Lawful Money Stops IRS Proposal

[Chex]

Good point there IMM, I am just enjoying the jurisdiction subject and getting a better grasp on it

Federal Power Limited

The fiction, "that because it was an excise tax, it was legal," is not true. The power of the federal government is limited to its own property, as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. 18 U.S.C., Section 921, Definitions, states,

"The term 'interstate or foreign commerce' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)."

Only employees of the federal government, residents of the District of Columbia, residents of naval bases, residents of forts, U.S. citizens of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions were lawfully required to file and pay the Victory Tax.

I think this is where MJ states "you" must understand "Trust Law" ?

In 1953, the United States relinquished its control over the Philippines.
Why do the Philippine pure Trusts #1 (customsduties) and
#2 (internal revenue) continue to be administered today?
Who are the Settlers of the Trusts?
What is done with the funds in the Trusts?
What businesses, if any, do these Trusts operate?
Who are the Beneficiaries?

Coincidentally, on July 9, 1953, the Secretary of the Treasury, G. K. Humphrey, by "virtue of the authority vested in me," changed the name of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue, BIR, to Internal Revenue Service when he signed what is now Treasury Order 150-06.

TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 Page Content

SUBJECT: Designation as Internal Revenue Service
CANCELLATION DATE: August 22, 2005
REASON FOR CANCELLATION: TO 150-06, dated July 9, 1953. The entity formerly known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be known as the Internal Revenue Service. TO 150-06 is cancelled http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-o.../to150-06.aspx

This was an obvious attempt to legitimize the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Without the approval of Congress or the President, Humphrey, without any legal authority, tried to turn a pure trust into an agency of the Department of the Treasury.

Treasury Decision 2313 Under Internal Revenue Laws of the United States
Even Pete. I have come to a more forgiving perspective, and no longer believe that anyone who has vigorously deployed the edited TD 2313 is guilty of deliberate fraud or ill-intent After all, the actual text of TD 2313 not only does not support the point for which the edited portion is presented, but does, in fact, discredit the entire 'argument' on behalf of which that edited portion is used. http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misu...ngs/TD2313.htm

[ClemTucker]

When I negotiate a check I make a general reservation of rights: "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" and a specific reservation immediately thereunder: "I DEMAND LAWFUL MONEY". These reservations are consistent with the UCC and apply to any negotiable instrument.

I do not expect to receive "Lawful money" but that is not the point. The point is I have not waived my right to lawful money. Because I have not waived my right to lawful money I have not accepted obligations of the United States as a measure of the value for the transaction. Consequently there is no taxable event until I receive something of value for the transaction.

I don't know if lawful money is exempt from taxation or not. But who cares? I do not accept FRNs as the measure of the transaction because they are only obligations of the United States!

[lorne]

When sharing my success, trying to reach people, I've learned there are many psychological factors at play, whether actively deployed or subconsciously applied. Much effort has gone into building false assumptions (ie. the nation is under external attack, etc). Some you try to reach are ignorant, some in denial, many are fearful. And there is always the possibility you're just dealing with an agent gathering intel and playing mind games. At another forum someone also wanted to see my certified IRS letter but of course I didn't share it. The letter contained no secret incantation, the attached evidence of non-endorsed checks was the key to victory.

I agree he already has the answers, or at a minimum they are available here at this forum. I advise not spending much time and energy on the unconvinced. They know I've escaped taxation via non-endorsement and they know where to find me for more. Oh I'll try, but after a certain point the time and effort is wasted and can even be counter-productive. They may defend their false positions more vociferously. They will ostracize the rebel who sees it all too clearly. The effort itself may wear down the person dedicated to the truth and toward good. My advice is not to worry about them. Very complex psychological factors are at work. By presenting your case, you are disturbing their comfort zones. So let them pay taxes we easily avoid. Let them lose their life savings. Let them take up residence in a FEMA Camp. Let them take the tainted vaccines. Let them have the RFID chip. Let them be subjected to strip searches at airports, and be exposed to radiation. Let them drink the fracked ground water. Let them live in the California drought zone. Let them lose their retirement account in the market crash. Let them have their bank accounts depleted by bail-in confiscations. Let them be tracked like farm animals with credit cards, Facebook and Google Plus. These are willing subjects to the fascist state.

[David Merrill]

I would like to share my experience with the Saving To Suitors Club. The IRS said they'd get back to me about my lawful money tax return within 60 days, but they have not even allowing time for mailing. No response.

Made about $40k at job (W2) and about $28k at side business (1099) for the year. I put a minus $15k on Line 21 of the 1040 return (paychecks redeemed in Lawful Money). None of the side business income was entered on the return as it was all redeemed lawful money.
Tax return filed: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny1.jpg

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040manny2.jpg

It is likely the IRS computer finally detected the reported 1099 business income was NOT included on my 1040 return, and they sent this CP2000 proposal of $10k due: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_1.jpg

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/CP2000_2.jpg

My letter back to them essentially said, no I don't agree with your proposal, the reported 1099 amounts were all redeemed lawful money and here attached are copies of the LM checks, front and back.

IRS response: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/LTR4.jpg

Since then: [crickets]

To be sure, I also requested and just received this Account Transcript showing a zero balance due on the account: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/Transcript724.jpg

This confirms David Merrill is correct. Lawful money is not neccesarily taxable income. Thank you.

You are quite welcome! Thank you for sharing.

[lorne]

I was going through my canceled checks and discovered ... someone I wrote a check to did not endorse private credit of the Fed:

http://ctcwarrior.com/lawful_money_BackImage.jpg

Not even a signature and the Bank honored it too. The secret is getting out!

[walter]

I was going through my canceled checks and discovered ... someone I wrote a check to did not endorse private credit of the Fed:

http://ctcwarrior.com/lawful_money_BackImage.jpg

Not even a signature and the Bank honored it too. The secret is getting out!

[whirlingwonder]

So much contradiction

If the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, is a non governmental,
private agency, and in addition giving one trouble, simply
DECLARE yourself, and all that you own, even in a court
need be, as nothing BUT a sole subject and citizen under the Constitution
of the United States of America, and thereby exercise and reserve
every power and right vested to you therein, and say nothing more.
By doing so, you thereby reclaim and re enter yourself in a jurisdiction
of safety. Do not say what you are not, where you are not, who
they are not , or why they can not. Why play there game, by filing
forms and even acknowledging them as an authority, and claim yourself
in their jurisdiction as one does when they do so? They are one of the
most insidious Agencies to begin with, does one think they can be
reasoned with, or not have pretensions and pretexts to injure you?
You think they will handle you with justice. Their principles do not
even stem from what is just, so what else could be expected,
but problems? If one must contend with wolves, then fight them off.

[David Merrill]

If the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, is a non governmental,
private agency, and in addition giving one trouble, simply
DECLARE yourself, and all that you own, even in a court
need be, as nothing BUT a sole subject and citizen under the Constitution
of the United States of America, and thereby exercise and reserve
every power and right vested to you therein, and say nothing more.
By doing so, you thereby reclaim and re enter yourself in a jurisdiction
of safety. Do not say what you are not, where you are not, who
they are not , or why they can not. Why play there game, by filing
forms and even acknowledging them as an authority, and claim yourself
in their jurisdiction as one does when they do so? They are one of the
most insidious Agencies to begin with, does one think they can be
reasoned with, or not have pretensions and pretexts to injure you?
You think they will handle you with justice. Their principles do not
even stem from what is just, so what else could be expected,
but problems? If one must contend with wolves, then fight them off.

Welcome Whirlingwonder;

I think you will be enjoying it here. My take is quite contrary:

YOU CANNOT FIGHT YOUR WAY OFF THE BATTLEFIELD.

Since redemption is built into the Fed Act then redemption is the law. This requires forgiveness. It is an Instrumentality of the US Government but that, only because Congress has sanctioned stock in it, that depreciates over time. - Quite contrary to traditional fiduciary responsibility.

Then again, what does that say about endorsers of the private credit. If a stock has a history of being worth less the day following...

What's in your wallet?

[Christopher Thomas]

So, last week, I received some debt as change for exchange...found this 'where's george' bill..., I thought the only place it should be is back where it came from...so it was redeemed...interested in seeing if anyone will be able to receive it down the line? thought to share a side eperiment

[lorne]

Great idea. Here's another to add to your database.

[Bentley]

Title 4 section 111 makes federal employees liable for income tax.

Good point there IMM, I am just enjoying the jurisdiction subject and getting a better grasp on it

Federal Power Limited

The fiction, "that because it was an excise tax, it was legal," is not true. The power of the federal government is limited to its own property, as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. 18 U.S.C., Section 921, Definitions, states,

"The term 'interstate or foreign commerce' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)."

Only employees of the federal government, residents of the District of Columbia, residents of naval bases, residents of forts, U.S. citizens of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions were lawfully required to file and pay the Victory Tax.

I think this is where MJ states "you" must understand "Trust Law" ?

In 1953, the United States relinquished its control over the Philippines.
Why do the Philippine pure Trusts #1 (customsduties) and
#2 (internal revenue) continue to be administered today?
Who are the Settlers of the Trusts?
What is done with the funds in the Trusts?
What businesses, if any, do these Trusts operate?
Who are the Beneficiaries?

Coincidentally, on July 9, 1953, the Secretary of the Treasury, G. K. Humphrey, by "virtue of the authority vested in me," changed the name of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue, BIR, to Internal Revenue Service when he signed what is now Treasury Order 150-06.

TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 Page Content

SUBJECT: Designation as Internal Revenue Service
CANCELLATION DATE: August 22, 2005
REASON FOR CANCELLATION: TO 150-06, dated July 9, 1953. The entity formerly known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be known as the Internal Revenue Service. TO 150-06 is cancelled http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-o.../to150-06.aspx

This was an obvious attempt to legitimize the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Without the approval of Congress or the President, Humphrey, without any legal authority, tried to turn a pure trust into an agency of the Department of the Treasury.

Treasury Decision 2313 Under Internal Revenue Laws of the United States
Even Pete. I have come to a more forgiving perspective, and no longer believe that anyone who has vigorously deployed the edited TD 2313 is guilty of deliberate fraud or ill-intent After all, the actual text of TD 2313 not only does not support the point for which the edited portion is presented, but does, in fact, discredit the entire 'argument' on behalf of which that edited portion is used. http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misu...ngs/TD2313.htm

They agreed to income taxation when they took the job

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111

[David Merrill]

They agreed to income taxation when they took the job

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111

Very enlightening! Thank you!

[doug555]

Originally Posted by Bentley
They agreed to income taxation when they took the job

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111

12 USC 411 still governs whether said tax is incurred by FRN Usage.

[Chex]

12 USC 411 still governs whether said tax is incurred by FRN Usage.

Depending on where the loan (credit) is coming from

[Christopher Thomas]

So my lady is FINALLY *(exhausted) starting to notice things I show her. She is starting to wake up from her nap. Anyhow, she has these Treasury Bonds from '73-'75...to the best of my knowledge, I believe United States Currency Notes by then is considered 'lawful money' ...

To my knowledge... Treasury Bonds are issued by those who wish to exchange credit (SSN) 'bonding' such trust for 25$ in exchange for credit back with interest made off such 'bet'

To cash such bond would bring the (Equity) bond to a financial institution to allow holder of legal title to administer the public trust...

Redeeming it accordingly with 12 USC 411 would restrict access to the trust in exchange for credit even though it is unfortunate such is connected to public funds...if that is the case and I'm correct, redeeming it would force the Treasury to replace all credit underwrote by bond to be set-off with lawful money?

Anxious to read responses...