Something else that could be added to the arsenal of common law in regards to these types of potential cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28law%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trover
Do these not fit the mold?
Something else that could be added to the arsenal of common law in regards to these types of potential cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28law%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trover
Do these not fit the mold?
Quite simply put, Pete signed endorsement of private credit from the Fed. He therefore owes a Return of that Income.
When it was put to me by the suitor who had Pete over, he was realizing it as he spoke and I am sure spoke to Pete about it too. But too late; Pete is committed to making a book work even though it is not a good method nor does it contain any remedy that can be recognized in tax court.
Pete gave his word by signature bond.
That Pete would banish people who wanted to report the trouble he had caused them with his CtC book tells quite a bit about him. And that people cannot get on the Website at all (newly discovered to me) explains a whole bunch more.
What I am talking about is that people may be able to recover from that misdirection with a Fraud by Omission countercharge based in the remedy found in full force and effect. That could get a whole bunch of people out of Pete's huge mess.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Where is this expressed in a statute?Originally Posted by David Merrill
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
That is quite amazing the brain power around here! That question led me to a great revelation. There is no statute! That is my entire point about redeeming lawful money - it is a private agreement on such a large scale that it seems public. - Or maybe better said that the Federal Reserve System seems like Government.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Yes, it is meant to look that way. The Fed is the RuPaul of monetary systems.
Now I have been given the opportunity to educate a revenue officer on the effects of redeeming lawful money, and of fraud by omission.
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
I'd love to here the details of this as I am in the situation you describe with the IRS... thousands in penalties, wage garnishment and the like.
The Notice and Demand for lawful money can be presented through the US district court in several ways. Using the Miscellaneous Case ($46) is becoming difficult but might be solved by using a professional process server to file it. Apparently the clerks know failure to file a case is malfeasance and do not like to commit that on the record. There is the Libel of Review which establishes an evidence repository as well.
It can be discouraging because IRS agents are paid to generate these letters and fines; so they will continue doing so. Refusal for Cause can fairly consistently stop the process from developing to any levy or seizure. However many employers and bankers will relenquish funds to administrative letters so learning to be competent is really the mastery of metaphysics.
When the emotions associated with peace and forgiveness are genuine the universe takes (on) your order. Creation and communication are synonymous. Only beings of like order can truly communicate. Therefore when you project forgiveness then you can expect that forgiveness to be reflected back to you. This is the universe taking your order. You start creating forgiveness in the universe and should not expect that creation to come from the IRS but rather be the IRS complying with laws already in place. Metaphysics is the mental equivalence of your ideas of law being true - in coherence with the actual law.
Regards,
David Merrill.
I previously asked "Where is this expressed in a statute?" Nationwide gave us this over on the other forum. Scroll to June 30.
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
Good find, John Howard (and a great post by Nationwide as well)!! The post you link to has a link to the Veazie Bank v. Fenno case in 1869. Richard Di Mare provides an interesting analysis of that case in his book Lawful Income Tax Avoidance. The law passed by Congress on July 13, 1866 laid an income tax upon "the amount of notes of any person, State bank, or State banking association, used for circulation and paid out by them..."
According to Di Mare: "The heavy federal tax levied on the issuance of its banknotes was simply because the Veazie Bank, like thousands of other state banks, was inordinately competing with federal currency-creation powers." [Emphasis added.]
More Di Mare commentary: "No new taxing power was needed to levy this indirect "death tax" on private banks and their notes."
From the Veazie case itself, some very interesting dicta from the Chief Justice:
"[United States notes], issued directly by the government for the disbursement of the war and other expenditures, could not, obviously, be a proper object of taxation."
[emphasis added]
"It can hardly be doubted that the object of this provision was to inform the proper authorities of the exact amount of paper money in circulation, with a view to its regulation by law."
"..in the case before us the object of the taxation is not the franchise of the bank, but property created, or contracts made and issued under the franchise, or power to issue bank bills."
[emphasis added]
"...the government is responsible for the redemption of both [referring to previously mentioned "United States notes and notes of the National banks"]"
"Having thus, in the exercise of constitutional powers, undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may, constitutionally, secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation...[t]o the same end, Congress may restrain, by suitable enactments, the circulation as money of any notes not issued under its own authority." [emphasis added]
In light of the last quote above, the income tax on currency not issued directly by the U.S. can be seen as a means for Congress to ensure that lawful public money issued directly by the U.S. remains available and competitive.
However, an inelastic currency over time becomes artificially undervalued and in practice gets driven out of use by an elastic currency, which iin time becomes overvalued. For example, I have a silver dollar coin from 1900 with a face value of $1. But I would be foolish to use it to buy a "dollar" worth of goods, because it is worth about 20 "dollars" in FRN's to a coin collector (mostly due to the silver content I am guessing). The FRN "dollar" is worth about 1.5 cents in cotton fiber paper. But because I can get a "dollar" worth of goods or services for it, I use the FRN instead of my silver dollar coin.
Btw, how does Federal Reserve get away with using the word "dollar" on its notes? I think that is proof on its face that you enter a contract and an agreed upon fiction of law by the use of an FRN, since the definition of a dollar in federal law remains a certain weight of gold.
Perhaps a better question is, how does the United States get away with using the word "dollar" on its notes, when they refuse to redeem their notes for the federally defined "dollar" weight in gold? I guess we are still technically in an emergency, since the President and Secretary of Treasury retain the power to declare a bank holiday any time.
The decision to simply stop circulating U.S. notes in 1971 was probably helpful in preventing this issue coming up very often.
Last edited by ManOntheLand; 06-30-13 at 07:32 PM.
I'm not going to go into all of the issues on this post; but the reason why your 1900 silver dollar is no longer rationally used to buy just a dollar's worth of goods is that silver, like gold or copper, is essentially a commodity. For a long time, the price of silver was such that our coins contained no more than their face value of the metal contained in them; but when that price began to rise due to market pressures, it no longer made sense to keep silver in our coins. We either had to downsize the coins or change their composition; and by far the most practical course of action was to change the composition. Nowadays, given the way that silver prices fluctuate, it would be impossible to come up with a viable silver coinage -- and I'm not even going to get into the deflationary aspects of tying our monetary system to a precious metal.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote