Clarity please

[Keith Alan]

No doubt you understand it better than I do. I still want to believe they're following the law, but it may be criminal deceit. But if it's criminal, then I need a different strategy. If I can't expect them to follow the law, then going completely under the radar is better.

Until recently, I've believed they've been operating under the doctrine of necessity and warpowers, stretching meaning and intent as far as possible, but still in the guidelines provided in the Constitution. Which reminds me, a good book to look at is War Powers by William Whiting. It's available on google books for free. Very enlightening.

[Treefarmer]

After the last few years of research and first-hand IRS experiences, I have come to the conclusion that FRNs are considered Lawful Money, as explained here.

Once this LM comes in to a PERSON's bank account, the IRS considers it taxable income, as explained here.
What makes it "taxable income"?
Well, it "came in" and a PERSON is a taxpayer right?

I think it would help to watch the movie Idiocracy at this point, in order to understand the legal reasoning that's employed.
Words have obviously changed their meaning since the founding of this country.

The USA was sold to Rome for nothing, and US government has been reduced to administrative tribunals. All the politicians and judges are owned by Rome, and so are the banks of course, and most corporations, directly or indirectly.
Might makes it right, as there is no rule of law anymore. The law which once was has been quietly overridden by secret treaties with Rome, via the venue of the UN.
The law is whatever they tell a PERSON that it is, via executive order, which is why no government entity including the courts, will ever talk with a man/woman anymore, but only acknowledge PERSONS.
For now, Rome's voodoo only works on PERSONS.

Rome will soon seek to change this, and will number men/women directly, which the Bible calls "the mark of the beast".

[Brian]

After the last few years of research and first-hand IRS experiences, I have come to the conclusion that FRNs are considered Lawful Money, as explained here.

Once this LM comes in to a PERSON's bank account, the IRS considers it taxable income, as explained here.
What makes it "taxable income"?
Well, it "came in" and a PERSON is a taxpayer right?

I think it would help to watch the movie Idiocracy at this point, in order to understand the legal reasoning that's employed.
Words have obviously changed their meaning since the founding of this country.

The USA was sold to Rome for nothing, and US government has been reduced to administrative tribunals. All the politicians and judges are owned by Rome, and so are the banks of course, and most corporations, directly or indirectly.
Might makes it right, as there is no rule of law anymore. The law which once was has been quietly overridden by secret treaties with Rome, via the venue of the UN.
The law is whatever they tell a PERSON that it is, via executive order, which is why no government entity including the courts, will ever talk with a man/woman anymore, but only acknowledge PERSONS.
For now, Rome's voodoo only works on PERSONS.

Rome will soon seek to change this, and will number men/women directly, which the Bible calls "the mark of the beast".

Tree, yes I think they could be considered lawful money in that they ARE authorized by law. The tax is on the transfer of bank/fed credit into your account. These money subsitutes are not issued by the Treasury and their use is completely voluntary. Which is why I've added the "lawful money of the US", meaning issued by the treasury and not a private bank. As for how the bank handles it... does not matter to me. The key is demanding treasury issued coin or US currency notes.
Have you met resistence from the beast in your dealings with them?

[David Merrill]

After the last few years of research and first-hand IRS experiences, I have come to the conclusion that FRNs are considered Lawful Money, as explained here.

Once this LM comes in to a PERSON's bank account, the IRS considers it taxable income, as explained here.
What makes it "taxable income"?
Well, it "came in" and a PERSON is a taxpayer right?

I think it would help to watch the movie Idiocracy at this point, in order to understand the legal reasoning that's employed.
Words have obviously changed their meaning since the founding of this country.

The USA was sold to Rome for nothing, and US government has been reduced to administrative tribunals. All the politicians and judges are owned by Rome, and so are the banks of course, and most corporations, directly or indirectly.
Might makes it right, as there is no rule of law anymore. The law which once was has been quietly overridden by secret treaties with Rome, via the venue of the UN.
The law is whatever they tell a PERSON that it is, via executive order, which is why no government entity including the courts, will ever talk with a man/woman anymore, but only acknowledge PERSONS.
For now, Rome's voodoo only works on PERSONS.

Rome will soon seek to change this, and will number men/women directly, which the Bible calls "the mark of the beast".

This perception is to be expected originating from Romans 13. Paul was living (maybe inventing) the Roman Taxpayer Dole - protective custody, the welfare state, whatever you want to coin it. Paul wrote all his letters of the New Covenant from house arrest in Rome. Paul spent the last five years of his life, living off the Roman taxpayers in protective custody from a contract on his life by the Sanhedrin for treason against Israel (purchasing Roman citizenship papers in Cyprus).

That is an interesting encryption - that Mnason (Mason) would testify in purjury on his behalf in Jerusalem.

[David Merrill]

After the last few years of research and first-hand IRS experiences, I have come to the conclusion that FRNs are considered Lawful Money, as explained here.

Once this LM comes in to a PERSON's bank account, the IRS considers it taxable income, as explained here.
What makes it "taxable income"?
Well, it "came in" and a PERSON is a taxpayer right?

All Persons are subject to the higher powers...

[Keith Alan]

All Persons are subject to the higher powers...

Roman Catholic Trinitarian dogma though has 1 God, existing in 2 natures, among 3 persons. Each person in the the Holy Trinity is in perfect agreement with the others.

I'm only pointing this out because of the discussion about Rome, and how it pertains to the theory of persons. It might be instructive to look into canon law and find out what persons are in the Roman Catholic Tradition. I think I'll try doing that.

[David Merrill]

Roman Catholic Trinitarian dogma though has 1 God, existing in 2 natures, among 3 persons. Each person in the the Holy Trinity is in perfect agreement with the others.

I'm only pointing this out because of the discussion about Rome, and how it pertains to the theory of persons. It might be instructive to look into canon law and find out what persons are in the Roman Catholic Tradition. I think I'll try doing that.

Thank you!

[Keith Alan]

Roman Catholic Trinitarian dogma though has 1 God, existing in 2 natures, among 3 persons. Each person in the the Holy Trinity is in perfect agreement with the others.

I'm only pointing this out because of the discussion about Rome, and how it pertains to the theory of persons. It might be instructive to look into canon law and find out what persons are in the Roman Catholic Tradition. I think I'll try doing that.

Well, it turns out that I gave myself a tall order. I cannot find any precise definition of what a person is, although there are several precise definitions of different kinds of persons. There are moral persons, physical persons, and juridic persons recognized in the Church, which also recognizes more kinds of persons subsisting outside of the Church. In other words, there appears to be an army of persons (according to the RCC) at work in the world and in heaven., but nowhere can I find what a person is.

However, there are many dissertations on what man and mankind are. I discovered there are four Constitutions of Church government, each purporting to define the role of the Church in the world, one of them being: DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DIGNITATIS HUMANAE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965.

After reading this Constitution and the others, and after reading what I thought were the applicable codes in canon law, I have no choice but to infer that a person is that part of a being that relates to society, and may include groups of people and entities recognizable as one person.

Perhaps I should explain my thinking. On reading these documents (which is not my first time severally, but is my first time in reading them all concurrently) I was struck by the apparent harmony in their reasoning. Whatever people may think of the RCC, it must be acknowledged she is thorough and broad in her explanations of her mission. That being said, she leaves much for individuals in their own consciences to contemplate, leaving them free to accept or reject the Church's conclusions.

Personhood is a metaphysical question. In reading these Constitutions, I did come to a deeper understanding in my own mind about what personhood is. I apprehend better that: a person is a being's expression of self among a community. Self can include groups, or bodies as the Church calls them. The highest example of personhood is the RCC model of the Holy Trinity. One being - God - exists in three persons. These persons are the One's expression of self in the society of humanity. People like to say God is revealed in his persons, which is true.

It appears there is an over-arching system of metaphysical understanding that guides the RCC in her ministrations. It also appears that this understanding pervades other systems of law outside of the Church. While some people might find it offensive to be regarded in society as merely a person, it remains a metaphysical truth that one's being is unreachable to others. Society (other beings, individually or in groups) has no other choice but to see a being's person. So too, one being cannot reach other beings, except through their persons.

I suppose that - as this relates to demanding lawful money - an individual person's rank in society is the real thing at stake. David's comment that all persons are subject to higher powers is interesting in that, it acknowledges personhood as a creature of society, not of an individual being. The question is, is that personhood really subject to society?

If a person is a being's expression of self in society, and society's recognition of it in return, by what authority does society seek to impose its collective will on an individual being? All it can do is assert the collective will against the individual person. Money - in its broadest sense, a medium of exchange - courses through society, carrying with it obligations and benefits to persons. These obligations and benefits are sometimes ill defined, yet they exist ostensibly for the overall good of a society.

Demanding and receiving lawful money ought to be regarded as a person's attempt to assert one's human dignity in society. Moreover, it is not an advancement on or against society, but rather a firm expression of an individual being's existence as part of the divine order. The private credit regime seeks to depart from the divine order, by assuming the One's role as Creator - the regime did create the credit - and imposing private obligations on the holders of its credit. To enter into the private credit regime is to leave behind the One, and submit to the private credit society's collective will.

[shikamaru]

Roman Catholic Trinitarian dogma though has 1 God, existing in 2 natures, among 3 persons. Each person in the the Holy Trinity is in perfect agreement with the others.

I'm only pointing this out because of the discussion about Rome, and how it pertains to the theory of persons. It might be instructive to look into canon law and find out what persons are in the Roman Catholic Tradition. I think I'll try doing that.

Definition of person from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm

[Keith Alan]

Definition of person from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm

Definitions, yes. I hope you can indulge me in my exploration of persons. It's the way I learn things. I have an idea, then try to communicate it to someone. It's by organizing my thoughts for someone else that I learn more about my idea. Right now I'm seeing a person as something other than one's self, or being.