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

[shikamaru]

I answered your questions. Re-read your posts and you'll see why.

Actually, you haven't answered anything, hence the further questioning.

So far, you are off by 1 year as to the absolute beginning of income taxes in America.
You have cites that don't support what you claim and your cites are without any linkage to sources of anyone to review.
You have yet to substantiate a single point of your assertions.

At this point, I'm unsure if you could find anything on the Revenue Act of 1862.

I've got a feeling you've been wrapping yourself in Internet yarn ....

[Freed Gerdes]

If you did not 'non-endorse' by putting your demand for LM on the back, they were paid in FRN's and are taxableThe party here is the drafter, ie, the govt. Your demand for LM comes after negotiating the instrument; your bank obtains FRN's or credit from the drafter's bank. Then they redeem these for LM, then deposit the LM in your account. There is no need to alter the instrument on the front; all your choices are on the back. Most banks can and will treat that as a restricted endorsement. BofA says they will ignore anything you write on the back! This is why you need to get your demand on the signature card, or notice them for the entire account.

3. The day I opened the account with Chase bank and signed the signature card to have all my transactions and deposits redeemed in lawful monies Title 12 USC 411, I requested a non-interest bearing checking account. The bank Rep who opened my account and later the bank manager stated my account is non-bearing interest checking account. So if I a have a non-interest checking account I am paying no interest. If paying no interest my monies are lawful monies because they are not been fractionalized.

A no-interest account means the bank is paying you no interest, because you are not letting them loan against your credit. Deposits in FRN's can be used as reserves for fractional reserve lending (means the bank lends out more money than they have in deposits). Used to be the bank paid you interest for the privilege of lending against your credit, but under the current financial repression scheme, banks don't pay (significant) interest on any accounts. By not letting the bank use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending, you avoid the 'use' of FRN's, and thus avoid the obligation to pay income taxes on the deposit (which is assumed to be income for tax purposes; this is why the account agreement wants you to admit to being a US citizen (hence 'taxpayer'), and providing a SS#, so the IRS can track your taxable income). If the bank accepted your account with the demand for LM on the signature card, you should be good. Be sure to keep copies of your signature pages somewhere safe. see above; your account is redeemed in LM before deposit see above; your account contains LM. Should you wish to purchase some asset and acquire legal title, as well as equitable title, you need to prove that you are paying in LM; a copy of your signature page should suffice. Then write on the front of your check, on the For line, Paid in Full in Lawful Money. You can do this even when cashing a check against your account for cash; this proves that you have LM in the form of FRN's. David stamps his LM FRN's with the "Redeemed" stamp. This is helpful when paying for District Court services, but you can also pay by check from a LM account. You are a 'US citizen' if you have a SS#, or if you are accepting any other government benefit. Claiming you are not a US citizen will be a flag for the IRS, and will cause conflicts if you have a SS#. As discussed earlier in this thread, it is your cestui que vie trust which is the US citizen (it is a legal, fictional entity, a corporate 'person' which holds title to assets in your estate, for your (the live person's) benefit). You are signing the contract with the bank as an accomodation party for your trust; the bank cannot contract with you, the live person (since the bank is not a live person).

Thank you David and once again appreciate your response
, Franco

There is a lot to learn on this site, and you can get into trouble if you start doing new stuff without understanding the legal underpinnings of why you are doing it. As Stevie says: "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstitution ain't the way."

[Franco]

[David Merrill]

Thank you for your input Franko.

Do you file there before opening the evidence repository in the U.S.D.C. and why?

In the Libel of Review process one publishes the Summons at the county clerk and recorder. This is done by getting two summonses authorized and if the clerk and recorder can return one original quickly that is the one used for service on the Defendant - usually the US Governor for the UN's IMF - Secretary of the Treasury. This "primes" the clerk and recorder for publishing the Default Judgment which is signed and sealed by the suitor.

It is a true judgment res judicata. - Meaning that it stands until overturned by the facts. Publication establishes the new suitor as a court of record. Courts of record are courts of authority and albeit not always recognized by the officials it helps the new suitor to get remedy as intended in America wrapped up in mental understanding. The actions and processes of becoming a court of competent jurisdiction in light that all the federal judges are taxpayers (recused for conflict of interest) and all "judges" in general are in an association called the Bar, means that this position is available by becoming trustee for that resulting trust.

This in a nutshell is why suitors remain satisfied with the Lesson Plan and its products. The LoR produces a published foreign judgment signed and sealed in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States.

When helping a new suitor through this process I only focus on the Lesson Plan, not the details of the situation.

If I delved into the private details I would likely in your case prod you into filing for a refund before you have your mind wrapped around the concept of remedy. The "remedy" reflected back to you might not be anything but you having to deal with a $5K fine - albeit that only happened one time in reality and the suitor knows where he invited that FrivPen - in a phone call that he made to the IRS.

One can establish a good understand in the simplicity of the law - which is the Lesson Plan. There is a little indication that refunds are coming in freely, no FrivPens. - Like the IRS knows now that this is remedy as intended. [Looking at rough statistics - general impression - the IRS is at a stage where they are sitting on lawful money refunds, like they do not know what to do this year. Also a lot of people are getting their full refunds and not talking about it (much) which is the 'don't jinx it' approach.] But I still advise an evidence repository through the Libel of Review process. The evidence repository proves you are keeping a record.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. The Lesson Plan is still:

1) True Identity
2) Record Forming
3) Redeeming Lawful Money

I explain this from where the new suitor can understand it. For example yesterday a new suitor was describing his experience with the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION and Pete's Cracking the Code. He already has a smattering in 2) and 3) so I explained in depth about 1), around the STRAWMAN theory:

If you believe your name is John H. Doe then you are easily convinced to be trustee for the JOHN HENRY DOE constructive trust. If you behave like you are the trustee then you are the trustee. If you know your name is John Henry then you can Refuse for Cause any fresh presentments intended to prod you into becoming John Henry Doe, the trustee and responsible fiduciary (for settling any charges) for the JOHN HENRY DOE.

By speaking in terms and symbols he understands he was able to see the benefits in proceeding with the Lesson Plan.

[Franco]

[David Lyn]

The bank will charge you $100 or so for the privilege of having your funds stolen

[David Merrill]

I find it encouraging when people find this Website edifying enough to proceed. Thanks Franco!

[Franco]

Thanks for the Tip david Lyn. Franco

[Franco]

I think that when you take your time to help people like me, who are having trouble understanding by breaking down specific issues, you are not only helping me but many other's ,who come here for learning what this is all about.
Sometimes you say a lot in one "word" or "more". Speaking for myself ,If i take the time to look it up in Blacks Law or on the web, most of the time it will clarify what David is saying to me. I don't take words for granted or assume i know what it means, just because i hear or read their usage various times. if you look at the numbers reading this beginners thread, the numbers are high.
Once again thank you for the uplifting support and the help. Franco

[Franco]

Sorry , the above thread was a reply to David Merrill's Thread above. Franco

[Bentley]

Income tax was first done in Britain. It was implemented in the US via the Revenue Act of 1861.



Would happen to have any literature on this? My reference above conflicts with the beginning of your statement.

Here's the Wiki link for Pollock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock...n_%26_Trust_Co.



Would you happen to have the Supreme Court case that says that income tax was unconstitutional?

I did answer your questions, but I'll try again. In your quote above, you referenced (through wikipedia) the income tax act of 1861. Wiki's got some good info in it but it is not always correct. Here's a case where it is not correct. Click on your referenced link to the Tax act of 1861 and scroll down to the bullet item for property tax. You will find this statement.



with a link to Internal Revenue Service.

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. The IRS doens't legally exist.

The Tax Act of 1862 repealed the Act of 1861 anyway, and income tax was the eliminated in 1872. 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. I hope this helps.

Bentley

[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]

[David Merrill]

Glancing at items 1-2 it sounds as though they sent a letter to the trust presuming there is a trustee. That is all.

[Keyser Soze]

If you had to hold one person accountable for being the trustee, for example the Secretary of the Treasury, who would it be? Maybe I can start forwarding the mail for FIRST M LAST so they can do their job.