Redeeming Lawful Money on Daily Paul

[David Merrill]

P.S. A response read like this:

DM wrote:



I believe I'm beginning to see your point here David.


I don't know how this will play out in the reality show that is life on earth, but I can see how it may possibly fit into the plan of R4Cing the mark of the beast, when the time comes.


For the new suitors who may not know where I'm coming from with this, but would like to know, read this to see what I mean by R4C the mark of the beast.

I wish to amplify my historicism - rather than the stated futurism, "when the time comes". That is to say the prophecies of Daniel, like all true prophecy manifest in an initial fulfilment, an ongoing fulfilment and may manifest yet (futurism) in a final fulfilment. Therefore there may be a Great Tribulation, time will tell. For me then the Book of Revelation explains how God will behave in response to our communication and creation (including "miscreations" from fear-based thought). He (God) has always been like this, behaving like this and responding like this. This is an examination of God's law. The point being applied here that one best learn non-endorsement and refusal for cause (complete with record-forming) now, rather than when it hits the fan. Applied then I would say that God is calling people out of mammon represented by a municipal (City of Babylon) world-wide harlot.

Elsewhere I have pointed out the research of Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire who clarifies the faulty nature of George WASHINGTON's inauguration (including the faulty ratification with only Alexander HAMILTON signing for New York) on the steps of the Mason Lodge by his ancestor Robert LIVINGSTON, chief justice of NY and current Grand Master of the Lodge.


My point under discussion with the brain trust is that the only legal condition would be that the gold is being held in trust by government. Now it appears that government has gone municipal - or maybe a better mental model is democracy operating on a republic - and in doing so that government has breached trust. An example is to ask yourself about only hours after my $20M lien was published as linked above the judiciary here in the not-quite territorial capital of the war chest (gold in Auraria and Central City - 59'ers) converted to bogus oaths, across the board. Examine the local District Attorney - see how it is complete with an admission that he deviates from the IN GOD WE TRUST trust on the money by avoiding the SO HELP ME GOD trust required by statute on the Oaths of Office by including the $5K Traveler's Insurance policy on his oath? The de jure trusts (oaths) I mention here (until my lien was published) bond with the state treasury - like a couple days before with my $20M lien based on proper oaths conforming to statute.

I am sure that most or all constitutions, like the Colorado constitution guarantee a republican form of government so this move toward global municipality (METRO) is fraud and breach of trust. Therefore the opportunity to be the trustee for the Resulting Trust presented itself and I took it. This is ongoing and if you are competent (suitors for example) then you may participate as you wrap your minds around it - you become trustee of the original estate too. The Secretary sent the correspondence to me with the second rejection of publishing my lien. Look at why the Secretary was reluctant to communicate directly - the Notice on Page 2:

[David Merrill]

P.P.S.

In a quick summary, this collection in a Treasury vault on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle (capitol survey - territorial capital is bristling with military might to protect the utilitarian capitol in Littleton, the Federal Center) is or represents that metal from the 49'ers diverted into a War Chest for use in fiat, and subsequently elastic currency.




I have attached some other images from the Money of the Civil War exhibit:

[Chex]

see how it is complete with an admission that he deviates from the IN GOD WE TRUST trust on the money by avoiding the SO HELP ME GOD trust required by statute on the Oaths of Office

I am sure that most or all constitutions, like the Colorado constitution guarantee a republican form of government so this move toward global municipality (METRO) is fraud and breach of trust.

I agree.

Background: from http://www.academicamerican.com/revo...rthwestord.htm

During the American Revolution the Americans resolved not to treat their territories as colonies. Following the war Congress sold millions of acres of land to large companies, but those companies had trouble attracting settlers. Congress therefore realized that some form of control was necessary in the territories that were not yet states.

Some historians have claimed that the principles established in the Northwest Ordinance are so important that they actually form part of the Constitution. The reason is that the Northwest Ordinance promised a republican form of government for inhabitants of those territories.

"It guaranteed that residents in the territories of the United States would not be treated as second class citizens, and that when they were eventually admitted as states, they would enter under the same terms as those states that were already part of the union."

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012...of-government/

Robb Ryder touched upon the Northwest Ordinance. http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.co...t+Ordinance%27

And in the end most of the the preambles to the current constitution are in God and to a Republican Form of Government: http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html

I saw that money before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGziXjCfTmM&feature=em-share_video_user

[allodial]

Perhaps this is like unto David Merrill's notion of breech of trust and resulting trust. Imagine being on a cruise ship and the entire crew is extremely drunk, fallen ill or stricken with debilitating sickness--the same with those who are on just for the ride. The ship is headed for a big, big, big rock. Only a handful of you are sober or competent enough to take any action. What do you do? What do you do? What *can* you do? Maybe the crew and others might shout and demand: "Get drunk like us!" "Get sick like us!" Is it a question of what do you do when the rock hits the fan or what do you do Right now whether its to redirect the ship or to save yourselves?!

One issue with oaths of office is it seems that most everyone should be verifying all government officers as to whether they have an oath of office on file. If there is any official in a given forum required to see to it that offices are held only in respect to a valid oath of office, that official could be put on the hot seat for allowing any office to be 'held' without the oath OR their superior could simply be held accountable for the misdeeds of any person lacking a proper oath of office. It seems that any city clerk or county clerk would have the responsibility of seeing to it that an office is not held without a valid oath of office being taken and held by the holder. The question begs: who is allowing persons to hold office conformity to relative laws?

[itsmymoney]

I am rethinking the Signature Card from the bank. It seems to me that the OCC has sent out a memorandum, but not publicly. If so publicly I might have missed it. But the banks are starting to refuse the novation to the Signature contract. No problem. That is easy to get around if the banks are refusing across the board. Serve the nearest Fed bank. Then serve that Proof of Service on your bank and forget about the Signature Card. Keep non-endorsing your paychecks when you can but your demand is already properly done.

As I live this vicariously through suitors I believe the big part is not the doumentation at the bank, it is keeping a record of your demand. It would seem with electronic deposit anymore that a Notice and Demand is best made directly to the nearest Fed Bank and that proof of service published in the USDC (hopefully you can get a $46 Miscellaneous Case opened; we are working on that) and then you simply serve that on your bank and forget about the Signature Card if you like one of the banks that does not like non-endorsement. They are served and your demand is clear. You have done your part.

David, a composite of your comments above.

Some thoughts here if the bank refuses your novation and a strike-thru of W-9 verbiage (declaring 'U.S. person or U.S. citizen), relative to presenting your FRB lawful-money demand letter/proof-of-service:

If your lawful money demand is consistently executed and your record-keeping is pristine in that regard, would you think there is still any conflict with signing to that W-9 verbiage i.e. 'U.S person/citizen'?

As you have mentioned on many occasions the remedy necessary as written in law, I would think your demand and proper execution of that demand would supercede signing to that 'U.S. person/citizen' declaration (under duress no less).

Would like your thoughts (and others) relative to this example. I'm embarking on a new account and trying to cover my tracks and know the law.

[Keith Alan]

I believe the question for #4 is, "Is redeemed lawful money taxable income?"

Or is it even income in the first place?

I'm beginning to think it's merely receiving payment, and not the fruit of an investment.

[shikamaru]

Or is it even income in the first place?

I'm beginning to think it's merely receiving payment, and not the fruit of an investment.

Income is property and not property.
Income, in general understanding, is property. For purposes of taxation, it is not property.

Income tax is an excise tax. It is an event tax. It is a tax on a privilege, benefit, or occupation.
Income tax is a burden assessed against the person.

[David Merrill]

David, a composite of your comments above.

Some thoughts here if the bank refuses your novation and a strike-thru of W-9 verbiage (declaring 'U.S. person or U.S. citizen), relative to presenting your FRB lawful-money demand letter/proof-of-service:

If your lawful money demand is consistently executed and your record-keeping is pristine in that regard, would you think there is still any conflict with signing to that W-9 verbiage i.e. 'U.S person/citizen'?

As you have mentioned on many occasions the remedy necessary as written in law, I would think your demand and proper execution of that demand would supercede signing to that 'U.S. person/citizen' declaration (under duress no less).

Would like your thoughts (and others) relative to this example. I'm embarking on a new account and trying to cover my tracks and know the law.

I am transformed daily.

The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

What do you think?

I believe that is very important - what you think. Make your demand and presume that you have done all you can do. What you think about the SSN as contractual nexus will decide how you handle somebody using the W-4 against you.

Some people have made their demand on the W-4 successfully and filed accordingly. No refund though because the boss sent no withholdings. But I don't like when people involve their bosses like that. One nasty call from the IRS and your boss will send withholdings with no exemptions and next layoffs you will be on the tip of the pink slips.

[allodial]

The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

I know of at least one situation where someone got a job without an SSN between 2002 and present. The company put 000-00-0000 in for SSN on checks and such but still withheld FICA. A US passport was the sole ID used for the job--the I-9 instructions at least then indicated a US passport suffices as a stand-alone document.

Regarding territories of the United States, it might be important to consider Social Security Districts as territories or states of the United States.This might have significance with regard to FICA.

[itsmymoney]

Mr Merrill wrote: The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

I'm thinking more of the 'U.S. person' declaration (under duress) with respect to that being a 'Federal privilege' therefore the 'income' you receive as that 'person' is administered/taxed via the excise tax it is intended to be. Employment tax (W-4) as you know is in a different Subtitle (C) than 'income' tax (A). The W-4 (Employment tax on 'wages') allows them to ALSO withhold against any potential 'income' tax liability under (A). The key is potential liability. If ALL pay was 'income' (which is what most people think) regardless of deductions or not, then 'wages' would be written as such under Subtitle A but it is not. 'Wages' is also not listed within Sec 61 as a source of 'Gross Income'.

However, by your research on this subject relative to lawful money, it would appear that 'wages' BECOMES 'income' under Subtitle A when you DO NOT restrict the payment in lawful money, which also supports the theory that if you do not redeem in lawful money then the 'U.S. person' comes into play by signing that W-9 or equivalent, therefore you have exacted 'Federal privilege' and now you must report that income as 'income', i.e. 'taxable income'.

[Keith Alan]

Income is property and not property.
Income, in general understanding, is property. For purposes of taxation, it is not property.

Income tax is an excise tax. It is an event tax. It is a tax on a privilege, benefit, or occupation.
Income tax is a burden assessed against the person.

I find that interesting. If I trade you an apple for a pear, did either of us have income? If the taxable event is our trade, how can the trade be quantified, since we didn't use FRN's?

In the same manner, if someone is receiving lawful money, he isn't receiving income, at least to the way I'm understanding it today. He is merely being paid.

I think people dealing in FRN's are in reality factoring agents for their principal, the Fed. Everything they do is meant to generate a profit to the Fed in the overall scheme of things. The money they generate from their dealings is income, and the Fed wants a percentage returned.

[martin earl]

My opinion: No.

Legal tender laws are obligations on creditors. Creditors must accept the tender of FRNs by debtors.

There is also the problem of your profession. I'm sure real estate is a "covered employment" as well as a public interest attaching thereto.

If you are incorporated, there is another latch as well.
I'm sure you are insured as well......

I do not agree that one has to accept FRNs for payment, if that was true, then our demands for lawful money would hold no legal standing. The demand for lawful money, is, in fact, a refusal of FRNs.

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise." http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

I always demand lawful money and when I pay in cash, I tell the other party I am using lawful money to pay. Simply putting up a NOTICE in any Corporation:

"Only Lawful money accepted for payments" will suffice. There is no law that requires one to accept FRNs as payment, there are court cases that denote US Bank notes must be accepted, but never have I seen one that rules FRNs must be accepted.

[mikecz]

Ok, some insights on the 42.22 dollars per ounce of gold held at the treasury. Last definition of the dollar is 42.22, so assume that is the price...

http://goldcoin.org/gold/the-united-states-federal-reserve%E2%80%99s-gold-holdings/2974/

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/06/federal-reserve-admits-having-no-gold-at-all/

This article clears it up...

Also, http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

There is some good stuff about lawful money in the above webpage, most interesting though is #5. A federal reserve bank, here I assume any member, can reduce it's liability of outstanding notes (which why would they ever) by turning in their FRNs, gold certificates, sdrs, or LAWFUL MONEY. The agent receives the deposit and lowers their liability. These gold certificates seem to float inter Federal Reserve bank as currency. Good as gold right...the problem is, if gold goes down.

[mikecz]

This one is for you David,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5117

(B)

I found it!

(b) The Secretary shall issue gold certificates against gold transferred under subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary may issue gold certificates against other gold held in the Treasury. The Secretary may prescribe the form and denominations of the certificates. The amount of outstanding certificates may be not more than the value (for the purpose of issuing those certificates, of 42 and two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce) of the gold held against gold certificates. The Secretary shall hold gold in the Treasury equal to the required dollar amount as security for gold certificates issued after January 29, 1934.


Sorry for the long post, but, disseminate as you wish.

[David Merrill]

Thanks for the insightful links, research and conclusions.

The way I understand it is that the price was stabilized until the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements around 1976. That was when gold was transferred to the IMF Trust Fund. Ergo we still find international gold earmarked at that $42.22/troy ounce.