Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?

[David Merrill]

I'd love to here the details of this as I am in the situation you describe with the IRS... thousands in penalties, wage garnishment and the like.

The Notice and Demand for lawful money can be presented through the US district court in several ways. Using the Miscellaneous Case ($46) is becoming difficult but might be solved by using a professional process server to file it. Apparently the clerks know failure to file a case is malfeasance and do not like to commit that on the record. There is the Libel of Review which establishes an evidence repository as well.

It can be discouraging because IRS agents are paid to generate these letters and fines; so they will continue doing so. Refusal for Cause can fairly consistently stop the process from developing to any levy or seizure. However many employers and bankers will relenquish funds to administrative letters so learning to be competent is really the mastery of metaphysics.

When the emotions associated with peace and forgiveness are genuine the universe takes (on) your order. Creation and communication are synonymous. Only beings of like order can truly communicate. Therefore when you project forgiveness then you can expect that forgiveness to be reflected back to you. This is the universe taking your order. You start creating forgiveness in the universe and should not expect that creation to come from the IRS but rather be the IRS complying with laws already in place. Metaphysics is the mental equivalence of your ideas of law being true - in coherence with the actual law.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[John Howard]

Quite simply put, Pete signed endorsement of private credit from the Fed. He therefore owes a Return of that Income.

I previously asked "Where is this expressed in a statute?" Nationwide gave us this over on the other forum. Scroll to June 30.

[ManOntheLand]

I previously asked "Where is this expressed in a statute?" Nationwide gave us this over on the other forum. Scroll to June 30.

Good find, John Howard (and a great post by Nationwide as well)!! The post you link to has a link to the Veazie Bank v. Fenno case in 1869. Richard Di Mare provides an interesting analysis of that case in his book Lawful Income Tax Avoidance. The law passed by Congress on July 13, 1866 laid an income tax upon "the amount of notes of any person, State bank, or State banking association, used for circulation and paid out by them..."

According to Di Mare: "The heavy federal tax levied on the issuance of its banknotes was simply because the Veazie Bank, like thousands of other state banks, was inordinately competing with federal currency-creation powers." [Emphasis added.]

More Di Mare commentary: "No new taxing power was needed to levy this indirect "death tax" on private banks and their notes."



From the Veazie case itself, some very interesting dicta from the Chief Justice:

"[United States notes], issued directly by the government for the disbursement of the war and other expenditures, could not, obviously, be a proper object of taxation."
[emphasis added]


"It can hardly be doubted that the object of this provision was to inform the proper authorities of the exact amount of paper money in circulation, with a view to its regulation by law."

"..in the case before us the object of the taxation is not the franchise of the bank, but property created, or contracts made and issued under the franchise, or power to issue bank bills."
[emphasis added]


"...the government is responsible for the redemption of both [referring to previously mentioned "United States notes and notes of the National banks"]"

"Having thus, in the exercise of constitutional powers, undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may, constitutionally, secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation...[t]o the same end, Congress may restrain, by suitable enactments, the circulation as money of any notes not issued under its own authority." [emphasis added]



In light of the last quote above, the income tax on currency not issued directly by the U.S. can be seen as a means for Congress to ensure that lawful public money issued directly by the U.S. remains available and competitive.

However, an inelastic currency over time becomes artificially undervalued and in practice gets driven out of use by an elastic currency, which iin time becomes overvalued. For example, I have a silver dollar coin from 1900 with a face value of $1. But I would be foolish to use it to buy a "dollar" worth of goods, because it is worth about 20 "dollars" in FRN's to a coin collector (mostly due to the silver content I am guessing). The FRN "dollar" is worth about 1.5 cents in cotton fiber paper. But because I can get a "dollar" worth of goods or services for it, I use the FRN instead of my silver dollar coin.

Btw, how does Federal Reserve get away with using the word "dollar" on its notes? I think that is proof on its face that you enter a contract and an agreed upon fiction of law by the use of an FRN, since the definition of a dollar in federal law remains a certain weight of gold.

Perhaps a better question is, how does the United States get away with using the word "dollar" on its notes, when they refuse to redeem their notes for the federally defined "dollar" weight in gold? I guess we are still technically in an emergency, since the President and Secretary of Treasury retain the power to declare a bank holiday any time.

The decision to simply stop circulating U.S. notes in 1971 was probably helpful in preventing this issue coming up very often.

[Brian]

I previously asked "Where is this expressed in a statute?" Nationwide gave us this over on the other forum. Scroll to June 30.

YES! They flipped that tax over onto its head and instead of taxing the bank directly for the note issue they now tax anyone who uses them.

[bobbinville]

However, an inelastic currency over time becomes artificially undervalued and in practice gets driven out of use by an elastic currency, which iin time becomes overvalued. For example, I have a silver dollar coin from 1900 with a face value of $1. But I would be foolish to use it to buy a "dollar" worth of goods, because it is worth about 20 "dollars" in FRN's to a coin collector (mostly due to the silver content I am guessing). The FRN "dollar" is worth about 1.5 cents in cotton fiber paper. But because I can get a "dollar" worth of goods or services for it, I use the FRN instead of my silver dollar coin.

I'm not going to go into all of the issues on this post; but the reason why your 1900 silver dollar is no longer rationally used to buy just a dollar's worth of goods is that silver, like gold or copper, is essentially a commodity. For a long time, the price of silver was such that our coins contained no more than their face value of the metal contained in them; but when that price began to rise due to market pressures, it no longer made sense to keep silver in our coins. We either had to downsize the coins or change their composition; and by far the most practical course of action was to change the composition. Nowadays, given the way that silver prices fluctuate, it would be impossible to come up with a viable silver coinage -- and I'm not even going to get into the deflationary aspects of tying our monetary system to a precious metal.

[David Merrill]

Good point!

That is a big consideration that I have been overlooking by and large. I would simplify it that elastic currency is solely to blame, as the inelastic currency would remain stable. But the truth is that the value of the precious metal (silver) varies by its need to fill roles in technology and other industrial uses; plus the aesthetic value in jewelry etc. The population growing and landmass staying the same plays a big factor too. Gold's use in electronic devices is a big consideration too.

[ManOntheLand]

Nowadays, given the way that silver prices fluctuate, it would be impossible to come up with a viable silver coinage -- and I'm not even going to get into the deflationary aspects of tying our monetary system to a precious metal.

Though we do not have a formal gold standard for the dollar, as of April 2011 the Federal Reserve maintained a 17.5 percent partial gold reserve against the base money supply, (a kind of shadow gold standard) according to James Rickards in his book Currency Wars. Historically the Fed maintained about a 40 percent partial gold reserve after abandonment of a formal gold standard.

Gold and silver were commodities when they were used to formally back the dollar as well. The most significant difference now is that the paper "dollar" is now in far far greater supply because of its elasticity. The value of silver has always and will always fluctuate based on free market forces--which is better than having a government arbitrarily set its value. A silver backed dollar would cause fluctuations in the value of the dollar, due to the fluctuation of silver. But so what? The value of the dollar would remain relatively stable if formally backed (even partially) by a precious metal, a welcome alternative to the cumulative 2253% inflation of the dollar since 1913. Indeed the dollar may have to return to at least partial backing by gold or silver to restore confidence in it as a viable currency in the long run.

Btw, one of the biggest reasons for fluctuation of silver and gold prices, other than using an elastic paper dollar to measure their value, is the issuance of "paper gold" and "paper silver" which is also done fractionally and over-represents the supply of these commodities. This market manipulation keeps the price of gold and silver artificially low to disguise how depreciated the paper dollar really is.

[bobbinville]

The problem with that analysis is that during our history, a large increase in the supply of either gold or silver raised havoc with our economy; and when there was too little gold around to provide us with an adequate money supply, our economy suffered -- that's why countries like the US and France, which stuck to the gold standard as long as possible, suffered worse than countries like the UK, which abandoned it during the 1920s. Then, look at Spain -- all that gold and silver extracted from the new world didn't make them into a world power. In fact, it did the opposite.

Another factor to consider is the supply of gold and silver in today's world. It's getting harder and harder to get the stuff out of the ground; and the countries which still produce a lot of it have enough of it so that they could, if they so chose, manipulate metal prices (and thus our money supply) just like OPEC does with oil. Sorry -- but after having seen gold and silver soar in price since 2008, and then give back over half of the gains, I don't buy the premise that a silver-backed dollar would remain relatively stable.

[David Merrill]

The "paper gold" is SDR's - Special Drawing Rights.

Take a look here too.

Gold held "under earmark" at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

[JohnnyCash]

bobbinville, I took the liberty of editing:

I'm not going to go into all of the issues on this post (lest you start to realize who I am); but the reason why your 1900 silver dollar is no longer rationally used to buy just a dollar's worth of goods is that silver, like gold or copper, is essentially a commodity (of course not the reason but I must state things like I'm an expert & to set the stage for what follows). For a long time (too long, how could the banking cartel steal from a populace using real coins? "Oh hi we're from the Federal Gold Reserve here to clip 6% from all your coins."), the price of silver was such that our coins contained no more than their face value of the metal contained in them; but when that price began to rise due to market pressures, it no longer made sense to keep silver in our coins (silver is money; so what I just said was "the price of money was such that your money contained no more than their face value of the money contained in them" ). We (elite) either had to downsize the coins (too obvious) or change their composition; and by far the most practical course of action was to change the composition (I mean c'mon, we can't let you have REAL MONEY alongside our debt-note money, did you even notice we removed the copper from your penny in 1981?). Nowadays, given the way that silver prices fluctuate (thanks to us rigging the COMEX & LBMA), it would be impossible to come up with a viable silver coinage (not really, America has billions of silver coins but we banksters run this country)-- and I'm not even going to get into the deflationary aspects of tying our monetary system to a precious metal (like paying less for goods is bad. Oh, what a masterwerk of disinfo!).