Basis in Law

[NYGMan-Tax]

See, that went right over my head. Whoosh! Lol

It is important to me for you to follow, what was it that wizzed by? Where did I loose you? I really want to do my best to express my concern about this position, and that I believe anyone using this method to reduce their tax liability really doesn't have a legal basis that I can so far determine. This is the purpose of my posting, I am asking for guidance on where to find support for it.

I have tried to ask David these questions on another forum, but he felt he was being moderated and couldn't answer my questions, so I brought them here. I have done extensive research on my own time, read almost all Davids relevant posts in other forums, watched his videos, read others who have the same view, and still can't understand why the conversion renders the income tax free. It really should be a simple answer for an expert, yet I still haven't got one. If I am to rely on a position, I want to know what part of the tax law covers it. David is not a lawyer, and yet he seems to be providing tax advice, based on his own interpretations or the law. If this goes "t**s up (so the saying goes, no offense intended)" David will not be in a position to represent me in a court.

[JohnnyCash]

You could ask for a PLR (Private Letter Ruling) in which the IRS reviews ...

and what? the IRS tells you "Oh yeah you're right, lawful money's outside our jurisdiction. You win, our fiat money scam has been bringing in billions of dollars but we'll let you off with a Ruling in your favor. Here ya go!" And while you're at it ask Don Corleone for a list of everyone the Mob has popped a cap in.

Not gonna happen. Has it occurred to you that perhaps you're putting too much trust in official institutions and well-respected professionals. Have you given much thought to the possibility you've been scammed, lied to, on a massive scale, by these same leading figures?

You mentioned the hypothetical of being a criminal, a very good one. Let's run with that. Let's say you're tired of being a little fish running penny ante scams, you wish to run the ultimate con, something that can deceive an entire nation. Sounds like an impossible task, doesn't it? To basically takeover a free country at the turn of the century, a country experiencing unprecedented prosperity. Prosperity precisely because freedom and property rights are secured by law. And what is the nation using as money? Yes, gold & silver and notes backed by, settled in the same metal. Your plan is to gradually move people away from real money -- to using unbacked private debt notes as money. A new ELASTIC CURRENCY controlled by YOU!

What will you need to pull it off? Cooperation? Granted it won't be easy, you'll need to go into partnership with government officials, help from a compliant media, a vast network of minions, members of secret organizations, infiltrators, websites, paid agents, grunts, etc. throughout the country. You're patient, you may not even live to see the culmination of the master plan. How long do you think it'll take?

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. - Joseph Goebbels

The Third Reich told a lot of lies. Most Germans believed the State.

BTW, I redeem lawful money and haven't paid income tax since 2007.

[David Merrill]

It is important to me for you to follow, what was it that wizzed by? Where did I loose you? I really want to do my best to express my concern about this position, and that I believe anyone using this method to reduce their tax liability really doesn't have a legal basis that I can so far determine. This is the purpose of my posting, I am asking for guidance on where to find support for it.

I have tried to ask David these questions on another forum, but he felt he was being moderated and couldn't answer my questions, so I brought them here. I have done extensive research on my own time, read almost all Davids relevant posts in other forums, watched his videos, read others who have the same view, and still can't understand why the conversion renders the income tax free. It really should be a simple answer for an expert, yet I still haven't got one. If I am to rely on a position, I want to know what part of the tax law covers it. David is not a lawyer, and yet he seems to be providing tax advice, based on his own interpretations or the law. If this goes "t**s up (so the saying goes, no offense intended)" David will not be in a position to represent me in a court.

Thank you for correcting that perception Treefarmer!

I explained that NYGman brings in perceptions and states them as premises. It may be a problem of mine but as I read each sentence I want to correct his perceptions. So I prefer not to read his posts because it just takes too long to pick apart every sentence.

I looked at the previous page and noticed that the new Qualude shift, to attack Refusal for Cause is now sunk by a family being able to stay in their home through a foreclosure. He sent a copy of the check, which proves nothing but I believe him that the mortgage company was so glad to get it that they cashed it and now have reset any default action by doing so.

I find that quite satisfying as the Quatlosers all keep assuring themselves that the LoR and R4C are bogus.

[NYGMan-Tax]

and what? the IRS tells you "Oh yeah you're right, lawful money's outside our jurisdiction. You win, our fiat money scam has been bringing in billions of dollars but we'll let you off with a Ruling in your favor. Here ya go!" And while you're at it ask Don Corleone for a list of everyone the Mob has popped a cap in.

Not gonna happen. Has it occurred to you that perhaps you're putting too much trust in official institutions and well-respected professionals. Have you given much thought to the possibility you've been scammed, lied to, on a massive scale, by these same leading figures?

You mentioned the hypothetical of being a criminal, a very good one. Let's run with that. Let's say you're tired of being a little fish running penny ante scams, you wish to run the ultimate con, something that can deceive an entire nation. Sounds like an impossible task, doesn't it? To basically takeover a free country at the turn of the century, a country experiencing unprecedented prosperity. Prosperity precisely because freedom and property rights are secured by law. And what is the nation using as money? Yes, gold & silver and notes backed by, settled in the same metal. Your plan is to gradually move people away from real money -- to using unbacked private debt notes as money. A new ELASTIC CURRENCY controlled by YOU!

What will you need to pull it off? Cooperation? Granted it won't be easy, you'll need to go into partnership with government officials, help from a compliant media, a vast network of minions, members of secret organizations, infiltrators, websites, paid agents, grunts, etc. throughout the country. You're patient, you may not even live to see the culmination of the master plan. How long do you think it'll take?



The Third Reich told a lot of lies. Most Germans believed the State.

BTW, I redeem lawful money and haven't paid income tax since 2007.

First, I am very disappointed that David has chosen not to read my posts and respond. It reminds me of my toddlers who stick their fingers in their ears and go
"Naa Naa Naa" when you tell them something they don't want to hear. I believe David is best positions to address my concerns, but yet he just dismisses me out of hand. However, at least Johnny Cash and some others are actually giving it a go, to which I thank them.

I agree with you point on the PLR's, of course the IRS isn't going to say this position is valid, whether you believe this is due to the law not supporting the position or the fact that there is a conspiracy within the IRS not to admit taxes can be avoided, or some other reason altogether. Let's just go with your post above. The fact that you seem to acknowledge the IRS will not bless this position, as they would not issue a PLR in favor of it, shows that you really believe the IRS doesn't support this position. Think of the PLR process as running a draft tax return by the IRS to see how they would view the position. If you feel they would deny the PLR, then by default you can't believe they actually accept it on a filed return.

Regardless of how valid you believe this position to be, the courts don't seem to support it, the IRS if asked in a PLR would not support it, so even if you are correct in your views, you are still going to be subject to penalties, Liens, and possibly jail, as the courts will not agree with you.

I think you all have the wrong opinion of me. I am all for using the tax law to minimize tax liabilities within the boundaries of the law. I do this for a living. It is a legitimate position to structure a company in a way to minimize the tax consequences and I fully support taking advantage of any "loophole" in the tax code. I have no vested interest in any other site, I just seek answers to my own questions, with respect to this. Heck, if you can answer my questions with sufficient legal support, I will be singing this theories praises.

What interested me about this theory is that I really hadn't seen it until a few months ago, and I have been researching it ever since. I am a lawyer, I have to go by the law, regardless of whether you (Generic you, not directed at Johnny Cash) believe the laws are applicable. As a tax lawyer, I need to get comfort with this position, based on the IRS code, regs, and case law. I need to ensure that cases sited actually hold what David proports them to hold, or are just quotes from discussion sections taken out of context, I have to look up the code sections, and relevant regulations, and put together a legal arguement to support this position before I can take it.

David states that he believes my perceptions are wrong, but hasn't attempted to correct them. I try to distill any position in to its basic components. I provide plain english examples on how the IRS code works, and try to apply it to Davids position in order to show where I am having an issue. I think I laid it out in a way that was easy to understand. If not, I can elaborate on anything if asked.

While I do admit I have a general dislike of "Tax Protesters" (and I don't use that term in the negative) who make frivolous arguments and waste courts time, and consistently loose. I have no issues with those that study the tax law, and find creative ways within those laws to minimize tax. I was hoping David leaned more to the later rather than the former, but he just seems to be evading my questions here too, even though I am now posting on a forum he can't claim is censoring him.

If David doesn't like my "perceptions" I wish he would list them out, and state what the issue is. I will take as much time necessary to respond, but I would like my concerns addressed.

Look, for those taking this position, don't you want a succinct concise explanation of this position, with appropriate legal citations to code, regs, and cases, that you can research and confirm. Do you not want a written opinion that can be reviewed by legal professionals, judges, and legal scholars. Do you not want independent verification of this position?

If you believe Davids position is solid as a rock, what do you have to fear from providing the proper legal analysis. Referring to historic texts, old laws, articles, or documents outside the core tax law, code, regulations, and body of cases is not sufficient, in a law court. I am open minded, and willing to admit I am wrong, if provided with the support. A position like this should be easy to explain, and document. While you may believe the tax law is complicated, in all honesty, when you understand it, it is fairly straight forward. It is long, it refers to itself, and it is written by lawyers, so it can be a bit tricky for non-lawyers.

Finally, why would I be against this, other than I can't find legal support. As stated before, I would love to legally not have to pay tax. If this theory is supportable, I will be very happy. I do have a preconceived notion on the validity of this position, but only because I am a lawyer who has done his research, and have not found the support needed to accept this position. Rather than saying my opinion is correct, I wanted to reach out to the one person who seems to come up the most in searches on this topic, to help me find what I am missing. Repeatedly he has ignored my questions, even admitted to not reading them, and has generally tried to dismiss me, which to be honest, is not something I would expect from someone who has true conviction in his beliefs.

There is power in truth, you can not argue with the truth, you can not ignore the truth. Provide me with proof this is valid. Again, proof is not a redacted refund. Oh, by the way, has David ever posted his redacted returns and refund checks? I would think that would be an interesting read, although again not proof.

One final point to this post, and alluded to earlier, even if you are right (and I am not saying you are) if you believe the IRS will never admit this, and the courts will support the IRS's views on this, the penalties they can levy are real, and the jail time you can get is very real, and there are several public examples of people spending real jail time, loosing real property, and money, due to taking positions they believed were valid, but for which the IRS believed were frivolous. You can be a tax martyr if you like, but I certainly don't want to be. All I am trying to do is put the law behind these positions, and see if I can build a position supported by law, which would be undeniable in a court of law. When in Rome, do as the Romans, When in court subject to tax laws, find support in those laws.

[NYGMan-Tax]

As for the LoR and R4C I couldn't care less. The fact that you R4C a document has no applicability in pleadings or with respect to IRS notices. While it may make you feel good, outside of the UCC, with respect to contracts, it is not applicable. You are free to mark and revert, but it serves no legal purpose used the way it is promoted here. There is a big misconception as to when R4C is applicable. However, this isn't my issue, and I don't care to debate it, as you are free to mark any document in any way you see fit. In the end, you will find you received no benefit for doing this.Of course, I have now probably opened myself up to a slew of posts telling me I am wrong and the R4C documents work. Even assuming R4C is applicable, what is you cause? Just because you disagree with the IRS view, would not give you cause to refuse a document. But again, you are free to have your views on this, I would just prefer to discus the redeeming of lawful money, specifically what legal support you have for taking the position that the redemption is not taxable.

[JohnnyCash]

HA! Your dis-ingenuity is showing.

Simply getting the refund is not proof of anything. I have stated before, this will increase your audit risk, and that may result in the IRS examining your returns some day, but who knows when that will be.

You sound skeered. Or are you projecting fear? There is no downside when redeeming lawful money. Aside from record-keeping there is no cost. I have won with lawful money, corporations win with lawful money. In fact everyone here redeeming lawful money, and showing evidence of same (good record-keeping) is winning. The IRS folds. They melt like an illusion. Using Federal Reserve debt notes as money is an illusion GMan. Throw some lawful money on that illusion and she melts like the Wicked Witch of the West.

The days when you could win this with lies and propaganda are long gone, Gman. This isn't your father's Oldsmobile any more.

[American_National]

There is power in truth, you can not argue with the truth, you can not ignore the truth.

NYGMan-Tax, I agree with what you have stated in the quote above. Since you are an admitted attorney, locating the source reference material to support such a position for these and future questions that build upon the foundational answers you provide below should be really straightforward for you.

From reading your prior posts, the best approach to you answering this lawful money question for yourself is to engage in a dialog that allows you to establish your foundational reference material to support a series of questions that you come up with answers to in this regard.

Here are 5 initial foundational questions for you to answer:

1. Are Federal Reserve notes (FRN's, FRn's, Frn's, etc.) issues of the "United States", or issues of the "Federal Reserve" system/districts, please? (pick one "United States" or "Federal Reserve")

2. Is the "Federal Reserve" a foreign controlled private corporation, please? (yes or no)

3. Does the "United States" sell bonds to fund the costs of its various federal programs and benefits, please? (yes or no)

4. Who is currently the primary purchaser of these bonds, please? (Federal Reserve, China, IMF, IBRD, Great Britain, etc.)

5. Are Federal Reserve notes classified as intangible "bills of exchange", please? (yes or no)

We can incrementally move forward in this dialog once you have located your source reference material that supports and answers these initial 5 questions above. I agree with you that you are the one who must locate the foundational supporting documents that support any position you my choose to take in dealing with IRS in this regard.

I also understand everyone's ongoing frustration in trying to deal with IRS personnel whose greatest accomplishment in life so far has been mastering the ability to verbatim read somewhat at the 6th grade level and attempt to articulate various IRS form instruction sections to you on the phone, which always begin with "generally speaking", and are not to be used by anyone in supporting any position regarding a tax.

The IRS personnel I have dealt with so far also have no training or concept of what codified federal regulations and/or united states codes actually mean, or how to go about properly interpreting them - as ongoingly evidenced by their lack of ability to articulate the "in context" meaning of various regulatory defined terms that come out of their mouths over the phone. I also know the ongoing frustration of trying to get these intellectual giants off their butts long enough to have them seek the advice of their in-house legal counsel prior to re-engaging in an intelligent two-way conversation over the phone in regards to this and other topics.

So, lets do this in small simple steps - (N)ew (Y)ork (G)overnment (Man)-(Tax) attorney, small simple steps. :-)

[martin earl]

NYGman tax,

From US V Ware:
"It is also to be noted that Congress Has already come to grips with the question whether United States notes are legal tender in 31 U.S.C. ? 452, which provides:
16

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."

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...0.78-1834.html

As an attorney, you will notice the reference is to United States notes (as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes) and that US Notes are NOT legal tender for payment on "interest on the public debt".

It is my understanding that income taxes are used to "pay the interest on the public debt". It is reasonable to assume that if I am paid (income) exclusively in United States Notes (lawful money as issued and defined in the code listed above) I cannot legally tender those notes for payment of the interest on the public debt.

If that is the case, the IRS is actually prohibited, by law to accept my US Notes.

Of course, there is no such law that I know that does not allow them to receive notes such as EUROS, or any other elastic currency international Notes you listed, "value" expression converted into the other elastic currency Federal Reserve Note.

US Notes are NOT and never have been Federal Reserve Notes, nor have EUROS, et al. Had WARE demanded his "redemption of lawful money" not in Gold coin, but in US Notes, the issue before the court would have logically, been different. His claim was that "because Federal Reserve NOTES are not redeemable in Gold coin, they are not taxable.

The court was clear to point out in WARE that FRNs are redeemable IN LAWFUL MONEY (US Notes, as cited) and that US Bank notes are NOT legal tender for payment for the interest on the public debt.

It is clear the IRS would have not been able to receive said US Note lawful money for payment.

Thank you for being on this forum and for your reply, I am looking forward to it.
martin

[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?

[martin earl]

HA! Your dis-ingenuity is showing.
You sound skeered. Or are you projecting fear? There is no downside when redeeming lawful money. Aside from record-keeping there is no cost. I have won with lawful money, corporations win with lawful money. In fact everyone here redeeming lawful money, and showing evidence of same (good record-keeping) is winning. The IRS folds. They melt like an illusion. Using Federal Reserve debt notes as money is an illusion GMan. Throw some lawful money on that illusion and she melts like the Wicked Witch of the West.

The days when you could win this with lies and propaganda are long gone, Gman. This isn't your father's Oldsmobile any more.

I do not think he is scared. I think he stands to make a ton of money if he can somehow prove to his rich clients he can show them how to stop paying personal income taxes.

He is simply asking us to show him how to prove to his clients that it is based in law so they will sign the contract giving him a percentage of their "returns" and savings.

I know that is exactly what I would be doing if I were a tax attorney or accountant. He is correct, just showing someone a "tax return" or 2 or some refund checks will not convince business man who is pulling in millions in personal income.

I could be wrong...but I doubt I am...