Make Demand At Treasury

[Keith Alan]

Lawful Money is Equitable Title to Labor-Credit Asset.

And, YES, it is as good as GOLD...

It appears a creditor is forgiving a debt! This is very cool.

[doug555]

It appears a creditor is forgiving a debt! This is very cool.

Lawful Money is Equitable Title to Labor-Credit Asset.

EXACTLY... The forgiving is the for-giving (pre-PAYMENT) of labor as the credit of the Nation en-trusted to the Government-Usufructuaries-Trustees!

The Estate re-vests upon Infant Proof of Life, and at that point the Living Beneficiary appears and the Trustees must perform said lawful money requests.

Usufructuary must give Security (Surety) to Owner to indemnify him/her. Said Surety is the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), given as a receipt for our indemnification.

My Proof of Life now requires the Trustee to perform said indemnification, for example, honoring "EQUITABLE TITLE TRANSFERS" for true PAYMENT of debts/charges to COLB NAME account!



P.S. USUFRUCT and The Parable of the Landowner (Mt 21.33-41) adds the spiritual dimension to this "calling"...

[Chex]

If this indeed is the case, and the taxpayer's role as debtor is flipped to that of being creditor.

[Keith Alan]

I'm understanding the concept of redemption better now.

[allodial]

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.

With respect to an 1040, likely the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't necessary have concerns as to the distinction. It was related that "{State/Federally-chartered} banks dont open accounts for men". Makes sense to me. A living man or a living soul may act in various capacities with respect to any given taxable entity: (i) accommodation party, (ii) some representative or fiduciary capacity.

P.S. I get the impression that some folks are trying to read too much into things. Playing Monopoly, sure there are rules but there is a difference between Monopoly and Reality, no?

[Keith Alan]

With respect to an 1040, likely the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't necessary have concerns as to the distinction. It was related that "{State/Federally-chartered} banks dont open accounts for men". Makes sense to me. A living man or a living soul may act in various capacities with respect to any given taxable entity: (i) accommodation party, (ii) some representative or fiduciary capacity.

P.S. I get the impression that some folks are trying to read too much into things. Playing Monopoly, sure there are rules but there is a difference between Monopoly and Reality, no?

I took the time to think about carefully what you have to say (ironic, no? lol), and I'm not really too sure there is much difference between reality and Monopoly. The biggest difference I can see is we don't move a physical tophat around a board. Our tophat resides on our legal papers. Other than that, the games are very similar to each other.

I like what you say about how people can play different roles such as accommodation party or fiduciary. When I said I wanted to establish the difference between the living man and the trust in the Secretary's office, I was looking to say something more along the lines you describe. After all, when a living man who is in charge of his estate files a return, with the intention of settling any accounts his trust is involved with, he is acting as the accomodation party.

[allodial]

If you are talking about making a distinction its pretty easy to distinguish between Keith Alan Doe and Keith Alan. 1040 can be signed KEITH ALAN DOE By: Keith Alan, as Manager or w/e. Or Keith Alan d/b/a KEITH ALAN DOE. Depends.

[Keith Alan]

If you are talking about making a distinction its pretty easy to distinguish between Keith Alan Doe and Keith Alan. 1040 can be signed KEITH ALAN DOE By: Keith Alan, as Manager or w/e. Or Keith Alan d/b/a KEITH ALAN DOE. Depends.

This is one reason I started the thread, to try and figure out how to sign the return. I'm thinking I will be appearing on the return in two capacities - as you suggest - first as the legal person, and second as an accomodation party. But how do I set the stage? In other words, the legal person incurred a tax liability, but the accomodation party is demanding lawful money, and offering to set off the legal.person's tax liability with his exemption (since lawful money is exempt from siezure).

The supporting schedule shown elsewhere on the site makes clear that a suitor was demanding lawful money through the Fed for Sep through Dec 2011. That same schedule reserves the right to make further demand nunc pro tunc to Jan 2011, but apparently the suitor has no documentation to justify doing that. Otherwise, why not do it right away?

Now I'm taking a slightly different tact, exploring the idea of making the demand directly to Treasury (on the 1040), as the statute directs. But doing so should not rely on supporting documentation such as photocopies of checks with non-endorsements. Rather, it takes into account the act of clearly delineating the two different capacities of legal person and accomodation party on the return. The question is how to do that.

I think signing the return on the bottom left (as the form indicates) might be incorrect for making the operating capacities clear. I think the signature should go on the right somewhere - like a check, and in the margin, vertically - so as to make the distinction that I am not in debt to the Treasury, but rather am setting off and settling any debt my legal person might incur.

[David Merrill]

One thing members and readers should keep in mind is that I do not carefully screen examples like the Schedule one I presented by attachment here. That example in fact does not agree precisely with the W-2 Form amount and the suitor was at first concerned that he should correct that Schedule before I could sanitize it and present it. As I recall he was thinking that the discrepancy was because he was including the SSI amounts. Then he thought through it again...

He asked me to black out a few more figures and it would be okay to share it so there you have it. He had already filed that Schedule when we were discussing it.

I have not gone through his taxes as with any and all suitors - I do not do taxes. The suitors do not expect that from me and the readers and members here should keep that in mind. I have on several occasions listened to a suitor go through his or her figures over the phone and more than anything I am listening for the confidence that they feel the figures are correct - rather than the figures themselves of course.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[allodial]

This is one reason I started the thread, to try and figure out how to sign the return.

It might be vanity that has some people injecting themselves into situations where they ought not (personation). I get the impression that you might be mistaking the 1040 (assessment process) with the bank-side redemption process applicable to checks/deposits. I would treat KARL ALAN DOE as distinct and separate from myself. If the mail is to KARL ALAN DOE, and I were acting in the capacity of agent, rep. or it was a d/b/a... Is it vanity that makes John Henry want to stick his whole head and body into JOHN HENRY DOE's affairs? Or would it be foolishness?

/s/ KARL ALAN DOE
By: Karl Alan, as Authorized Representative. ( Executor, Administrator, Treasurer...).

Alternative is Karl Alan for KARL ALAN DOE. I could not in good suggest signing the form "Karl Alan". Be not confused. One way.. or another. A workable model IMHO shouldn't be confusing although it might take adjusting to at times to go from lesser light into more marvelous light.

I have not gone through his taxes as with any and all suitors - I do not do taxes. The suitors do not expect that from me and the readers and members here should keep that in mind. To reiterate from my learned perspective I perceive the redemption for lawful money is taking the position of the creditor and thusly the tax liability disappears from underlying and related reasons--by operation of law.

Fair enough. Redemption for lawful money is more of a bank/treasury side. Not a revenue side matter. However, it may be that endorsing/accommodating private credit can lead to revenue ramifications. I 'strongly suspect' that the tax liability becomes moot in consequence of a redemptioner taking the position of being originator of the credit rather than not.

**

Back to Keith Alan: obviously they aren't paying you in gold coin, you do the redemption with the checks they give you whether they come from the U.S. Treasury or one of their many delegates (US charter banks).

[David Merrill]

A suitor on the brain trust feels that his signature on the redeemed lawful money return caused some problems with the IRS agent. I have been suggesting that if the mail and letterhead addresses JOHN H DOE to write exactly that on the return.

"JOHN H DOE" neatly written or better yet typed in the form.

[ManOntheLand]

I have been re-reading G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island and found the following anecdote about redeeming lawful money (apparently the anecdote described happened in 1947, when M.E. Slindee was acting Secretary of Treasury) on page 136:

Even the government cannot define money. Some years ago, a
Mr. A.F. Davis mailed a ten-dollar Federal Reserve Note to the
Treasury Department. In his letter of transmittal, he called attention
to the inscription on the bill which said that it was redeemable in
"lawful money," and then requested that such money be sent to
him. In reply, the Treasury merely sent two five-dollar bills from a
different printing series bearing a similar promise to pay.

Mr. Davis responded:

Dear Sir:
Receipt is hereby acknowledged of two $5.00 United States notes,
which we interpret from your letter are to be considered as lawful
money. Are we to infer from this that the Federal Reserve notes are not
lawful money?
I am enclosing one of the $5.00 notes which you sent to me. I note
that it states on the face, "The United States of America will pay to (he
bearer on demand five dollars." I am hereby demanding five dollars.


One week later, Mr. Davis received the following reply from Acting Treasurer, M.E. Slindee:

Dear Mr. Davis:
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 23rd,
transmitting one $5. United States Note with a demand for payment of
five dollars. You are advised that the term "lawful money" has not
been defined in federal legislation.... The term "lawful currency" no
longer has such special significance. The $5. United States Note
received with your letter of December 23rd is returned herewith.

The phrases "...will pay to the bearer on demand" and "... is
redeemable in lawful money" were deleted from our currency
altogether in 1964.

1. As quoted by C.V. Myers, Money and Energy: Weathering the Storm (Darien,
Connecticut: Soundview Books, 1980), pp. 161,163. Also by Lawrence S. Ritter, ed-,
Money and Economic Activity (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967), p. 33.

[ManOntheLand]

From another source, I found the purported letter from Treasury that accompanied the two $5 United States notes in reply to the demand for redemption of the $10 FRN:


December 11, 1947

Mr. A.F. Davis
12818 Colt Road
Cleveland 1, Ohio

Dear Mr. Davis,

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 9th with enclosure of one ten dollar Federal Reserve note.

In compliance with your request, two five-dollar United States notes are transmitted herewith.

Very truly yours,
M.E. Slindee,
Acting Treasurer

[David Merrill]

Thank you for sharing that. I had never known the source of the anecdote until now.

[doug555]

Lawful Money is Equitable Title to Labor-Credit Asset.

EXACTLY... The forgiving is the for-giving (pre-PAYMENT) of labor as the credit of the Nation en-trusted to the Government-Usufructuaries-Trustees!

The Estate re-vests upon Infant Proof of Life, and at that point the Living Beneficiary appears and the Trustees must perform said lawful money requests.

Usufructuary must give Security (Surety) to Owner to indemnify him/her. Said Surety is the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), given as a receipt for our indemnification.

My Proof of Life now requires the Trustee to perform said indemnification, for example, honoring "EQUITABLE TITLE TRANSFERS" for true PAYMENT of debts/charges to COLB NAME account!



P.S. USUFRUCT and The Parable of the Landowner (Mt 21.33-41) adds the spiritual dimension to this "calling"...

Notice that there is no corresponding CFR regulation to restrict anyone's method of demanding lawful money. I think that is VERY significant. The Parallel Table of Authorities has no entry for 12 USC 411. This table's entries go in sequence from 12 USC section 391 to section 418. Section 411 is missing. This is confirmed at http://www.gpo.gov/help/parallel_table.txt, excerpted below:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Parallel Table]
[Revised as of January 1, 2011]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES

12 U.S.C. <---------------------------> Corresponding C.F.R.
================================================== =====
378............................................... .........12 Part 303
391....31 Parts 202, 203, 209, 210, 225, 240, 306, 317, 321, 341, 346,
351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 363, 375, 380
418............................................... .........31 Part 601
461........................................12 Parts 201, 204, 208, 217


Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, for example:

"lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)"

*** IMPORTANT *** Using this exact wording enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on the 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!! See more info at 1040 Help post where this post has also been added and highlighted as *** I M P O R T A N T ***.

Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? Even in their fiction fraud system.

One does not need to put it on any specific document or in any particular wording or even on every commercial transaction.

One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract. Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper lefthand corner of the document. This then stands as nunc pro tunc thereafter and forever as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) and is unrebuttable.

This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!