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

[shikamaru]

This is a false statement... the IRS was not formed by the Tax Act of 1862 and has never been created by statute. That's what my previous post regarding footnote 23 of Chrysler V. Brown was about. Only the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by the Tax Act of 1862, not the Internal Revenue Service, as the Wiki article claims.

Noted.

The IRS doens't legally exist.

Not so sure on this one.

The Tax Act of 1862 repealed the Act of 1861 anyway, ...

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 The Tax Act of 1862 only repealed the income tax sections (Sections 49, 50, and 51) of the Revenue Act of 1861.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.

... and income tax was the eliminated in 1872.

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.

Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tarriff Act in 1894 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson-Gorman_Tariff_Act that was delcared unconstitutional by the Pollock decision in 1895.

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.

[Franco]

Can someone help clarify this for me?
1. I have received letters from chase bank addressed to FIRST M. LAST; instead of in name: First Middle.
2. I sent a certified mail letter to Chase Bank Mgr. I explained that when I signed the signature cards, I signed in my name and not in the CQV trust. I stated that FIRST M. LAST was my trust and I am the beneficiary to the trust.
I also told the Mgr. in my letter I wanted all future correspondence in my name, and not in the trust’s name.
3. After receiving the letter he called me, concerning my letter. He told me he could take the “M” initial out of the CQV name. I explained to him again, that I am First Middle, and I am not the trust name; FIRST I. LAST name. I cannot be both beneficiary and Trustee.
Then he told me the equipment did not have the capability to send me my correspondence in caps and small letter, that it can only be done in caps.
He’s solution was still addressing to my CQV trust without MIDDLE initial, or my name all caps.
4. I told him I would not accept either. I did it in amicable manner. He told me to come in and he would see what do. I don’t like me sending all my issues and solutions in certified mailing, and he not responding in writing. He is getting in the habit of waiting till I come in and discuss it in person or give me a phone call. Like Dave told me in one of his responses, he is probably recording.
5. My solution for now is writing again and tells him to have the courtesy to answer me in writing. And if he stops me at the bank to question me, just to tell him to please put his questions in writing and send them to me and I will be glad to response. (I need to get evidence in writing).
I will request that he provide to me the law, rule or regulation he is tracking the language of, in telling me he cannot send me correspondence in my name, but send it instead in CQV Trust name. or send it in my name all in caps.(maybe discrimination; treating me different than other customers.).
6. Another way to look at it would be, that even though I open the letters addressed to the CQV trust, instead of my name, I am the beneficiary of the trust so I can legally open the letters. (trying to use here what I read from Gerdes information, if I understood correctely)
7. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thank you Franco

[Bentley]

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