Redeeming Lawful Money on Daily Paul

[Treefarmer]

David,

I think I lost you after Hebrew. Yes, I am going to change my signature card. I will talk to the bank, maybe get something in writing declaring my account as non-interest bearing. But, outside of filing myself as some sort of church/organization, I really was looking for someone's returns, or a sample of the law stating that lawful money isn't taxable.

snip.....snip

Anyone else?

I have explored the idea that lawful money is not regarded as taxable income by the IRS in my own small way, via correspondence with the IRS, tax returns on "income" which was so low that the returns should have resulted in refunds no matter how one filed them, and other research and observation.

During the course of this experiment, I experienced the following:

Whenever I wrote letters to the IRS asking questions or making statements about LM, the IRS responded that it would not respond any further to my "frivolous correspondence".

The IRS does not seem to consider LM as anything other than taxable income, if an information return such as W-2 exists which states that a PERSON received so-called "wages or income", regardless of how the backs of paychecks had been endorsed or non-endorsed, and LM had been demanded.

I have a searchable text of the 1986 IRC, and I could not find the term "lawful money" in it.

The IRS doesn't seem to care about what men and women do with cash or FRNs on their own time, as long as this cash doesn't go through PERSONAL numbered bank accounts. Banking with numbered accounts involving SSN or TIN appears to be a "trade or business with the United States".
DISCLAIMER:
I'm linking to the "trade or business scam" research at famguardian only for the discussion of the statutes and court cases which it offers, not for any ideas about remedy, which may or may not be contained therein.

I have observed that some restrictively endorsed (LM demanded) bank checks which were deposited in non-interest bearing accounts and on which no information returns had been filed with the IRS, were not considered "taxable income, gains, or wages" by the IRS.

CONCLUSION:
Based on my experiences, I concluded that the IRS regards amounts of dollar denominated fiat currency which a PERSON (FIRST M LAST, DOB, SSN) receives in the form of bank checks or direct deposits, and which are documented on information returns, such as W-2 or 1099-MISC, as taxable income, regardless of how the checks are non-/endorsed or the bank signature card is signed.

[shikamaru]

I have explored the idea that lawful money is not regarded as taxable income by the IRS in my own small way, via correspondence with the IRS, tax returns on "income" which was so low that the returns should have resulted in refunds no matter how one filed them, and other research and observation.

During the course of this experiment, I experienced the following:

Whenever I wrote letters to the IRS asking questions or making statements about LM, the IRS responded that it would not respond any further to my "frivolous correspondence".

The IRS does not seem to consider LM as anything other than taxable income, if an information return such as W-2 exists which states that a PERSON received so-called "wages or income", regardless of how the backs of paychecks had been endorsed or non-endorsed, and LM had been demanded.

I have a searchable text of the 1986 IRC, and I could not find the term "lawful money" in it.

The IRS doesn't seem to care about what men and women do with cash or FRNs on their own time, as long as this cash doesn't go through PERSONAL numbered bank accounts. Banking with numbered accounts involving SSN or TIN appears to be a "trade or business with the United States".
DISCLAIMER:
I'm linking to the "trade or business scam" research at famguardian only for the discussion of the statutes and court cases which it offers, not for any ideas about remedy, which may or may not be contained therein.

I have observed that some restrictively endorsed (LM demanded) bank checks which were deposited in non-interest bearing accounts and on which no information returns had been filed with the IRS, were not considered "taxable income, gains, or wages" by the IRS.

CONCLUSION:
Based on my experiences, I concluded that the IRS regards amounts of dollar denominated fiat currency which a PERSON (FIRST M LAST, DOB, SSN) receives in the form of bank checks or direct deposits, and which are documented on information returns, such as W-2 or 1099-MISC, as taxable income, regardless of how the checks are non-/endorsed or the bank signature card is signed.

Interesting ...

Perhaps how one signs their W-4 would have some bearing?
The W-4 is a pledge or gift document.

Possessing an interest bearing bank account is public banking?

[Chex]

For what it's worth from Geri Powers

http://governmentprinciples.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/class-5-tax-forms/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_a.../message/14133

(1)the taxpayer keeps no books;

(2)the taxpayer does not have an annual accounting period; or

(3)the taxpayer has an annual accounting period, but such period does not qualify as a fiscal year.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/441

Found another http://www.freedomlaw.com/archives/o.../dismyths.html

[mikecz]

[David Merrill]

Nice Find!!

What that means to me is when the FRNs in the vault fall below that portion the bank can no longer operate in elastic fashion. Ergo, lawful money.

[mikecz]

Nice Find!!

What that means to me is when the FRNs in the vault fall below that portion the bank can no longer operate in elastic fashion. Ergo, lawful money.

I think there is a distinction though, the bank can only hold a maximum of 85% of it's deposits in "non" lawful money (I take this as meaning FRNs, etc.) This code pertains not to the total reserves, but the type of reserves. Obviously if the total reserves fall below a prescribed %, the bank is at fault, and has to either get funds from somewhere, or decrease it's loans. In the description of that type, the code uses the term lawful money...


15% of deposits must be held in lawful money. If the FRN's in vault fall, that would just mean the bank would have a larger % of lawful money. Now that lawful money has been shown to be different, I wander if those members at the bank can demand their money to be held as such? (***edit - Yeah so i read an earlier thread of you already coming to this conclusion, the belief that coins are lawful money because they fill all the needed requirements, mainly because the are issued from the us treasury) Kind of makes you think about why the Federal Reserve is holding billions in 1 dollar coins? Is there a reserve requirement in written in requiring lawful money to be held in a % within the states?

Another point comes to mind. What if I deposit $1,000 in quarters. To my knowledge, coinage is handled by the US Mint, under US treasury, and not equivalent to FRNs. Would it be too much a request a bank not convert my coinage into FRNs? Are coins lawful money? Though not backed by anything, the fact that they originate from the gov't could be a factor.

[David Merrill]

I think there is a distinction though, the bank can only hold a maximum of 85% of it's deposits in "non" lawful money (I take this as meaning FRNs, etc.) This code pertains not to the total reserves, but the type of reserves. Obviously if the total reserves fall below a prescribed %, the bank is at fault, and has to either get funds from somewhere, or decrease it's loans. In the description of that type, the code uses the term lawful money...


15% of deposits must be held in lawful money. If the FRN's in vault fall, that would just mean the bank would have a larger % of lawful money. Now that lawful money has been shown to be different, I wander if those members at the bank can demand their money to be held as such? (***edit - Yeah so i read an earlier thread of you already coming to this conclusion, the belief that coins are lawful money because they fill all the needed requirements, mainly because the are issued from the us treasury) Kind of makes you think about why the Federal Reserve is holding billions in 1 dollar coins? Is there a reserve requirement in written in requiring lawful money to be held in a % within the states?

Another point comes to mind. What if I deposit $1,000 in quarters. To my knowledge, coinage is handled by the US Mint, under US treasury, and not equivalent to FRNs. Would it be too much a request a bank not convert my coinage into FRNs? Are coins lawful money? Though not backed by anything, the fact that they originate from the gov't could be a factor.

Check out this thread.

What I want to do then is go buy $100 in quarters and see if the bank selling me the quarters for one $100 FRN requires identification. A while ago I walked in a bank and wanted some of those Washington dollars with the IN GOD WE TRUST on the rim. The teller wanted ID and I declined the transaction and she reluctantly gave me back my $20 FRN. The security guard dogged me off the premises like I had committed a crime of not identifying myself to a bank teller!

My life is full of these kinds of twists and turns.

You bring to mind of course the Article from 1984 and its Timeline. I like Timelines. The one I am mentioning though is pegging the US note to the Fed note in value. The article amplifies an interim stage where the author was focused in 1984 exclusively on the distinction of coins.

The coins say nothing about the Federal Reserve System anywhere on them.

This is a key to understanding lawful money redemption. One day some folks interrelated to Red Shield - Rothschild - sent me a bundle of cash to publish some citizenship papers here in Colorado. [I have spoken of Colorado's role as War Chest, not quite a Territory.] I was smart enough to change the $4 in surcharges to quarters. After a big discussion about it the manager refused to publish the documents devaluing and rejecting the wad of $100's but being clever about it I kept the wad and left the $4 in coin on the counter. Listen to that link at about the 5:00 Mark about the $4 in quarters.

Interestingly while I was waiting for the manager to study up a fellow walked in and engaged my clerk in conversation about military flag protocols. Amazing - the timing!

Amazingly, while I was correctly under the impression the $4 would compel the county attorney to publish the papers within three days what he did instead was to use my process server, which must have come to mind by the clerks remembering all the times he has picked up documents directly to return the $4 in quarters. Within the three days my process server called and I went downtown and picked them up, confirming that attorneys know full well when under pressure about Refusal for Cause.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[mikecz]

Check out this thread.

What I want to do then is go buy $100 in quarters and see if the bank selling me the quarters for one $100 FRN requires identification. A while ago I walked in a bank and wanted some of those Washington dollars with the IN GOD WE TRUST on the rim. The teller wanted ID and I declined the transaction and she reluctantly gave me back my $20 FRN . The security guard dogged me off the premises like I had committed a crime of not identifying myself to a bank teller!

My life is full of these kinds of twists and turns.

You bring to mind of course the Article from 1984 and its Timeline. I like Timelines. The one I am mentioning though is pegging the US note to the Fed note in value. The article amplifies an interim stage where the author was focused in 1984 exclusively on the distinction of coins.

The coins say nothing about the Federal Reserve System anywhere on them.

This is a key to understanding lawful money redemption. One day some folks interrelated to Red Shield - Rothschild - sent me a bundle of cash to publish some citizenship papers here in Colorado. [I have spoken of Colorado's role as War Chest, not quite a Territory.] I was smart enough to change the $4 in surcharges to quarters. After a big discussion about it the manager refused to publish the documents devaluing and rejecting the wad of $100's but being clever about it I kept the wad and left the $4 in coin on the counter. Listen to that link at about the 5:00 Mark about the $4 in quarters.

Interestingly while I was waiting for the manager to study up a fellow walked in and engaged my clerk in conversation about military flag protocols. Amazing - the timing!

Amazingly, while I was correctly under the impression the $4 would compel the county attorney to publish the papers within three days what he did instead was to use my process server, which must have come to mind by the clerks remembering all the times he has picked up documents directly to return the $4 in quarters. Within the three days my process server called and I went downtown and picked them up, confirming that attorneys know full well when under pressure about Refusal for Cause.


Regards,

David Merrill.

David,

Apologize it advance, just trying to follow here... I thought you said $100 in quarters, why did the teller give you a $20 back You can't buy $100 in quarters with a $20 FRN or was this what you were trying to do? Do you mean 100 quarters, not $100 in quarters (I suspect this is the case)

Ok, so someone gave you money to publish an article about CO. Were the $4 in surcharges the cost to publish the article? I'm not sure why the manager refused the wad of cash as a form of payment (how much was it). I got a little lost in your story here and fail to see the importance. Where was the devaluation of the wad of cash?

Once again, I'm in pursuit of the truth, and if I'm clear, this story is proving a distinction in the value the two forms of "money" (coin and FRN). I think somewhere out there is an explanation why lawful money is pegged to the FRN, because it definitely isn't the other way around. Maybe we choose to accept the lawful money pegged to the FRN, when in reality it is worth far more then we suspect. I believe this is what your story is getting at, I'm just not quite getting the importance. Also, you have stated earlier about the us note being pegged to gold at 42/per troy ounce? Where is that information?

[David Merrill]

I am going to buy $100 in quarters tomorrow. The $20 in George Washington dollars happened a while back.


Where was the devaluation of the wad of cash?

It could not compel performance anymore. I was clever to leave the coins separate as I (my client) was only out the $4.

I think somewhere out there is an explanation why lawful money is pegged to the FRN, because it definitely isn't the other way around.

Thank you so much!

There is - the Congressional Record. I will get on that.

[mikecz]

I was driving home today and I just came to the stark realization that, at least I believe, everything in the United States purchased using FRNs, which is basically everything on the fruited plains, is owned by the federal reserve (at least they have 1st lien on it, ahead of anyone else).

I think about it like this, the treasury prints up 20 billion in bonds, the fed prints up 20 billion in notes and gives it to the treasury(who is charged interest payable only payable in gold (i read this online somewhere but couldn't confirm)), well say the treasury goes and buys a building with the money. Well, the treasury owes the federal reserve just like you owe your bank on your mortgage, if you don't pay, where does your house go. If the treasury doesn't pay, where does the building go. Instead of the treasury actually buying these things with the notes, well, they bestow this power to purchase things to us, the debt creators, and we happily oblige.

Damn. I feel a dark cloud above. This is some dark shit man...

(that 1984 article was a great read by the way), is there a way to value lawful money? It has to have some difference, and currency reserves in some non-member banks require it's possession.

[martin earl]

I was driving home today and I just came to the stark realization that, at least I believe, everything in the United States purchased using FRNs, which is basically everything on the fruited plains, is owned by the federal reserve (at least they have 1st lien on it, ahead of anyone else).

I think about it like this, the treasury prints up 20 billion in bonds, the fed prints up 20 billion in notes and gives it to the treasury(who is charged interest payable only payable in gold (i read this online somewhere but couldn't confirm)), well say the treasury goes and buys a building with the money. Well, the treasury owes the federal reserve just like you owe your bank on your mortgage, if you don't pay, where does your house go. If the treasury doesn't pay, where does the building go. Instead of the treasury actually buying these things with the notes, well, they bestow this power to purchase things to us, the debt creators, and we happily oblige.

Damn. I feel a dark cloud above. This is some dark shit man...

(that 1984 article was a great read by the way), is there a way to value lawful money? It has to have some difference, and currency reserves in some non-member banks require it's possession.

That also means there is no (or very limited) property ownership in the US. I would venture to say if one was IN the US and endorsing the Federal Reserve note, ownership of any property is not possible.

I would also say one cannot be "in" the US while demanding lawful money redemption, I always think of my demand as a passing of a port.

[mikecz]

I think this to be a more pertinent issue when applying to taxes then the whole freeman movement. I've done quite a bit of research in that field, and I think both subjects do have some points of intersection, but coming to the realization is mind boggling.

I've read an SDR is a basket of currencies, 4 in particular (the euro, yen, pound, and the dollar). I wander if the value of an SDR is based on lawful money?

Also, have you read anything about the Federal Reserve demanding payment of interest in gold?

[martin earl]

I think this to be a more pertinent issue when applying to taxes then the whole freeman movement. I've done quite a bit of research in that field, and I think both subjects do have some points of intersection, but coming to the realization is mind boggling.

I've read an SDR is a basket of currencies, 4 in particular (the euro, yen, pound, and the dollar). I wander if the value of an SDR is based on lawful money?

Also, have you read anything about the Federal Reserve demanding payment of interest in gold?

I have not seen anything about the Fed demanding gold, although if they did, they could not touch the 300 million in gold coins (at face value) held by the Treasury in trust for backing "lawful money" in circulation.

These coins were issued to the public, taken back to fund the War of Federal aggression (Civil War), Gold certificates issued for them were redeemed after the War.

Those same coins were "seized" again in 1933-34 under the "New Deal" of FDR. If any commodity is demanded by the FED for payment, it would be gold (in any form) issued and sold commercially and not the 300 million backing my (our) demand for lawful money, it is a matter of Federal by law those Gold coins cannot be touched.

The FED only has a first lien on "all good and services" "specifically held" to back the Feds credit. That is the essence of redemption, once redeemed, it is no longer backing the Federal Reserve (not just money, but the people as well).

[Chex]

Gold Banks
Associations may be organized under the National Banking Act for the purpose of issuing bank notes payable in gold. (See " Circulation.") Such banks are known as "National Gold Banks," or " Gold Banks," and to take out such circulation must deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, in the same manner as prescribed for the taking out of ordinary circulation, United States bonds bearing interest but payable in gold,1 but not exceeding eighty per cent, of the par value of the bonds deposited. These notes are payable upon presentation at the bank of issue in gold coin of the United States and shall be so redeemable.

1 While the 2% Consols of 1930 are the only bonds which are payable.

While Section 5185 of the United States Revised Statutes, authorizing the organization of "gold banks" has not actually been repealed, practically this result was obtained, however, by the Act of Feb. 14, 1880, authorizing the conversion of " gold banks" into " currency banks." As a result, there are, to-day, no "gold banks" in existence.

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/finance/inve...#ixzz2IeFecgVi

Special Depository - Specialties

Special Depository
This will be understood by reading "United States Depository."
Special Indorsement

One which specifies the person or to the order of whom payment shall thereafter be made, and which calls for the indorsement of the party to whom it was made payable before it can be further negotiated; as, for example, suppose a note is made payable to Henry Adams. He makes a "special indorsement " by writing across the back "Pay to James Frazer or order," and then signing his own name below; i. e. "Henry Adams." By this form James Frazer is specified as the person to whose order the paper shall afterward be paid, and he must indorse it before it can be further negotiated.

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/finance/inve...#ixzz2IeEGr186

United States Depository
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to appoint any national bank as a "depository" for the moneys of the United States Government. This is a method which the Government adopts in order that a portion, at least, of the large sums of money which it often accumulates may get into use. It is conceivable that the Government receipts might be so large that an enormous amount of money could go into its hands and thus out of circulation, making such a contraction that there would be a scarcity of money for actual use, and it is to prevent such contingencies to even a small degree that this plan has been adopted.

The Government does employ national banks as depositories for other reasons than the above. It has what are called "permanent depositories," in localities where the principal offices of internal revenue collectors are located, or where sales of public lands occur, for the purpose of receiving the proceeds of such collections or sales; also " special depositories " in which post-office money-orders and United States Court funds are kept.
Any bank accepting the appointment, as above, must give satisfactory security by the deposit with the Treasury Department of United States Government bonds and otherwise.

The Secretary of the Treasury at one time construed the law as permitting him, at his discretion, to accept other than Government bonds, which may, in his judgment, furnish sufficient security. There is an impression among many leading financiers that this is a bad precedent, and might, sometime, lead to an abuse of the privilege.1

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/finance/inve...#ixzz2IeEST9FF

[mikecz]

Ok,

With this I take issue.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobody-wants

United States currency notes...
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

I'm thinking now United States currency notes are indeed lawful money, but, there are other types of lawful money. Coin being one of them. Now, the law doesn't state you can only have 300,000,000 in lawful money, its only 300,000,000 in United States currency notes. Therefore, I'm finding it difficult to connect lawful money as being inelastic. In the article above, "they say" there is 1 billion in coin, which is well above the inelastic 300,000,000 number. Could it be construed that these 1 dollar coins aren't in circulation?

Thanks