Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

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

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    Noted.



    Not so sure on this one.



    This is incorrect. The Tax Act of 1862 only repealed the income tax sections (Sections 49, 50, and 51) of the Revenue Act of 1861. Not the entire thing.



    The income tax at that time was a wartime tax and temporary.
    According to Wikipedia, the act which expired was the Revenue Act of 1864 which expired in 1873.

    Revenue Act of 1861 or Act of August 5, 1861, Chap. XLV, 12 Stat. 292

    Revenue Act of 1862 or Act of July 1, 1862, Ch, 119, 12 Stat. 432

    I'll review the Pollock decision, but I don't believe it says what you are claiming.
    I'll respond later with some dicta from early Supreme Court cases concerning taxation including Springer v. U.S. and Pollock.
    I think the important thing here, (and so does the IRS for that matter - see http://www.irs.gov/uac/Today's-IRS-Organization) is that most authorities, and the IRS, claim that the IRS was created with the Tax Act of 1862. As I have illustrated via footnote 23, Chrysler v. Brown, only the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by the law, not the IRS. They only wish they were. I have no idea what 'roots of the IRS' have to do with law, as stated on the IRS site. It simply has never been created by statute.

    There are also references to the repeal of income tax 10 years later, and the Supreme court ruling that income tax was declared unconstitutional in 1895 (that was Pollock.) So with that in mind, my points were, many posts ago..., that income tax was not contigous after the Civil War up to 1913, and also that the IRS was never created by statute, as illustrated via Chrysler v. Brown. I have certainly enjoyed the back and forth discussion but I've got to move on.

    Bentley

  2. #62
    I believe the foundation for the IRS is in war code - which I think may be considered statute. More like Executive Order? - Presidential Declaration? Whatever you want to call extraordinary occasion:






    The fact that no state or confederation of states are allowed to secede from the Union even today is evidence that the extraordinary occasion is still in place. We find that the United States is considered a singular entity while prior to 1861 it was obviously (Thirteenth Amendment) thought of in the plural.

    Traditionally a Preamble preceeds a Statute so the Constitution where we find the Extraordinary Occasion clause might be considered Statute? I do not like being reduced to bickering semantics but that is how I see it Bentley.


    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-26-13 at 09:48 AM.

  3. #63
    David, you are right it’s just a presumption. Because my name is John Henry, not John H. Doe. Therefore I am not the trustee for JOHN HENRY DOE. appriciate the tip. Franco

  4. #64
    David, you are right it’s just a presumption. Because my name is John Henry, not John H. Doe. I am not the trustee for JOHN HENRY DOE. My name John Henry is on my signature card agreement. I appriciate the tip.thank you Franco

  5. #65
    My understanding is the Secretary of Treasury is the trustee. And we are the beneficiaries of the trust. Keser soze Thank you for the tip I appreciate it. Franco

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    My understanding is the Secretary of Treasury is the trustee. And we are the beneficiaries of the trust. Keser soze Thank you for the tip I appreciate it. Franco
    You are welcome. May I propose that the trustee is whoever steps up. If you think your name is John H. DOE then you are likely to be the trustee. If you R4C the trustee position then it would logically fall back to the Secretary. If the Secretary is in breach of trust however that forms a resulting trust and you can pick that up on authority as (resulting) trustee. This authority can be demonstrated (expressed) by showing faults in the oath of office process.

    View the trust as a circuit - IN GOD WE TRUST is on the money supply while SO HELP ME GOD is on the oath. If the official breaches oath then that opens the money supply (authority of first lien).


    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-26-13 at 02:13 PM.

  7. #67
    David, like always in appreciation of your comments. I went through what you stated in your thread. In the first part I didn’t have trouble with the part, about R4C the trustee position.
    On the second part, if the Secretary is in Breach of trust is a different story.
    I do have some questions. But first I have to tell you my research went out the window when I went back to your thread today and saw the definitions you put out there for us. The one that I found most important is the “Oath of Office” video. The other material I haven’t had the time to read it carefully yet. I had the definition of the “Oath of Office” but I had no idea of the procedure and most of all what the consequences are for failure to follow the procedure explained on video. Makes me feel as if I am in safe beach waters ; I think I am walking through safe waters when they are really full of sharks and I don’t even know it. That information is really appreciated.
    My questions are the following:
    1. It appears to me that the Federal government agency who created the trust is the Office of personnel management, (agency paying my benefits) so they would be the settlor. Or is the Federal Government the settlor, since agency is their creation?
    2. The Secretary of Treasury is the trustee. But then who is the bank? Another trustee?
    3. If the Trustee breaches trust by failure to do his obligations or duties he is then personally liable to make good on any losses to the plan. And by operation of law that makes me the resulting trustee. But what becomes of my being the beneficiary of the trust? I can’t be both trustee and beneficiary. Or are they joint trustees?
    9. When you said,” the official breaches oath, then that opens the money supply (authority of first lien)”
    I interpreted what you stated as:
    (a). The court will allow me an action against the trustee because of his breach of contract (“K”), under operation of law.
    (b). The court will also allow me the beneficiary a right of action against the property of assets of the trust.
    ©. Additionally, I can seek enforcement of the “Res” of the trust or a personal judgment against the Secretary of the Treasury for the value of the “Res” (lien or pledge)
    11. Where you stated, “If the secretary is in breach of trust however that forms a resulting trust and you can pick that up on authority as (resulting trustee). This authority can be demonstrated (expressed) by showing faults in the oath of office process.” I did have trouble understanding it.
    12. However, after watching that short video, on the “Oath of office” I had a better understanding of what you are saying. I am glad you put that information up there.
    a. I need to file an action to foreclose a lien or their pledge, which is a lien against their fidelity bond. Because he violated his guaranty of personal honesty. And I am putting a lien on his property for a debt owed due to his breach of duty(oath).
    b. I didn’t quite understand what he meant on the part about, “they don’t have files” and “we declare their office vacant”.
    13. Can you direct me to some place(s) where I can see more videos or more material on this issues for more reading on this subject?
    Franco

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •