My first steps to redeeming Lawful Money are underway, but I need guidance.

[Freed Gerdes]

Franko, you are trying too hard. See how easy EZ makes it look? It is that easy. The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract. The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps. The bank agreement contains a lot of legal text intended to trap you into an adhesion contract with the IRS (another corporation). But all of that is predicated on your use of FRN's, because the bank's lending against your credit is what triggers the duty to pay income tax. When you redeem lawful money, which is an inelastic currency, actually backed by silver, the bank cannot lend against it, cannot use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending. So now you are outside the purview of Title 26; the transaction in lawful money is not affected by Title 26. So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie, one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income. The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law (jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations, such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person. So the most you need to put on a bank account agreement is "all transactions redeemed in lawful money per 12 USC §411," and "All rights reserved per UCC 1-207" Or as EZ puts it: just notice your bank with your demand, and leave the signature page alone.

Finally, Bentley, you say only the employer has a duty (and I agree, where you file a W-4, asking him to withhold), but what about other things than wages being taxed? Such as capital gains? What is that tax on, being there is no employer? So the demand for lawful money covers anything the IRS wants to include, all based on the use of Federal Reserve credit. Don't use the credit, don't be liable for the tax. This is tax avoidance, not evasion.

Freed

[Franco]

Franko, you are trying too hard. See how easy EZ makes it look? It is that easy. The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract. The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps. The bank agreement contains a lot of legal text intended to trap you into an adhesion contract with the IRS (another corporation). But all of that is predicated on your use of FRN's, because the bank's lending against your credit is what triggers the duty to pay income tax. When you redeem lawful money, which is an inelastic currency, actually backed by silver, the bank cannot lend against it, cannot use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending. So now you are outside the purview of Title 26; the transaction in lawful money is not affected by Title 26. So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie, one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income. The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law (jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations, such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person. So the most you need to put on a bank account agreement is "all transactions redeemed in lawful money per 12 USC §411," and "All rights reserved per UCC 1-207" Or as EZ puts it: just notice your bank with your demand, and leave the signature page alone.

Finally, Bentley, you say only the employer has a duty (and I agree, where you file a W-4, asking him to withhold), but what about other things than wages being taxed? Such as capital gains? What is that tax on, being there is no employer? So the demand for lawful money covers anything the IRS wants to include, all based on the use of Federal Reserve credit. Don't use the credit, don't be liable for the tax. This is tax avoidance, not evasion.

Freed

Mr. Gerdes , thank you for answering my questions . I appreciate it.
I did read you statement. I found you statement , “The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps.” Interesting. I wonder I you can help with following:
Question: (1). I have already opened 3 accounts. Each account has a signature card with my true name; First and Middle name; and dba FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL and LAST NAME. all three signature card are stamped all transaction and deposits demanding lawful money pursuant to title 12 section 411. On or about the 3 day after I had signed the signature card I went back to the bank to request that I be allowed to cross out words “under penalty of perjury” and add the words “signed for” with an arrow pointing to “U.S. Citizen and “U.S. person” . she told me she could not allow me to do that , because it would make the signature card void.
(2). About 3 weeks ago I wrote a certified mail document to chase bank who I now do business with. I stated: that the IRS cannot inspect any of my bank records unless I have specifically authorized such inspection by executing IRS Form 6014. I will not sign a W-9. If I did sign W-9 form it was through coercion.I also said, I AM also NOT a U.S.Citizen or other U.S. PERSON (as defined in the Form W-9 instructions.) However, I am signing for the U.S. Citizen or other person.
(3) About a week later after I mailed the certified letter I walked into the Bank to make a deposit. The Bank manger Mr. Rodriguez said he needed to talke to me. His question was concerning the citizenship question. He asked if I was a U.S. citizen? I told him I was born in Texas . he said but you are a U.S. Citizen? I said I was born in the U.S. but…” he didn’t let me finish .
(4). So I would say it’s my statement in my certified mailing versus He verbal statement to me at the bank. So I have the edge. I have written evidence, he doesn’t.
(5). In your reply to me, you said “The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract.
(6). The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps.”
(a) So if the bank is contracting with my cestui que vie trust(another corporation)then its signing the contract with the “U.S. Citizen or other U.S. person” not me?
(b) I have been over this cite and the familyguardian cite concerning the U.S. Citizen definition AND this cite and familyguardian cite are confusing.
(c) I just want to know that if I am not a U.S. Citizen , what am I? a Constitutional citizen.
(d) The “signing for” the U.S. citizen was a recommendation by Mr. Merrill.
I would appreciate any answers you can help me with . Franco

[Franco]

Franko, you are trying too hard. See how easy EZ makes it look? It is that easy. The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract. The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps. The bank agreement contains a lot of legal text intended to trap you into an adhesion contract with the IRS (another corporation). But all of that is predicated on your use of FRN's, because the bank's lending against your credit is what triggers the duty to pay income tax. When you redeem lawful money, which is an inelastic currency, actually backed by silver, the bank cannot lend against it, cannot use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending. So now you are outside the purview of Title 26; the transaction in lawful money is not affected by Title 26. So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie, one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income. The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law (jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations, such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person. So the most you need to put on a bank account agreement is "all transactions redeemed in lawful money per 12 USC §411," and "All rights reserved per UCC 1-207" Or as EZ puts it: just notice your bank with your demand, and leave the signature page alone.

Finally, Bentley, you say only the employer has a duty (and I agree, where you file a W-4, asking him to withhold), but what about other things than wages being taxed? Such as capital gains? What is that tax on, being there is no employer? So the demand for lawful money covers anything the IRS wants to include, all based on the use of Federal Reserve credit. Don't use the credit, don't be liable for the tax. This is tax avoidance, not evasion.

Freed

Mr. Gerdes , I apologize, you already gave me the answers . you said
“So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie,
one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income.
The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law
(jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations,
such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person.”
I thank you , it 3 in the moring. Making mistakes.”
Franco

[Bentley]

Thanks Freed for your reply.

I'm still trying wrap my brain around this whole concept of lawful money and it's beginning to make sense. What I was trying to point out about only the (federal) employer being liable for withholding is that the whole damn enslavement system is based on the 16th amend. So, the other income taxes, i.e.e social security, fica, self-employment, are all based on the poison fruit of chapter A income tax. Without that, I do not believe 20th century Americans of early last century would have accepted any other 'piggy back' income taxes such as mentioned above.

Bentley

[shikamaru]

What I was trying to point out about only the (federal) employer being liable for withholding is that the whole damn enslavement system is based on the 16th amend.

There was taxation prior to the 16th Amendment.
Income has always been an object of taxation since the Revenue Act of 1861.
Check out Springer v. U.S. (1881) for more details.

One of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to tax.

[Bentley]

There was taxation prior to the 16th Amendment.
Income has always been an object of taxation since the Revenue Act of 1861.
Check out Springer v. U.S. (1881) for more details.

One of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to tax.

I'm assuming you mean 'income' taxation prior to the 16th amendment. Income tax hasn't always been part of our history since the Civil War however. It was the Tax of 1862 which gave a wartime income tax through the creation of the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the Treasury dept, and then it was eliminated in 1872. It saw a revival in the 1880's but declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until passage of the 16th amendment in 1913. Thus we have our present day scourge.

Bentley

[shikamaru]

I'm assuming you mean 'income' taxation prior to the 16th amendment. Income tax hasn't always been part of our history since the Civil War however.

Income tax was first done in Britain. It was implemented in the US via the Revenue Act of 1861.

It was the Tax of 1862 which gave a wartime income tax through the creation of the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the Treasury dept, and then it was eliminated in 1872.

Would happen to have any literature on this? My reference above conflicts with the beginning of your statement.

It saw a revival in the 1880's but declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until passage of the 16th amendment in 1913. Thus we have our present day scourge.

Would you happen to have the Supreme Court case that says that income tax was unconstitutional?

[Bentley]

Chrysler v. Brown 1979
[Footnote 23]
There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that, during the Civil War, 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field, "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" -- and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field, and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.

Also, try googling "Pollock v Farmers loan-1895"










Chrysler v. Brown 1979

[Footnote 23]
There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that, during the Civil War, 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field, "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" -- and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field, and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.

Also, try googling "Pollock v Farmers loan-1895"

[shikamaru]

Chrysler v. Brown 1979
[Footnote 23]
There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that, during the Civil War, 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field, "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" -- and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field, and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.

It was the Tax of 1862 which gave a wartime income tax through the creation of the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the Treasury dept, and then it was eliminated in 1872.

How does the passage which you've provided support any of the assertions in your statement above?

Also, try googling "Pollock v Farmers loan-1895"

Pollock v. Farmers (1895) is very lengthy. What passage in the this case states that income taxes are unconstitutional?

[Bentley]

Income tax was first done in Britain. It was implemented in the US via the Revenue Act of 1861.



Would happen to have any literature on this? My reference above conflicts with the beginning of your statement.

Here's the Wiki link for Pollock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock...n_%26_Trust_Co.



Would you happen to have the Supreme Court case that says that income tax was unconstitutional?

I did answer your questions, but I'll try again. In your quote above, you referenced (through wikipedia) the income tax act of 1861. Wiki's got some good info in it but it is not always correct. Here's a case where it is not correct. Click on your referenced link to the Tax act of 1861 and scroll down to the bullet item for property tax. You will find this statement.

Property Tax: The Revenue Act of 1861 instituted a tax on real estate, levied in proportion to each state’s population. While the act’s enforcement mechanism was limited, it formally established a system of tax districts, assessors, and collectors, laying the groundwork for the Internal Revenue Service's formation on July 1, 1862.

with a link to Internal Revenue Service.

This is a false statement... the IRS was not formed by the Tax Act of 1862 and has never been created by statute. That's what my previous post regarding footnote 23 of Chrysler V. Brown was about. Only the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by the Tax Act of 1862, not the Internal Revenue Service, as the Wiki article claims. The IRS doens't legally exist.

The Tax Act of 1862 repealed the Act of 1861 anyway, and income tax was the eliminated in 1872. Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tarriff Act in 1894 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson-Gorman_Tariff_Act that was delcared unconstitutional by the Pollock decision in 1895. I hope this helps.

Bentley