's no way that I would ever spend them because of their value as a collectible item.

Bobbinville's most recent post:

The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means; so unless Doreen can convince a court that CtC is correct, she's in trouble. If you operate on the assumption that the courts are corrupt, then arguing a legal principle in them, which they don't like, is like playing craps with someone who brings loaded dice to the game.

The problem is that judges don't like to overturn precedent; so Doreen's best hope may lie in the political/legislative sphere.

With JohnnyCash's intuition in support it certainly makes sense that Poppycock would become bored with Q and find himself registering here. Quite directly then:


Are you Pottapauq?


I enjoy the probability that you are because it really does make comment how Q has become so boring without Harvester and Myself shredding Wserra's slurs. Of course Webhick has programmed the website chat area so that I am blind unless I borrow an IP by proxy or surf on anybody else's computer. - Which I also find highly entertaining that she would trouble with me; trying to keep me from reading such a boring website. So let's pretend that you intend to behave indefinitely... I will be treating you appropriately and reading your posts much more carefully for the gist that you are intending to attack remedy according to law.

The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means...

It is amusing to me that I can address your first and last posts at once:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

I amplify your point with Colorado constitutional law being that only the county court judges are allowed to practice law at all. The appeals justices are bound to "authority" or case law (common law) stare decisis.

However I believe that my days of moderating you, or many others for that matter are coming to a close. I might well be casting an advertisement for all registered members ever here to take another look around and well, since they are already registered users there might be a flurry of interest in American Remedy. It could be that I would be overwhelmed from brain trust and other career interests to maintain this as "my" website feeling responsible for defending the integrity of remedy here by being a watchdog against the Poppycocks of the Internet.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[bobbinville]

No. I am not here to attack remedy, redeeming lawful money, R4C, AFV or anything of the sort. However, since people seem more focused on who I am rather than what I have to say, and seem ready to nitpick my posts on the assumption that I am Pottapauq, maybe it's time to say so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen goodbye. I had hoped to be here and offer the occasional nonconfrontational comment; but it's clear that I can no longer do so. In closing, though, I will say that I go onto this site, and Quatloos, not to be entertained but to be educated and informed.

Good luck, Suitors.

[shikamaru]

No. I am not here to attack remedy, redeeming lawful money, R4C, AFV or anything of the sort. However, since people seem more focused on who I am rather than what I have to say, and seem ready to nitpick my posts on the assumption that I am Pottapauq, maybe it's time to say so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen goodbye. I had hoped to be here and offer the occasional nonconfrontational comment; but it's clear that I can no longer do so. In closing, though, I will say that I go onto this site, and Quatloos, not to be entertained but to be educated and informed.

Good luck, Suitors.

Don't go .

Sure, we can be a rough bunch at times, but stand your ground!

By the way, welcome to the forums.

[amosfella]

US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

I've been looking this over and over... It makes me wonder, as another version of this that I have seen states that US notes are not to be used to pay tariffs as well, if that is the reason the the IRS is not keeping the withholding. US notes demanded cannot be used to pay the national debt, while at the same time they cannot be used to pay a tariff.

I have heard it said that because the tax is sent to a separate jurisdiction, that it is a tariff. I could be wrong with all of this, but thought I'd make my 'revelation' known...

I am having trouble with the Canadian tax collectors, and have been looking at the same remedy for myself.

[David Merrill]

US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

I've been looking this over and over... It makes me wonder, as another version of this that I have seen states that US notes are not to be used to pay tariffs as well, if that is the reason the the IRS is not keeping the withholding. US notes demanded cannot be used to pay the national debt, while at the same time they cannot be used to pay a tariff.

I have heard it said that because the tax is sent to a separate jurisdiction, that it is a tariff. I could be wrong with all of this, but thought I'd make my 'revelation' known...

I am having trouble with the Canadian tax collectors, and have been looking at the same remedy for myself.

Searching Canadian Remedy I found this thread.

[BigBlueOcean]

Hello All,

If I may weigh in on the Lawful Money proviso. Lawful money implies UN-Lawful Money (anti-bacterial soap implies PRO-bacterial soap http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/image...s/confused.png). Try this perspective.

Foreign goods transported into the US by way of the various 5 ports of entry into the US (Ports, AirPorts, Post Office, Banks, Hospitals) carries with the importation of foreign goods Impost, Duty and Excise taxes. Goods arriving into a port is registered and ledgered as an asset and legal title provided to be traded. I always thought it odd that food is imported en masse when we are purportedly the 'bread basket of the world' until I look at the taxation resulting, although I am weighing in on Lawful Money.

When the govt abdicated their money authority entrusted to 'them' by the grantors granting 'coining money, treaties and maintaining a Navy' under the original Trust Indenture named the Constitution for the United States of America which was put in place to carry out the Treaty with the peoples embodied in the Declaration of Independence pledging to provide Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, we the beneficiary/posterity regained that authority to 'coin' money backed by the Treasury promising to pay all our debts under the New Deal. The original Trust was vacated under Lincoln who created a corporation to carry on the business of the vacant trust by incorporating the 10 sq miles of DC into municipal corporation (like Puerto Rico and Andora and Vatican city states) that used the original Constitution indenture as the Articles of Incorporation until Roosevelt, who nationalized all the assets of the US into a private trust off of which script receipts called FRNs have been drawn against the real assets belonging to the beneficiaries/posterity/you/me ledgered in Puerto Rico protectorate.

My election to convert the value of my private labor into public cash by endorsing an instrument (pay check) and depositing the instrument into the port/Bank provided by the Trustees over my/your/our beneficial birthright. The moving of private assets from the private venue into the public venue is re-venued and called revenue.

If the instrument is endorsed in blank, the default credit used to covert the value is the Federal Reserve foreign credit line, bringing foreign goods into the US resulting in impost, duty and excise taxes which require no special authorization by congress since congress has had the plenary right all along.
However, my the addition of the election to convert the value of private labor into public cash using the Domestic Line of credit under Title 12 §411, removes the unlawfulness by NOT putting the treasury into more debt by covering the cash conversion into Foreign Credit. The domestic credit is MY credit against MY birthright and any taxes collected would be paid to ME the source (imho).

By adding more restrictive endorsements I further protect the value of the asset (my labor) from confiscation like in Cyprus 'Bail-In' or any other interloper, or diminishment from bounced check fees when the maker is insolvent or whatever reason. Here's my restrictive endorsement:

Special Deposit for [cash|credit to account ####]
Redeem in Lawful Money i.a.w. Title 12§411
---Signature---
WITHOUT RECOURSE

As the Grantor endorsing the instrument and original owner of the asset deposited/registered, I and only I can correct any mistake or rebut any presumption on the nature and character of my intent behind any and EVERY deposits/registrations. I have written notices to the IRS collectors on the bankruptcy and the banks noticing them that the any and all deposits registered with the various banks or ports or registrars are Special in Nature that are to be ledgered to have been redeemed in lawful money in accordance with Title 12§411. This notice is notice from the originator of the value of the assets deposited specially or registered specially serves as rebuttal of any presumption contrary to the intent expressed herein.

Now that the value of my private labor asset is held in trust by whomever received delivery of that asset (delivery being one way to create a trust), I proceed to correct the character of the source of the asset that is presumed by the IRS (presumptions stands as fact until rebutted) to be Corporate Income Class 2 rather then Donor Income Class 5.

The IRS Transcripts showing income report the income/revenue as Class 2 on the transcript. Class 2 requires one of the 1040'ish returns. The Class 5 requires a Form 709 return that carries with it a fund to reimburse any (unlawful) taking of funds contrary to Class 5. If one looks at IRS Form 8822, boxes #1 & #2 mention both types of returns 1040 and 790.

Here is a link to the package. I make no claim that I am the brilliant person who brilliantly caught the presumption by the IRS.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?...usp=drive_web#


Kind discussion on this post welcomed.
BigBlueOcean

[Treefarmer]

Hello All,

If I may weigh in on the Lawful Money proviso. Lawful money implies UN-Lawful Money (anti-bacterial soap implies PRO-bacterial soap http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/image...s/confused.png). Try this perspective.

...snip

The IRS Transcripts showing income report the income/revenue as Class 2 on the transcript. Class 2 requires one of the 1040'ish returns. The Class 5 requires a Form 709 return that carries with it a fund to reimburse any (unlawful) taking of funds contrary to Class 5. If one looks at IRS Form 8822, boxes #1 & #2 mention both types of returns 1040 and 790.

Here is a link to the package. I make no claim that I am the brilliant person who brilliantly caught the presumption by the IRS.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?...usp=drive_web#


Kind discussion on this post welcomed.
BigBlueOcean

Hello BBO, welcome to the club.
I appreciate your discussion.
When I tried to access your link at https://drive.google.com/folderview?...usp=drive_web#,
I got "Access Denied, You need permission".
Perhaps you can fix the link so we can see it?
Thank you