Thinking about this today, it suddenly struck me that remedy seems to be implied on the face of some payroll checks I have received. This was one of those moments like the last minutes of "The Usual Suspects" where clues that have been right under my nose started hitting me like a ton of bricks all at once.
Many of the thoughts expressed below are more the product of intuition than logic, so I welcome any corrections anyone has to offer. To wit:
Many payroll checks I have received state on their face "Pay exactly (numerical amount spelled out) Dollars and (digits) Cents."
The Box to the right of that also states "Pay Exactly" and contains below that a numerical value expressed in digits with a decimal point but with no dollar sign.
Below those boxes on the face of the payroll check is the phrase "Pay to the Order of" along with the legal name I use, (my PERSON), for commerce.
It seemed on the surface to be redundant and even overkill to state "pay exactly" twice and "pay to the order of" all within the small space of one payroll check, until I realized that slightly different versions of one command are being made on the check as a result of doing it this way:
1) Pay exactly (stated amount) in dollars and cents (lawful money/ i.e. U.S. Notes and/or coins)
2) Pay exactly (stated amount) not in dollars and cents (but instead pay in the form of private credit)
3) In any case, pay to the order of LEGAL NAME
This variability is what makes my paycheck a "negotiable instrument" and not money. I have always known I could endorse a check over to another party, but until now I did not catch the subtle absence of any dollar sign on the box where the numerical value is expressed in digits.
Perhaps leaving the dollar sign off gives the banks plausible deniability and allows them to technically avoid fraud? It seems the absence of a dollar sign on the check is subtly giving notice that Federal Reserve credit is not legally "dollars" (i.e. U.S. Notes/lawful money) even though FRN's seem to say they are dollars on their face. (And U.S. Notes are not circulated anymore, with the intended result that most of us will not know we can demand U.S.Notes in exchange for FRN's).
For those who think I am reading too much into this, I have gotten tax refund checks from federal and state that have the dollar sign in front of the digits listed for the payable amount. Most personal checks I have observed also have a dollar sign in front of the box where you write in the numbers of the amount you are paying.
So I think the absence of a dollar sign has significance. It seems unlikely to me that payroll companies are just too lazy or forgetful to put a dollar sign in front of where the numbers go. I believe the absence of a dollar sign on my payroll checks has everything to do with the public policy of trying to get as many people as possible to trade in their un-taxable right to labor for compensation, exchanging that right for a taxable privilege, by getting such people to accept payment in private credit rather than in dollars and cents (i.e. U.S. Notes/lawful money).
So, based on the face of the negotiable instrument known as my payroll check, I can do any of the following:
1) DEMAND to be paid exactly the amount stated on the face of the check in dollars and cents, (i.e. U.S. Notes and coins, or even entirely in coins if I so choose), "lawful money" as the Federal Reserve Act defines it
OR
2) endorse over the check to another party and leave the option of said party to receive dollars and cents, or private credit in exchange
OR
3) I can demand to be paid exactly the same amount, NOT in dollars and cents but in the form of private credit) in exchange for endorsing and bonding the check into the Federal Reserve System
The remedy in Federal Reserve Act is subtly implied on the face of the payroll check, in that my legal PERSON is named as the party giving the order as to whether the transaction will be in "dollars" (i.e. lawful public money/U.S. Notes) or private credit. FRN credit cannot lawfully be denominated in "dollars" (? not sure about this) So this is why the dollar sign is missing--the amount is not in dollars but represents private credit--an amount that is only a "reserve" for nine times that amount in fractional lending!!
FRN's can be redeemed for dollars but cannot ever be dollars themselves, (not even by the Fed's private definition of "dollar"--a one dollar U.S. Note) because this would make a constructive fraud into an ACTUAL fraud. A dollar is a fixed amount of weight by law. A currency that is continuously depreciated and debased cannot be referred to with the same term without committing fraud.
I have noticed before that W-2 forms and 1040 tax returns also do not have dollar signs in front of the amounts. Nor does the Federal Notice of Lien filed against me have any dollar sign in front of the alleged amounts owing, and nowhere is the word "dollar" used.
The amounts reported on W-2 is relevant information to the IRS, but only to the extent that such amounts were a transfer of private credit. This is why the W-2 form lacks dollar signs. If I made my demand to redeem those amounts in dollars and cents/lawful money/U.S. Notes, then the tax liability from such transfers is mathematically eliminated.
Likewise with the notice of lien, the lien cannot be made against dollars, but only against the Fed's own privately issued credit. They have a first lien on amounts denominated in this private credit or property obtained with such credit. I think this is why the notice of lien has no dollar signs.
1099 forms, however, do use the dollar sign. This is because the party generating the 1099 form is not an "employer" (for purposes of the reported transactions), is not bound to contribute to FICA from the payments, and is presumed to be making a business to business payment.
Year end statements for unemployment checks also use the dollar sign. This is because the payments and forms are generated by states, who are prohibited from issuing bills of credit by the Constitution.
It seems clear to me based on the absence of dollar sign on W-2 that the laborer earning a "paycheck" is the primary target of the income tax scheme. Business to business payments on 1099 forms less so; there is already a legitimate tax nexus on profit from trade or business in the U.S. in the Code (independent of the private credit nexus), so playing the games with the dollar sign is not necessary for the 1099; only for the otherwise untaxable wages of the private sector worker reported on W-2.
Looking back at copies of tax refund checks I have received, it is interesting to note that the "United States Treasury" refund check states: "Pay to the Order of", yet the State refund checks I have received state simply "To:" The State refund check also uses the term "dollars and cents" to describe what I received. (States are prohibited from issuing bills of credit by Article I Section 10 of the Constitution).
Also the U.S. Treasury Refund checks you get from federal taxes do not use the word "dollar" but they do have a dollar sign in front of the digits representing the payable amount.
In cases when I have received interest as a part of Treasury refund checks, the interest amount is separately stated at the bottom of the check, and there is NO dollar sign in front of the interest amount, just the digits. It is interesting that the total amount is paid in dollars and cents, but the interest is separately listed with no dollar sign.
This seems to be because such interest is by public law "gross income" that is legitimately a profit from a "trade or business" within the United States and is being issued as "new currency" exclusively in private credit FRN (since no U.S. Notes are circulated). The rest of the check is just a refund of withholding amounts previously collected which were not ultimately due, so the option to call these dollars is available without committing fraud.
My conclusion: Because dollar-based domestic transactions not generating profit cannot be the basis for income taxation, the reporting of a payment amount which lacks a dollar sign indicates a transfer of private credit that is creating the sole income tax nexus on such payment.
The 1099, although it does indicate payments in dollars and cents, is ostensibly for reporting payments effectively connected to a trade or business within the U.S., creating at least the presumption of a "profit" tax nexus that would be independent of the endorsement of private credit.
(This may explain why I have found it far easier to get IRS to back down when disputing the tax nexus of a 1099 by informing them that the payment was not effectively connected to a trade or business within the U.S.) The same assertion with respect to a W-2 never seemed to work in the long run--now that I understand the income tax nexus from the use of private credit, I know why.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by ManOntheLand
