Basis in Law

[Seosaidh]

I guess the question about value pertains to the definition of income; what is it? I know the statutes define it, but I don't have time to refresh my memory right now. Is receiving lawful money receiving income?

[shikamaru]

I guess the question about value pertains to the definition of income; what is it? I know the statutes define it, but I don't have time to refresh my memory right now. Is receiving lawful money receiving income?

Tax is derived from property.
Tax is assessed against the value of something and not the property itself.

[Brian]

Tax is derived from property.
Tax is assessed against the value of something and not the property itself.

The income (gain or profit) is derived from the property (ie: rent from renting a house, gain realized by employing labor combined with capital to produce a product). It is then measured by the $$ amount above and beyond the costs of producing. (The house is the property, The labor is related to the employer/employee relationship or said differently slave master/slave relationship, Capital is also property)

If you have a business that is incorporated you pay a tax on that privilege that is measured by the income (gain or profit measured in dollars). The excise is on the privilege and is measured in dollars.
As the wage maker your labor is part of you. If you use the treasury issued medium of exchange that falls under federal common law and IS a direct tax. However if you use the quasi federal/private Fed script as payment for your labor that is a privileged activity that falls under the excise power of the government via the commerce clause.

[Seosaidh]

The income (gain or profit) is derived from the property (ie: rent from renting a house, gain realized by employing labor combined with capital to produce a product). It is then measured by the $$ amount above and beyond the costs of producing. (The house is the property, The labor is related to the employer/employee relationship or said differently slave master/slave relationship, Capital is also property)

If you have a business that is incorporated you pay a tax on that privilege that is measured by the income (gain or profit measured in dollars). The excise is on the privilege and is measured in dollars.
As the wage maker your labor is part of you. If you use the treasury issued medium of exchange that falls under federal common law and IS a direct tax. However if you use the quasi federal/private Fed script as payment for your labor that is a privileged activity that falls under the excise power of the government via the commerce clause.

Oh, that's right! And direct taxes must be apportioned, therefore no income tax ought to be assessed against income of lawful money. But then the question arises, if someone pays you in FRN's, did you receive private credit?

[David Merrill]

Oh, that's right! And direct taxes must be apportioned, therefore no income tax ought to be assessed against income of lawful money. But then the question arises, if someone pays you in FRN's, did you receive private credit?

More, did you endorse private credit?

Consider the law like a mirror. If you project forgiveness...

PPS: forgot to mention... along with that check I sent certified a copy of my Default Judgment published at county level.

Nickname

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: David Merrill <>
Sent: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: mortgage

you may recall, we're very behind in our mortgage payments.
So much so that mortgage co. was sending nasty letters, and even returning a check uncashed because it wasn't for the full amount due. I have been R4C'ing just about everything from them.

Well, today I discover they have cashed our latest check:!
(attached)

Seems we may not be in default after all.

I just love it when somebody applies my intellectual property to save their home from foreclosure.

[martin earl]

I guess the question about value pertains to the definition of income; what is it? I know the statutes define it, but I don't have time to refresh my memory right now. Is receiving lawful money receiving income?

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?

[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?