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

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 The Tax Act of 1862 only repealed the income tax sections (Sections 49, 50, and 51) of the Revenue Act of 1861.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

[David Merrill]

I believe the foundation for the IRS is in war code - which I think may be considered statute. More like Executive Order? - Presidential Declaration? Whatever you want to call extraordinary occasion:

The fact that no state or confederation of states are allowed to secede from the Union even today is evidence that the extraordinary occasion is still in place. We find that the United States is considered a singular entity while prior to 1861 it was obviously (Thirteenth Amendment) thought of in the plural.

Traditionally a Preamble preceeds a Statute so the Constitution where we find the Extraordinary Occasion clause might be considered Statute? I do not like being reduced to bickering semantics but that is how I see it Bentley.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Franco]

[Franco]

[Franco]

My understanding is the Secretary of Treasury is the trustee. And we are the beneficiaries of the trust. Keser soze Thank you for the tip I appreciate it. Franco

[David Merrill]

My understanding is the Secretary of Treasury is the trustee. And we are the beneficiaries of the trust. Keser soze Thank you for the tip I appreciate it. Franco

You are welcome. May I propose that the trustee is whoever steps up. If you think your name is John H. DOE then you are likely to be the trustee. If you R4C the trustee position then it would logically fall back to the Secretary. If the Secretary is in breach of trust however that forms a resulting trust and you can pick that up on authority as (resulting) trustee. This authority can be demonstrated (expressed) by showing faults in the oath of office process.

View the trust as a circuit - IN GOD WE TRUST is on the money supply while SO HELP ME GOD is on the oath. If the official breaches oath then that opens the money supply (authority of first lien).


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Franco]