Basis in Law

[Seosaidh]

The question should not be "are they income" clearly, there is income that is NOT taxable. For example, punitive damage payments made the by the STATE in lawsuits are not "taxable income". I know because I had punitive damages from a Federal case and the payment was not taxable, (I did not demand lawful money at the time of settlement, no income tax was due and the payment was substantial.)

Also, a credit line from a bank is not "taxable income" though is of course, an income. VISA credit lines, etc are income, but not taxable income.

CERTAIN Obligations of the United States are not taxable income either.

US Notes are lawful money AND Obligations of the United States and that is what FRNs are redeemed in "on demand". It seems that while they could be considered INCOME US Notes are not "taxable income", nor, apparently, as issued, are they a "legal tender" for payment of interest on the national debt.

This leads me to believe US Notes might be a legal tender on the "principle" of the National debt. So if one was actually volunteering to pay down the public debt, one could simply make a "principle only" payment using Redeemed lawful money.

However, I believe that would have to be done through and to the US Treasury, not the IRS.

I wonder how I would be treated if I started making principle payments on the national debt directly to the Treasury?

What profit or gain is there associated with receiving lawful money in exchange for my time or property (not from business)? Since I'm not receiving private credit, but rather lawful money, it's a 1:1 transaction, no profit or gain, therefore not income.

Or am I thinking this through too simplisticly?

[David Merrill]

What profit or gain is there associated with receiving lawful money in exchange for my time or property (not from business)? Since I'm not receiving private credit, but rather lawful money, it's a 1:1 transaction, no profit or gain, therefore not income.

Or am I thinking this through too simplisticly?

I think I have said as much many times in different terms. You make no bond for any extra funds to be created by fractional lending. Therefore the obligations are solely on the signatories, the Secretary and the US Treasurer.

The bank will stop paying interest by converting your account to a non-interest bearing account. Since you are no longer granting it the privilege of profiting from your funds in the account, it stops giving you the privilege of interest on those funds.

Anybody "saving" FRNs without earning more interest than the rate of inflation is silly because as stock certificates in the Fed, they are designed to depreciate over time. So if you stuff $1000 in your mattress today you can expect it to be worth less in a year. So there goes all the incentive for saving right there...

Now we might get some insight into how many proper perspectives there can be had on illusions. Mainly the illusion is that government debt can be bought and sold like there is value. The measure of the illusion is found in SDR's (Special Drawing Rights) and SDR's are indeed used for international insurance evaluations and claims. SDR's are the measure of conditioning of five nations to endorse blindly. But the UN's IMF etc. often mumble about making SDR's the new "limited gold standard" and such nonsense. More illusions.

If everybody snaps out of it, it will all implode back to the $42.22/troy ounce international earmark from the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements.

So I think you have an enjoyable perspective on the whole thing Seosaidh. It sounds as valid as any. I think that the profit and gain that you speak of is actually the benefit of having the FDIC come support your fractional lending practice, like you get paid enough to run a bank from your kitchen. But you sign for that privilege when you endorse private credit from the Fed. So you are being presumed to be getting a lot of profit and gain like any other state bank.

When you redeem lawful money though, there is no more profit and gain; just an honest day's wages. You dispell the illusion you are a state bank profiting and gaining from usury and fractional lending.

That leads to another illusion-displacer. The cash you receive is not a reserve currency. So you are not allowed to fractionally lend anyway! If you were to be rediculous enough to produce a run on yourself and you called the FDIC to bail you out, you would probably be in trouble if you were doing that practice with non-reserve currency!

[Seosaidh]

I'm glad to hear that, David. As an aside, I really enjoy reading the posts on this site. The people here are my kind of people. This site is a blessing

[John Howard]

The bank will stop paying interest by converting your account to a non-interest bearing account. Since you are no longer granting it the privilege of profiting from your funds in the account, it stops giving you the privilege of interest on those funds.

What if the account was non-interest bearing from the start? Would that be a lawful money account or am I reaching too far?

[martin earl]

What if the account was non-interest bearing from the start? Would that be a lawful money account or am I reaching too far?

The best way to think and act is this, endorsement creates the "taxable event".

Non endorsement (demand is made for lawful money per 12-USC 411) makes it a non-taxable event.

It is all on what YOU do, not what they do.

[martin earl]

What profit or gain is there associated with receiving lawful money in exchange for my time or property (not from business)? Since I'm not receiving private credit, but rather lawful money, it's a 1:1 transaction, no profit or gain, therefore not income.

Or am I thinking this through too simplisticly?

Balanced scales! Of course! a 1:1 transfer of energy! That is and excellent way to think of it.

Now, apply the 1:9 ratio of fractional reserves (or 0:9 ratio allowed now) and you will see why elastic currency is an abomination and impossible to maintain.

Demanding lawful money makes your deposits non reserve currency and they cannot be fractionally reserved for lending, thus creating new debt with every single dollar on deposit.

[Anthony Joseph]

We are also talking out the idea that there is an actual "office", as an operation of law, created by Title 12 U.S.C. ?411 - The office of redeemer. If there exists a choice to redeem lawful money pursuant to the law then that choice must be made by a "redeemer", ergo we effectively operate The Office of Lawful Money Redemption as redeemers.

This all came from the simple and relevant question, "...what office will you use to communicate with the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury?" when discussing the proper and principal party to notice in order to achieve all encompassing remedy and relief from the presumptive notion that we are willing signature endorsers of the FED's elastic currency and credit system.

[American_National]

What profit or gain is there associated with receiving lawful money in exchange for my time or property (not from business)? Since I'm not receiving private credit, but rather lawful money, it's a 1:1 transaction, no profit or gain, therefore not income.

Or am I thinking this through too simplisticly?

There is no profit or gain when one exchanges the agreed upon value (supply-vs-demand) of their work/labor directly for Lawful Money of the United States, instead of choosing to accept Federal Reserve issues of intangible "bills of exchange" known as FRN's.

It is a 1:1 exchange transaction like you had stated above.

Every human+being has always had the unalienable natural law (God's perfect Law) right to contract with others to exchange the mutually agreed upon value of their limited resource work/labor directly for whatever form of payment they so choose to accept.