Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63

Thread: Make Demand At Treasury

  1. #11
    Brian,

    I really liked that link! Bookmarked for future reference.

    It actually sparked yet another thought: the difference between lawful money and legal tender. It appears to me that lawful money is money held under the common law, whereas legal tender is in admiralty.

    The way I see it, this relates to saving to suitors and demanding redemption by highlighting what happens when someone makes their demand. Would it be incorrect to say that: one is demanding his currency be redeemed from one jurisdiction, and brought into another?

    The funds made subject to a tax are legal tender, and subject to siezure, correct? Now it's occurring to me that in the case of filing a return, the legal person taxpayer is also in admiralty, which is why he must file a return. He is in admiralty because he - being simply the NAME - is the res of a trust.

    The living man however is not the res. Rather he is the beneficiary of the trust.

    Now then, if the NAME files his return as required, but the living man makes his demand on the return, I can see why this would be confusing for IRS to process.

    If, as someone said, the result would be a denial of the claim by IRS, it seems the ball would then be handed back to the taxpayer/living man. Here is where the benefit of experience in dealing with them is most necessary. I do not know what form a denial would take. Do they list their reason(s) for denial?

    In any case, I would accept their denial on the condition they show proof of claim that I am not entitled to make the demand.

    Does this sound realistic? Reasonable? Workable?

  2. #12
    On the tax return? Seems that appropriate and applicable would be:

    (1) redeeming the treasury check for lawful money
    (2) properly dealing with the account to which a tax refund might be electronically deposited.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by allodial View Post
    On the tax return? Seems that appropriate and applicable would be:

    (1) redeeming the treasury check for lawful money
    (2) properly dealing with the account to which a tax refund might be electronically deposited.
    I'm not looking for a refund. I guess the real goal is to establish the difference between the living man and the trust in the office of the Secretary of Treasury.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    "the difference between lawful money and legal tender. It appears to me that lawful money is money held under the common law, whereas legal tender is in admiralty."

    I think legal tender refers to what the government will take in payment of taxes. The government conveys the status upon certain forms of money. Like USN's, they are legal tender for everything EXCEPT payment of duties on imports and interest on the public debt. So they are not a FULL/unlimited legal tender like gold coin was prior to 1933. See page 17 of this: http://archive.org/details/sciencemoney00margoog

    Lawful money in my view is that which is authorized by law. Lawful money of the United States (LMUS) is authorized by law and issued by the U.S. Treasury. I think where the admiralty/equity part gets into the mix is by using bills of credit (checks). Admiralty/equity law was in part created for the passing of bills of credit between countries with dissimilar mediums of exchange so that an equitable exchange/trade system could be set up. This was so that merchants did not need to send ships full of gold or silver risking the loss of that metal in order to buy goods overseas. Bills of credit were implimented to avoid the risk, and I think (i'm going off memory of something I read awhile ago) the jurisdiction governing these devices were within admiralty and or equity. I could be totally off base here, but that is my understanding at this point in time. That is I think why the IRS sometimes goes after people's stuff "in rem"...they are going after the thing (money), and not particularly you.

    The trust aspect is something I have not devoted a large part of my time into unwinding. Many others on here are probably way better versed then I in dealing with that. My thinking is that by dealing in LMUS authorized by the US Constitution 1:8:5. I can avoid the sticky issues of admiralty/equity and remain in common law. However I'm always open to other ideas as everyone should be.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian View Post

    The trust aspect is something I have not devoted a large part of my time into unwinding. Many others on here are probably way better versed then I in dealing with that. My thinking is that by dealing in LMUS authorized by the US Constitution 1:8:5. I can avoid the sticky issues of admiralty/equity and remain in common law. However I'm always open to other ideas as everyone should be.
    Very clever of you to choose 'unwind'! For the benefit of anyone reading this thread, one of its definitions is: unwind a trade - to reverse a securities transaction through an offsetting transaction. Now I do not want to unwind the trust, but rather begin using it skillfully in commerce. Perhaps this is why I'm perceiving a bit of reluctance from people in accepting the idea of making the demand on the tax return. My goal is different than their's, and the subject so esoteric, that the mental models pass each other without ever really connecting.

    My theory is this: if I can establish the difference between the NAME and the living man with Treasury - as in accepted by Treasury - I would automatically become recognized as inhabiting the de jure republic, without ever having to jump through any other hoops. I would then be using the Social Security account as a friendly national citizen, as opposed to an enemy of the state. There would be no need to fill out forms declaring myself to be a non resident alien, or anything like that.

    I would be free to enter and do business in the jurisdiction of the United States at will, and leave again unmolested. Do you see what I'm driving at? The Social Security number is a vehicle, a very useful vehicle, and the government is set up to work with people through it. Why not use it as it was intended?
    Last edited by Keith Alan; 04-08-13 at 12:50 PM. Reason: changed a term

  6. #16
    Now I do not want to unwind the trust, but rather begin using it skillfully in commerce.
    A new suitor quickly learns his or her true name. This seems like silliness or even idiocy to any attorney reading here. And it has very little effect on the surface. The effect is however profound.

    True Name gains the choice of being the trustee for the Legal or Full Name. First Middle Last becomes the name of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust that is available for First Middle to use.

  7. #17
    A moment ago I was reviewing another thread - http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...-the-1040-Form - where there is contained a supporting schedule for 1040 with the dmand made at the top of the page!

    Now I need to rethink everything again.

    I've been reluctant to make demands on checks, because I don't see what is in it for the banks. After seeing the supporting schedule referenced above, I now understand the motivation for keeping a good record, but still question why it's necessary. I noticed that the suitor's supporting schedule reserved the right to make another demand nunc pro tunc to an earlier date.

    Why is this in the mind of the suitor, if his documentation only reaches the last three months of 2011?
    Last edited by Keith Alan; 04-08-13 at 02:05 PM. Reason: Corrected a factual error

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    A new suitor quickly learns his or her true name. This seems like silliness or even idiocy to any attorney reading here. And it has very little effect on the surface. The effect is however profound.

    True Name gains the choice of being the trustee for the Legal or Full Name. First Middle Last becomes the name of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust that is available for First Middle to use.
    Yes! I am very happy to have learned the difference, and agree the effect is profound. I have new insights every day regarding its meaning, and feel empowered by it.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
    It actually sparked yet another thought: the difference between lawful money and legal tender. It appears to me that lawful money is money held under the common law, whereas legal tender is in admiralty.
    Only problem is that much of lawful money is fiat currency i.e. demand notes, greenbacks, etc.

    The key difference I have seen concerning lawful money vs legal tender is who the issuer is.

    The U.S. Treasury issues lawful money. The Federal Reserve issues legal tender.
    By the above, US Treasury Notes and Bonds would be considered lawful money.

    Interestingly enough US Treasury Notes and Bonds are, in part, reserve currency for the issuance of FRNs.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    Only problem is that much of lawful money is fiat currency i.e. demand notes, greenbacks, etc.

    The key difference I have seen concerning lawful money vs legal tender is who the issuer is.

    The U.S. Treasury issues lawful money. The Federal Reserve issues legal tender.
    By the above, US Treasury Notes and Bonds would be considered lawful money.

    Interestingly enough US Treasury Notes and Bonds are, in part, reserve currency for the issuance of FRNs.
    Well, aren't we saying the very same thing? Treasury and Congress are not authorized to issue private equity currency, which is why (I think) the Federal Reserve was created/authorized. I don't think the issue of fiat currency matters as long as - like you say - the issuer complies with its jurisdictional authority. What matters is under which jurisdiction the currency is operating. Upon being redeemed, the same physical (including digital) currency becomes lawful money, not legal tender.

    What started me along this way of thinking was, demanding lawful money results in the currency being removed from admiralty (where it's subject to siezure) and coming into common law (where it is not) as per the saving to suitors clause. After all, there is no physical alternative to what appear to be FRNs. But as we all know, the right side of the note belongs to Treasury. Also, there exists a potential that all FRNs in existence could be redeemed, resulting in $ trillions of lawful money in circulation, all fiat.
    Last edited by Keith Alan; 04-09-13 at 12:49 PM.

Posting Permissions

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