Lawful Money Stops IRS Proposal

[Christopher Thomas]

I thought you, David M. would like the SDR comment...only one I know put so much emphasis on that particular,

A few months ago I was looking up cryptocurrencies and I think it was mining? Anyhow, I ended up clicking my way to SDR (I just skim though a bunch of sites then go back a little more in depth) however thought nothing of it...my problem, at the time..I was on the secured party bull and when seeing the IMF and SDR I shunned it out thinking I issue unlimited credit...smh, I can't believe just HOW bad my double mind was...so with more learning and wonderful group by factual evidence discovers 12 usc 411....thinking differently, I read 'special' (certain criteria) Drawing (endorsement/draft) Rights (according to indenture) then facts of 'fictional basket of...' I can't help but look at these pieces of paper like certificates from trust....

I'm not married, I am some what hesitant with my lady..., I express that it is my confidence in knowing my stance...(I do read people's posts and take heed to the info, thank you) and knowing that something really is not right here...when I saw the 'medicare beneficiaries' commercial I could not help but point out the fact that you provide proof of equitable title for said benefit and by using the titled info then endorsing as beneficiary...then I ask if one can divide title and pass down to inferior, well why can't I create the same to do the same? Maybe that was the final little shake that woke her up.

[David Merrill]

Yes one was redeemed...crazy how a couple months ago a series E 25$ savings bond was worth 300+...current Treasury direct redeemable amount only 133+...I'm wondering if China's new agreement with IMF created an basket inflation within the SDR the basket of currencies?

We are also thinking of redeeming them and deed them to the trust when starting the Trust account at the bank....

Hear! Hear!

Redemption is TRANSACTION-BASED... not source-based.

I want the readers to carefully consider the training - what she says to me.

[David Merrill]

I mailed a woman $100 with the stamp on the back. She got worried. I said it should rinse out, but had never tried it. It did not. So she tried soap and a scrub brush, and bleached out part of the bill. The stamp was still there though.

It spent okay. But she put herself through a lot of stress over it. There may be some troubles caused by my not caring what others think of my redemption. If I was married maybe I would have a different perspective. If she had her way, I would be quite different; an alternate identity.

[David Merrill]

That's right. Upon making demand.

[Christopher Thomas]

Yes one was redeemed...crazy how a couple months ago a series E 25$ savings bond was worth 300+...current Treasury direct redeemable amount only 133+...I'm wondering if China's new agreement with IMF created an basket inflation within the SDR the basket of currencies?

We are also thinking of redeeming them and deed them to the trust when starting the Trust account at the bank....

[Chex]

So my lady is FINALLY *(exhausted) starting to notice things I show her. ...

[doug555]

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...

Redemption is TRANSACTION-BASED... not source-based.

[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...

[Chex]

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

Depending on where the loan (credit) is coming from

[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.

[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!

[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

[lorne]

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

[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

[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?