Thank you for this, Martin.Originally Posted by martin earl
I don't see "US Treasury note" on the $5 or $20 bill. Does the fact that there is a U.S. Treasury seal and the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury make it a U.S. Treasury note?
And are you saying that if I endorses a check, I am obligated to pay that amount of debt?
I don't see how paper fiat currency would become lawful money via endorsement -- I thought the idea is to demand redemption in lawful money.
It is, there are many forms of "lawful" and being Constitutional is only one form of law. The idea is to stop the fractional reserve creation of currency, pay down the national debt and live a life that does not harm others by stealing their currency to fund a debt system. Look up the legal definition of Peonage, because every time you endorse the Federal Reserve system, you make a peon of yourself and future generations. And you are more than welcome!
Last edited by martin earl; 01-04-12 at 12:07 AM.
endorsed = fiat money, permission to fractionalize, obligations, taxes, turn me into a soup sandwich, etc...
redeemed = lawful money.
Thank you again, Martin.It is, there are many forms of "lawful" and being Constitutional is only one form of law. The idea is to stop the fractional reserve creation of currency, pay down the national debt and live a life that does not harm others by stealing their currency to fund a debt system. Look up the legal definition of Peonage, because every time you endorse the Federal Reserve system, you make a peon of yourself and future generations. And you are more than welcome!
I see all the things you mention on the $5 and $20 bills I have, except for the line you show, which I do see on the $100 bill I have.
I don't see any of the bills labeled "US Treasury note." I think what I need to find out is what are the necessary elements that legally make something a note.
When I take a check to a bank and sign it in order to cash it, I thought I was signing to transfer payment to my account, not to guarantee the check. How does signing the check on the back obligate me to anything except to pay a bounced check fee if it bounces?
Obligation:
2 : an inscription (as a signature or notation) on a document or instrument
esp
: an inscription usu. on the back of a negotiable instrument that transfers or guarantees the instrument
I am in favor of stopping the fractional reserve creation of currency, paying down the national debt, living a life that does not harm others and eliminating the debt-money system.
I am trying to learn, understand and evaluate these principles and the remedy.
I am especially trying to understand the obligation and tax parts.
An item of interest that I point out:
Notice that the Original style of the Union of Colonies [plantations of the Crown] was styled "The United States of America".....
Notice that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is capitalized. I have my own ideas but it is worthy of contemplation.
The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.
Lawful Money Trust Website
Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST
ONE man or woman can make a difference!
I have seen various things about the significance of capitalization and the various names used for the united states -- right now I am just trying to understand redeeming lawful money and its validity and effectiveness.
I had this in one of my files for ages so here you go.
When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks.
United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion. To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral.
When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned. However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve bankers.
Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an 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 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.
In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459.
Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation. The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 AmJur 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 AmJur 33, pgs. 58, 59.
The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 AmJur 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank 468 F.Supp 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.
Page 1 of 3
Last edited by Chex; 01-04-12 at 11:44 PM.
Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. 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, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment.
However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title.
Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980).
If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.
On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the bankers. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy.
This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
Page 2 of 3
Last edited by Chex; 01-04-12 at 11:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
