Make Demand At Treasury

[Keith Alan]

What's to stop someone from making their demand for lawful money on their tax return?

[Brian]

What's to stop someone from making their demand for lawful money on their tax return?

Nothing, but a big fat "denied" letter from them. However I don't think that is the proper place for it. They don't care. All they care about is that someone filed an info return with your mark of the beast number in which there are digits saying you received money. They then automatically "determine" that those digits constitute income per mountains of statues and regs and the SOP of the banks UNLESS you have something that disproves their presumption.

[Keith Alan]

Nothing, but a big fat "denied" letter from them. However I don't think that is the proper place for it. They don't care. All they care about is that someone filed an info return with your mark of the beast number in which there are digits saying you received money. They then automatically "determine" that those digits constitute income per mountains of statues and regs and the SOP of the banks UNLESS you have something that disproves their presumption.

Hmm... If that is the expected response, why should someone expect a different response by making the demand through the Federal Reserve? Isn't Treasury where all these various processes ultimately terminate?

I'm looking at 12 USC 411, and Treasury is one of the proper places, and IRS is the Treasury's agent, is it not?

At any rate, I'm exploring the possibility of including the demand right on the 1040. This is where a person declares his income, so it also seems to be the correct place to demand redemption of the income.

I recognize there may be problems though. That's why I opened the discussion.

[David Merrill]

People are learning how and getting full refunds without evidence repositories. I teach that one should copy (record) the demands and have some kind of evidence repository. This tends to prevent FrivPens.

[Keith Alan]

People are learning how and getting full refunds without evidence repositories. I teach that one should copy (record) the demands and have some kind of evidence repository. This tends to prevent FrivPens.

I want to thank you for all the work you've done. I never would have even contemplated making a demand for lawful money, except for reading you here and elsewhere on the net.

Now I am looking at filing 1040, not taking any benefits offered there, and making the demand in the margin, while simultaneously using 31 USC 3113 as a gift to the US to pay down the debt. Wouldn't the net result be no further tax liability? And the debt being lowered by the total amount of my income?

[David Merrill]

The only way that makes sense to me is to Notify them you will be redeeming lawful money for the upcoming year. If you have not been redeeming lawful money for 2012 then you cannot do so on the 2012 tax return and expect a refund.

However there is some evidence that the IRS agents are not resisting lawful money redemption at all. I should wait for more information before I go into that though.

[Keith Alan]

The only way that makes sense to me is to Notify them you will be redeeming lawful money for the upcoming year. If you have not been redeeming lawful money for 2012 then you cannot do so on the 2012 tax return and expect a refund.

However there is some evidence that the IRS agents are not resisting lawful money redemption at all. I should wait for more information before I go into that though.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the 1040. Isn't it a financing statement? Isn't it notice - in and of itself - to Treasury of whatever demands, claims, or declarations the taxpayer makes?

Since the 1040 is filed in arrears, couldn't the demand be made in arrears as well? Why would a person need to make the demand in advance?

I realize people are successfully making their demands through the Federal Reserve, and thereby reducing their tax liability. But my understanding is the fiduciary duties of the Secretary of Treasury arise from his powers as trustee, overseeing the estates he holds in trust for the people. Therefore, as beneficiaries of the trust, we have the opportunity to claim whatever remedies are available, and the Secretary's office is the proper place for making them.

I've been following many discussions here for several months now, and so far I've held off making a demand for lawful money, because of all the problems I see people having. I'm looking for a simple way to cut through all the red tape, and also avoid a confrontation.

I very much appreciate that you provide a good sounding board for people to discuss this subject.

PS - I'm not looking for a refund. I'm self employed, so I don't have that issue to contend with.

[Brian]

Keith,
I'm not trying to make light of your idea's. I try to come at things from the other sides perspective. The taxable event occurs quite simply when you deposit a paycheck into a bank account without the proper verbiage. When you follow what the bank recommends they use your paycheck as an asset and credit your account with "bank credit" that is derived from "Fed Credit". The check then shifts "bank/Fed credit" from your employer's bank to your bank via the settlement of accounts performed at the Federal Reserve through each banks individual reserve account. When you restrict your endorsement to demand money issued directly from the US treasury that throws an extra step into their process.

Normally: Bank A owes Bank B $1000, Bank B owes Bank A $1500. The net effect is $500 of credit is transferred to Bank A's reserve account from Bank B's reserve account.

LMUS is demanded: Bank A has a check (from Bank B) where $1000 of LMUS is demanded. The Fed transfers $1000 of LMUS (coin) to Bank A, then deducts $1000 from Bank B's reserve account. The Fed then needs to replenish it's LMUS supply and orders $1000 of coin from the US Mint, it then credits the Treasury with $1000.

This is logically how I see it working. Again the taxable event occurs at the bank when you have an incoming transfer of money substitutes (bank credit). However when you invoke a demand for money properly created by the Treasury you are using the money properly authorized by the Constitution (coinage clause 1:8:5). Anything other then that CAN be taxed as an excise (1869: Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533).

I hope this makes sense to you. The "event" is not when filing a return form. That is the part where you try to recover $$ that were not taxable in the first place. You need to restrict your endorsements on your checks AND MAKE COPIES! As David said.

[Keith Alan]

Keith,
I'm not trying to make light of your idea's. I try to come at things from the other sides perspective. The taxable event occurs quite simply when you deposit a paycheck into a bank account without the proper verbiage. When you follow what the bank recommends they use your paycheck as an asset and credit your account with "bank credit" that is derived from "Fed Credit". The check then shifts "bank/Fed credit" from your employer's bank to your bank via the settlement of accounts performed at the Federal Reserve through each banks individual reserve account. When you restrict your endorsement to demand money issued directly from the US treasury that throws an extra step into their process.

Normally: Bank A owes Bank B $1000, Bank B owes Bank A $1500. The net effect is $500 of credit is transferred to Bank A's reserve account from Bank B's reserve account.

LMUS is demanded: Bank A has a check (from Bank B) where $1000 of LMUS is demanded. The Fed transfers $1000 of LMUS (coin) to Bank A, then deducts $1000 from Bank B's reserve account. The Fed then needs to replenish it's LMUS supply and orders $1000 of coin from the US Mint, it then credits the Treasury with $1000.

This is logically how I see it working. Again the taxable event occurs at the bank when you have an incoming transfer of money substitutes (bank credit). However when you invoke a demand for money properly created by the Treasury you are using the money properly authorized by the Constitution (coinage clause 1:8:5). Anything other then that CAN be taxed as an excise (1869: Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533).

I hope this makes sense to you. The "event" is not when filing a return form. That is the part where you try to recover $$ that were not taxable in the first place. You need to restrict your endorsements on your checks AND MAKE COPIES! As David said.

Thank you for your well explained reply. Yes, the taxable event doesn't take place when the return is submitted. I should have added before that I would not be taking any benefit from the fractional reserve system like earning interest, nor from Treasury's 1040 form (like exemptions and such).

It appears I am stuck on the scenarios you laid out. What I see you providing is your idea about what happens behind the counter of the Fed bank. But what about the person making the deposit? Doesn't he take his check from bank A to bank B? And isn't his account credited the corresponding amount, no matter how he makes the endorsement? He's still using bank credit, and banks deal in FRNs.

This brings up another thought. Since FRNs are for advances to Federal reserve banks and no other purpose, when a person receives a check, isn't he holding bank credit representing FRNs? So isn't that the time when the taxable event occurs?

Also, since anyone holding bank credit representing FRNs is a Federal reserve bank, why isn't a person able to make the demand to himself from his private capacity as a living man? (PS-The answer is obvious: he's not one of the 12 Fed Banks, nor is he Treasury. But it makes as much sense as making a demand at a local bank.)

I envision a veritable sea of metaphysical principles at work here. But there are only a few rock solid elements, namely the demand, the Treasury, the person, and the statutes. The subject is credit, whether denominated as FRNs or USNs.

This is why I see the 1040 as the proper vehicle: it is the well settled and customary practice for the Treasury to receive notice of claims and declarations on the form. This is where income is declared and made known. It's where the NAME conducts business with the gov't. Why not fill out the form, taking no benefits, then make the demand on the form? Isn't the return filed as required? Aren't the taxes paid? Didn't the taxpayer exercise his rights timely?

I don't want to discount what people already know regarding making demand through the Federal Reserve. I'm simply exploring another possible avenue.

[Brian]

"But what about the person making the deposit? Doesn't he take his check from bank A to bank B? And isn't his account credited the corresponding amount, no matter how he makes the endorsement? He's still using bank credit, and banks deal in FRNs."

Yes, and yes. The bank credits your account with the face value of the check. To me the check says "pay to the order of". So on the back of the check I give them an order "redeem for current U.S. coin and deposit in acct#XXX signed me" How they handle it at that point does not matter. I have specified the nature of the payment, I have not left them a naked endorsement whereby they can just utilize bank credit between them and the other bank. What matters is that my initial deposit that backs those digits on the account screen is backed up by coin. Where they store it, whether or not I take delivery matters not in my view.

"when a person receives a check, isn't he holding bank credit representing FRNs? So isn't that the time when the taxable event occurs?"

As far as I can tell a check is a negotiable debt instrument (bill of credit). It's nature is not set in stone until negotiated in some manner (cashed, deposited,transferred). (See David's Simpsons episode clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH9OIIJcQM8 ).

"The subject is credit, whether denominated as FRNs or USNs."

This is where I have altered course for myself. I'm sticking with U.S. current coin (Lawful money of the U.S.). FRN's as USN's, I get the metaphysics of it, but try explaining that to one of the drones within an agency or a bank. Everyone knows what coins are. Anyone younger then probably 40 has no idea what a USN is.

"This is why I see the 1040 as the proper vehicle: it is the well settled and customary practice for the Treasury to receive notice of claims and declarations on the form. This is where income is declared and made known. It's where the NAME conducts business with the gov't. Why not fill out the form, taking no benefits, then make the demand on the form? Isn't the return filed as required? Aren't the taxes paid? Didn't the taxpayer exercise his rights timely?

I don't want to discount what people already know regarding making demand through the Federal Reserve. I'm simply exploring another possible avenue. "

OK, I see where you going. You had better have some proof. Either by photocopied checks, signature cards, coin only interest free account, etc. Otherwise the Income Redistribution Service might get snotty with you. Oh and this part "the statutes". The way I see it, using bank credit opens the door to the nightmare known as 26USC. Using coinage minted under the Coined money clause of the U.S. Constitution keeps that door mostly closed. All of my answers are MYOP, keep digging, the puzzle pieces are out there scattered all over the damn place. The nature of the money is heart of the matter. Emitted by a bank or the Treasury is the key distinction.

I found this most helpful..fyi: http://www.lockeanliberty.org/supreme-court-timeline/

Ultimately we are all after the same thing, but it will probably not be easy or easily agreed upon. Collaboration of ideas! Make up your own mind.

[Keith Alan]

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?

[allodial]

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.

[Keith Alan]

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.

[Brian]

"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.

[Keith Alan]

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?