Make Demand At Treasury

[Keith Alan]

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?

[Freed Gerdes]

Before you get too far along with your concept of reducing the (Federal Reserve) debt, let's look at how the banking system views your transaction. Suppose your employer (?) sends you a paycheck (actually sends a computer file from payroll to the bank, instructing them to credit your account). The "money" exists only as a computer balance in the employer's bank account. Since you noticed the bank that you want to redeem lawful money, the bank must credit your account with LM, ie, it must not add your new balance to their 'reserve balance' which they report weekly to the FR, and upon which they can advance fractional reserve lending to others. Your balance exists as LM, but there are no actual dollars involved. Now suppose you buy a car, pay the dealership $30k in LM; your LM balance is reduced by $30k. The dealership deposits your check in their Federal Reserve account, having endorsed the credit. Presto! the LM is now back to being 'fiat money,' now endorsed by the dealership. No new debt was accepted by you, so the FR debt was not reduced, it was just not enlarged by your non-endorsement. But as soon as you circulate (spend) your LM, it goes right back to being legal tender, and now can be used to increase fractional reserve lending (thus increasing the debt). If everyone would demand lawful money, the bank's fractional reserve lending balance would be driven to zero, and they could not increase the debt by creating more unbacked fiduciary media, but as long as the total users of LM remain trivial, there is no effect on the national (Federal Reserve) debt. Note also that the FR is creating over $1 trillion in new unbacked fiduciary media this year, by their program of buying $40 billion per month of bad MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) paper from the banks and from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and $45 billion per month of new Treasury bonds (interest bearing debt notes). [see this link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...improves.html] The 'money' the Fed creates when it buys the newly-issued Treasury bonds is actually just computer entries in the government accounts at various FR banks; these 'credits' are then transferred to SNAP cards, SS checks, and other government giveaway programs, and shows up as credits in those voter's bank accounts, thus increasing the reserve balance at those banks, thus allowing more creation of unbacked fiduciary media by those banks.

So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.

[Keith Alan]

So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.

How can LM - the way it currently manifests - be backed by silver? And how is LM not fractionalized, seeing that it is the resulting trust created by demanding redemption of fractionalized FRNs?

[Freed Gerdes]

How can LM - the way it currently manifests - be backed by silver? And how is LM not fractionalized, seeing that it is the resulting trust created by demanding redemption of fractionalized FRNs?

Lawful money is/was issued by the US Treasury, and was limited to $300 million because that was the amount of silver available at the time. It is public money, can only be issued by the Treasury, and cannot be over-issued beyond the $300 million of silver backing it. And it cannot be counted as reserves for fractional reserve lending. FRN's are private money, issued by the Federal Reserve. Their rules allow their member banks to lend more money out than they have in deposits. This is fractional reserve banking; it is fraud, and it results in inflating the money supply, thus diluting its value (same as counterfeiting). Title 12, which created the right of the Fed to issue private debt money, could not force citizens to use it, thus incurring the obligation to pay taxes (the interest on the private debt), as people have a right to contract, and to refuse to contract, with whomever they choose. So Title 12 had to allow an exit from the private money debt scheme: demand public money, which cannot be taxed by the IRS (it can only be taxed by Congress, following the rules for taxation found in the Constitution). And it cannot be used as reserves for fractional reserve lending, because that is a private scheme, carried out by a corporation (the Fed). Such lending would be un-Constitutional if conducted by the Treasury; thus public money cannot be used in the private scheme.

[Keith Alan]

Lawful money is/was issued by the US Treasury, and was limited to $300 million because that was the amount of silver available at the time. It is public money, can only be issued by the Treasury, and cannot be over-issued beyond the $300 million of silver backing it. And it cannot be counted as reserves for fractional reserve lending. FRN's are private money, issued by the Federal Reserve. Their rules allow their member banks to lend more money out than they have in deposits. This is fractional reserve banking; it is fraud, and it results in inflating the money supply, thus diluting its value (same as counterfeiting). Title 12, which created the right of the Fed to issue private debt money, could not force citizens to use it, thus incurring the obligation to pay taxes (the interest on the private debt), as people have a right to contract, and to refuse to contract, with whomever they choose. So Title 12 had to allow an exit from the private money debt scheme: demand public money, which cannot be taxed by the IRS (it can only be taxed by Congress, following the rules for taxation found in the Constitution). And it cannot be used as reserves for fractional reserve lending, because that is a private scheme, carried out by a corporation (the Fed). Such lending would be un-Constitutional if conducted by the Treasury; thus public money cannot be used in the private scheme.

Yes, but there are potentially trillions of lawful money dollars in circulation. Since FRNs are fractionalized, so is lawful money. I'm also fairly sure that all silver for backing is linked to US notes, and not the lawful money people are demanding today.

[doug555]

Before you get too far along with your concept of reducing the (Federal Reserve) debt, let's look at how the banking system views your transaction. Suppose your employer (?) sends you a paycheck (actually sends a computer file from payroll to the bank, instructing them to credit your account). The "money" exists only as a computer balance in the employer's bank account. Since you noticed the bank that you want to redeem lawful money, the bank must credit your account with LM, ie, it must not add your new balance to their 'reserve balance' which they report weekly to the FR, and upon which they can advance fractional reserve lending to others. Your balance exists as LM, but there are no actual dollars involved. Now suppose you buy a car, pay the dealership $30k in LM; your LM balance is reduced by $30k. The dealership deposits your check in their Federal Reserve account, having endorsed the credit. Presto! the LM is now back to being 'fiat money,' now endorsed by the dealership. No new debt was accepted by you, so the FR debt was not reduced, it was just not enlarged by your non-endorsement. But as soon as you circulate (spend) your LM, it goes right back to being legal tender, and now can be used to increase fractional reserve lending (thus increasing the debt). If everyone would demand lawful money, the bank's fractional reserve lending balance would be driven to zero, and they could not increase the debt by creating more unbacked fiduciary media, but as long as the total users of LM remain trivial, there is no effect on the national (Federal Reserve) debt. Note also that the FR is creating over $1 trillion in new unbacked fiduciary media this year, by their program of buying $40 billion per month of bad MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) paper from the banks and from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and $45 billion per month of new Treasury bonds (interest bearing debt notes). [see this link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...improves.html] The 'money' the Fed creates when it buys the newly-issued Treasury bonds is actually just computer entries in the government accounts at various FR banks; these 'credits' are then transferred to SNAP cards, SS checks, and other government giveaway programs, and shows up as credits in those voter's bank accounts, thus increasing the reserve balance at those banks, thus allowing more creation of unbacked fiduciary media by those banks.

So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.

I agree that the effect of demanding lawful money for all transactions is MUCH greater at a PERSONAL level than the effect at the national debt level, due to few people doing it at this time.

However, the MAIN point I am trying to make, and which your LM/FRN transaction scenarios above support, is that both the FRN-based Debt and the USN-based Reduction are TRANSACTION-BASED! This is WHY the 1040 Supporting Schedule for Lawful Money Demand Reduction has to include the Withholding transactions - to reverse these corresponding unauthorized and un-bonded debt transactions.

I believe that these Withholding transactions transfer amounts to other Federal and State government agencies that are presuming these amounts to be FRN-based Debt funds, which are deposited in a bank and are included in their "reserve" amounts since they may have no notice (plausible deniability) to the contrary if the government agencies have not performed their fiduciary duty under the Principal-Agent Doctrine to pass along the substantive record one has made with one's local Federal Reserve member bank.

Therefore, the Form 1040 may be the only instrument that "catches" these "Mis-Takes" and enables the government agencies to correct their books and records and ledgers and truly settle (PAY) the corresponding obligations with the "For-Given" credit of the people held in trust for this purpose, and also then reverse the prime and derivative debts and their multiplied "ripples" as the diagram in this 'How Banks Work' article clearly illustrates.

NOTE: This diagram suggests that the effect on the national debt may not be so "trivial" after all. Such a lawful money reduction procedure, if done by everyone, would certainly improve our economy and national security!

[David Merrill]

I hear the buzz is that nearly half of the IRS agents are going into retirement.

[Keith Alan]

I hear the buzz is that nearly half of the IRS agents are going into retirement.

Well that's interesting. I wonder if it has anything to do with IRS hiring more agents as per the Affordable Care Act?

[Chex]

Reminds me of this story: http://www.unclefed.com/TxprBoR/JWWade.html

[Freed Gerdes]

You are quite correct about the GROSS pay/withheld issue, Doug. And I agree that the legal issues are transaction based. And I concur that the Federal Reserve and its subsidiary corporations (IRS) presume that all transactions are conducted in their debt money (but a rebuttable presumption). I am retired and do not get paychecks with taxes already withheld, so had not considered that issue. The paycheck you deposit (in LM) is already reduced by the amounts withheld. However, if you redeem all your (now reduced) income in LM, you can ask for a full refund of all income taxes paid. Whether the IRS then unwinds these previously credited transactions I know not, but based on their disregard of other legal issues, I would guess they ignore them. I believe that all money collected by the IRS for the Federal Reserve is delivered to the IMF.

It is clear to me that the banksters intended ab initio to bankrupt the government and all businesses, as debt loaned at interest, and not invested in productive enterprises that earn a sufficient return to pay the interest, can have no other outcome. [the debtor is servant to the lender; by keeping everyone in debt, the banksters can live by the work of other's hands] Borrowing trillions to spend on social programs, which generate no return, makes this conclusion a slam dunk.

I suspect that the only record that is corrected is the total amount of FRN credit that you used, which is then the subject of income tax, and SS tax. (The IRS keeps a permanent record of your reported transactions in FRN's for your entire life, or until you opt out of Title 26.)