Originally Posted by djlamb
Thank you DJ;
I will get a look.
I only glanced at the Introduction and got a grasp on Dave's attitude.
Then I took a look at the chat room chatter and saw where I was mentioned. This is refreshing that people have been interested enough to get a look into The Gospel of Pragmatism, even to determine it is my "religion". It took some work to get that organized like that, so the reader gets commentary too.
About Dave CHAMPION;
He may be onto a variation of redemption. Redemption is forgiveness. He comes off combatant, but that may be a publicity stunt - utilizing the tattoos and pointing pistols etc. The Doctrine seems to be that the Income Tax does not apply to you.
If you endorse private credit from the Fed, then you are using a credit currency and are liable to be taxed. If you redeem lawful money then you are okay. I have been pondering how useful it would be to teach this lesson from the 16th Amendment (1916).
"Incomes".The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Let me substitute into the Doctrine then:
The Sixteenth Amendment does not apply to you.
Imagine Dave as an inadvertent and unwitting agent provocateur. By that I mean that the reason the IRS never bothers him is he is a great cash cow. Like Pete HENDRICKSON with Cracking the Code. He wrote a book and now is sealed up in his error. Whenever somebody posted a Refund Check, great! When they wanted it taken down because the IRS was after that amount plus penalties and the taxpayer was headed for prison - Pete banishes them from Lost Horizons and just keeps advertising with their initial Refund Check. My point is that people following Dave's doctrine might be real easy targets for the IRS to clean their clock after a few years.
Tim TURNER too. (Amicus Curie brief attached.) But Tim was an intelligence mill.
However I want to think the best of Dave. So let's imagine that when the information stops and he begins to charge people to get the answers he is teaching them the same remedy provided by law. My video was mentioned:
And apparently Dave is leaving it up. If he is redeeming lawful money, and maybe it is difficult to spot, then he is right. No need to be filing. I was redeeming lawful money in roundabout verbiage for six or seven years before discovering Title 12 USC 411.
That last one was revealing. You cannot exchange currency unless it is at a profit. Not intentionally. All banks have a fiduciary responsibility. That is the rub about FRN's - they are a losing proposition unless you are gaining more than the Congress is losing through growing the economy, by charging your brother usury. That is what banks do and it should be obvious that anybody endorsing private credit FRN's is a bank, and that is who the Fed Act is written for - "member banks".
You get out of banking by making demand for redemption of the notes. Or as I have said many times, They in the Act is a pronoun. It might be that the Demand actually redeems people who make the Demand. That is one of the most comforting mental models for me, because it agrees with my interpretation of the Bible.
From my perspective drafting remedy for hundreds of suitors if you endorse private credit you are using somebody else's credit and therefore your "income" is liable to the Income Tax as a usage tax on the Fed's currency. This however can be stated in many different ways. I like this "Naked" definition I accidentally captured from Black's Fifth:
Reply With Quote
