"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[David Merrill]

In the Sui Juris thread at http://www.suijurisforum.com/redeeming- ... 98-20.html linked above:

If you like driving up the national debt and having a tax liability on your income Bean, go right ahead. You are the problem, not the solution. From the article in my first video:

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money...

In that thread "the article" was a link to http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

At that page:

In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459. Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation. The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59. The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself. Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment. However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title.

David you have not given any reason that making a demand changes the affirmative legal duty to file and pay income tax; but had linked to and quoted from the article above that claims: "Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit." and "It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income."

Apparently the article had enough merit to you, David, to link it to one of your videos.
Do you agree that this claim is how making a demand removes imposition of an income tax?

The reader should simply note that JG quotes from a different part of the article that I quoted from.

If you redeem lawful money with your paycheck then you do not contribute your paycheck amount to the national debt. (In theory.)

[David Merrill]

I can explain it terms of Instrumentality Rule too:

Here is an edifying find:

15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

So the entire Federal Reserve Districts where we handle private credit FRNs are US property. The Fed is an instrumentality of the US.

This is why we find a traffic case dismissed and even the driver license reinstated when handled properly by redeeming lawful money.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Famspear]

I can explain it terms of Instrumentality Rule too:

Here is an edifying find:

15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

So the entire Federal Reserve Districts where we handle private credit FRNs are US property. The Fed is an instrumentality of the US.

This is why we find a traffic case dismissed and even the driver license reinstated when handled properly by redeeming lawful money....

No, you don't find traffic cases dismissed or driver licenses reinstated "when handled properly by redeeming lawful money." Having a traffic case dismissed or having a driver license reinstated has nothing to do with your theory about "redeeming lawful money." And you have not provided any evidence to back up your claim to the contrary.

[Famspear]

You believe in guilt and monetizing sin. You keep protecting a non-redemptive system of thought. Your endeavor to find a case opinion is Talmudic - Oral Tradition in writing.

No, he's not "protecting" anything, David. You are talking about aspects of the U.S. legal system. Endeavoring to find a case opinion is an integral part of legal analysis.

The phrase "non-redemptive system of thought" is your meaningless gibberish.

You are trapped in a system of thought where you cannot possibly think there is an alternative.

No, David, he's not "trapped in a system of thought" where he cannot "think there is an alternative."

None of us are trapped in a system of thought David. I, for example, can think of the idea that there is a parallel legal system in the United States where your ideas are actually real. The problem for you is that there is no such parallel legal system. Straining to "think of an alternative" to reality is not going to win a court case for you, David, under your "redeeming lawful money" idea. Straining to "think of an alternative" is not going to get your drivers license reinstated. It never has, and it never will.

[jg]

<snip quoted article>
David you have not given any reason that making a demand changes the affirmative legal duty to file and pay income tax; but had linked to and quoted from the article above that claims: "Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit." and "It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income."

Apparently the article had enough merit to you, David, to link it to one of your videos.
Do you agree that this claim is how making a demand removes imposition of an income tax?

The reader should simply note that JG quotes from a different part of the article that I quoted from.
If you redeem lawful money with your paycheck then you do not contribute your paycheck amount to the national debt. (In theory.)

Precisely because I quoted from another part I asked if you agree with the part that I quoted. I am looking for your reasoning or your opinion on what the article claimed in the quoted part.

You replied that making a demand is not contributing to the national debt. Does not contributing to the national debt change my income tax obligations? If so, how?

Because this article gave a reason why using private credit imposes an obligation to file and pay income taxes, and you have not yet given any reason, I am asking you, again, for what reason does making a demand change the affirmative legal duty to file and pay federal income tax?

Please, do simply tell how not using private credit relates to income tax obligations. The article quote was provided as a starting point for you to affirm, to correct or to expound upon.

[David Merrill]

You should just watch the videos that accompany the Article. The way that it relates to income tax is explained in the quote you got from me there. If you don't think the income tax and national debt are related then I don't think you will get it all, ever.

[Pottapaug1938]

David Merrill Van Pelt wrote:
"...your endeavor to find a case opinion is Talmudic - Oral Tradition in writing."

No, my endeavor to have YOU find a case opinion which supports your fantasies is my foolish attempt to encourage and enable YOU to shut US all up for good, by citing a case opinion which fully supports your fantasies as valid law. You never will find such an opinion, because there aren't any; and thus you subject us all to the meaningless word and picture salad which constitute your posts. And, without a valid appellate court opinion supporting your fantasies, you cannot show that those fantasies have any legal validity, because that's the way that things work in the world of legal jurisprudence.

If you could produce such an opinion, I would become your strongest supporter; but I'm not worried about that ever happening.

[David Merrill]

David Merrill Van Pelt wrote:
"...your endeavor to find a case opinion is Talmudic - Oral Tradition in writing."

No, my endeavor to have YOU find a case opinion which supports your fantasies is my foolish attempt to encourage and enable YOU to shut US all up for good, by citing a case opinion which fully supports your fantasies as valid law. You never will find such an opinion, because there aren't any; and thus you subject us all to the meaningless word and picture salad which constitute your posts. And, without a valid appellate court opinion supporting your fantasies, you cannot show that those fantasies have any legal validity, because that's the way that things work in the world of legal jurisprudence.

If you could produce such an opinion, I would become your strongest supporter; but I'm not worried about that ever happening.

You keep making a fool of yourself instead.

There are no case opinions because when people get their refunds they are happy, not mad. The IRS, giving these refunds is not going to take people to court for accepting what they deserve.

[Dr. Caligari]

David,
If the use of private credit is a prerequisite to the imposition of the income tax:
1. Why do the sections of the Internal Revenue Code listing the people on whom the income tax is imposed never mention the use of private credit?
2. Why do the Supreme Court and lower court cases listing the elements the Government must prove in a criminal tax evasion case never mention the use of private credit?
3. Why does the DOJ never allege in a criminal indictment for income tax evasion that the defendant used private credit?
4. Why does the DOJ never introduce evidence in a criminal tax evasion case that the defendant used private credit?
5. Why do court decisions upholding income tax assessments never mention that the taxpayer used private credit?
6. Why does the IRS never allege in a Notice of Deficiency that the taxpayer used private credit?
7. Why does the IRS never introduce evidence in a Tax Court trial that the taxpayer used private credit?

[Pottapaug1938]

David Merrill Van Pelt wrote:
"...your endeavor to find a case opinion is Talmudic - Oral Tradition in writing."

No, my endeavor to have YOU find a case opinion which supports your fantasies is my foolish attempt to encourage and enable YOU to shut US all up for good, by citing a case opinion which fully supports your fantasies as valid law. You never will find such an opinion, because there aren't any; and thus you subject us all to the meaningless word and picture salad which constitute your posts. And, without a valid appellate court opinion supporting your fantasies, you cannot show that those fantasies have any legal validity, because that's the way that things work in the world of legal jurisprudence.

If you could produce such an opinion, I would become your strongest supporter; but I'm not worried about that ever happening.

You keep making a fool of yourself instead.

There are no case opinions because when people get their refunds they are happy, not mad. The IRS, giving these refunds is not going to take people to court for accepting what they deserve.

No, David, it is YOU who repeatedly makes a fool of himself.

Of course, no one who wrongfully received a refund from the IRS will bring a court case over the issue of their tax liability; but once the IRS auditors catch on to the fact that a refund was wrongfull requested, they most certainly will bring an action against the person(s) who requested the refund, and will demand interest and penalties as well as a clawback of the refund. Past threads of Quatloos list many such cases; and the currently practicing lawyers and accountants on Quatloos, as well as Dan's tax Protestor FAQ and the IRS web site itself, will provide more case citations on top of those.

In every single case where the IRS has sought to claw back erroneous refunds, they have WON. If the defendants are lucky, they may escape frivpens; but they lose their refunds, and have to pay additional money besides.

Certainly, if the IRS tried to claw back a refund from someone who had received one, and the defendant had prevailed in court by offering one of your legal fantasies to support their position, there would be at least one un-overturned appellate court opinion setting forth the facts of the case, and the court's holding. You can't cite one, david, because they don't exist. All you ever offer us is an increasingly boring word and picture salad, liberally seasones with excuses and evasions.

[David Merrill]

David,
If the use of private credit is a prerequisite to the imposition of the income tax:
1. Why do the sections of the Internal Revenue Code listing the people on whom the income tax is imposed never mention the use of private credit?
2. Why do the Supreme Court and lower court cases listing the elements the Government must prove in a criminal tax evasion case never mention the use of private credit?
3. Why does the DOJ never allege in a criminal indictment for income tax evasion that the defendant used private credit?
4. Why does the DOJ never introduce evidence in a criminal tax evasion case that the defendant used private credit?
5. Why do court decisions upholding income tax assessments never mention that the taxpayer used private credit?
6. Why does the IRS never allege in a Notice of Deficiency that the taxpayer used private credit?
7. Why does the IRS never introduce evidence in a Tax Court trial that the taxpayer used private credit?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7;

Because Title 12 is for banks and is outside the scope of Title 26.

[David Merrill]

David Merrill Van Pelt wrote:
"...your endeavor to find a case opinion is Talmudic - Oral Tradition in writing."

No, my endeavor to have YOU find a case opinion which supports your fantasies is my foolish attempt to encourage and enable YOU to shut US all up for good, by citing a case opinion which fully supports your fantasies as valid law. You never will find such an opinion, because there aren't any; and thus you subject us all to the meaningless word and picture salad which constitute your posts. And, without a valid appellate court opinion supporting your fantasies, you cannot show that those fantasies have any legal validity, because that's the way that things work in the world of legal jurisprudence.

If you could produce such an opinion, I would become your strongest supporter; but I'm not worried about that ever happening.

You keep making a fool of yourself instead.

There are no case opinions because when people get their refunds they are happy, not mad. The IRS, giving these refunds is not going to take people to court for accepting what they deserve.

No, David, it is YOU who repeatedly makes a fool of himself.

Of course, no one who wrongfully received a refund from the IRS will bring a court case over the issue of their tax liability; but once the IRS auditors catch on to the fact that a refund was wrongfull requested, they most certainly will bring an action against the person(s) who requested the refund, and will demand interest and penalties as well as a clawback of the refund. Past threads of Quatloos list many such cases; and the currently practicing lawyers and accountants on Quatloos, as well as Dan's tax Protestor FAQ and the IRS web site itself, will provide more case citations on top of those.

In every single case where the IRS has sought to claw back erroneous refunds, they have WON. If the defendants are lucky, they may escape frivpens; but they lose their refunds, and have to pay additional money besides.

Certainly, if the IRS tried to claw back a refund from someone who had received one, and the defendant had prevailed in court by offering one of your legal fantasies to support their position, there would be at least one un-overturned appellate court opinion setting forth the facts of the case, and the court's holding. You can't cite one, david, because they don't exist. All you ever offer us is an increasingly boring word and picture salad, liberally seasones with excuses and evasions.

Like I already told you, that is the reason you are so upset about it. Redeeming lawful money is different. Nobody else is doing this. That is why the IRS attorney said what she said about - these people are doing it right.

The refunds I have seen come in were well contemplated, like the example from NY I am not allowed to link or show here. Also the court documents where the court clerk also reinstated the suitor's driver license.

So I suggest you follow Wserra's suggestion and Google "Redeemed Lawful Money" and see the examples I have posted. I sanitized them myself and checked for consent before uploading the images so you will just have to believe me or not.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Unless he provides objectively verifiable proof, in the form of documents from a court showing that the court has directly considered his claims and found them to be legally valid, this site should not waste any more space on his fantasies.

Speaking for myself, I'm not doing it for David. I'm doing it so that Google picks this thread up in a search of "redeeming lawful money", and that readers can then see how completely unable David is, not only to prove that it works, but even to explain what it means. After only a couple of days, it's already #3 on the hit parade.

No wonder Wserra is cringing at your infantile behavior! He actually thinks that Quatloos has a reputation that can influence readers, LOL!!

[wserra]

I am not allowed to link or show here

You are allowed to post anything that is complete, containing an unredacted caption and docket/index number. There is no mystery as to the reason. "Prove" does not mean "take my word for it". When someone cites a Supreme Court case, they don't write, "XXXX v. YYYY, ___ U.S. (19xx)". Instead, it looks like: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). Anyone can then go to 548 U.S. 557 and read the case for him/herself. "Trust me" has no more place in law than it does in science.

Unless, of course, you have something to hide. Then it makes perfect sense.

[Famspear]

David wrote:

You should just watch the videos that accompany the Article. The way that it relates to income tax is explained in the quote you got from me there.......

Just watch the videos? Just watch the videos? That's your answer?

.....If you don't think the income tax and national debt are related then I don't think you will get it all, ever.

Oh, everyone here "gets it," David. That's why you're so upset.

But it's not a question of other people "getting it," David. The rest of the world doesn't need to "get it." You're the one pushing the wacky legal theory. It's up to you to demonstrate that your theory is valid. You can't do that by saying things like "just watch the videos."

There are no case opinions because when people get their refunds they are happy, not mad.

No, David. If people could obtain federal tax refunds under your goofy theory, you would be able to provide evidence of that. You have never done that. And there is no law that says that you can legally avoid federal income tax by "redeeming lawful money." None of the statutes you have quoted over and over say that.

In reponse to a series of questions by Dr Caligari, David wrote:

Because Title 12 is for banks and is outside the scope of Title 26.

David, that is completely unresponsive to the questions. That sounds like something someone at losthorizons dot com would write.

David wrote:

Like I already told you, that is the reason you are so upset about it. Redeeming lawful money is different. Nobody else is doing this.

No, David. You're still projecting. You're the one who is upset.

And "redeeming lawful money" is different all right. It's different from reality. It's a form of nonsensical, goofy, erroneous theory about how tax law works. The reason "nobody else is doing it" is that it doesn't work. It's something you cobbled together.

That is why the IRS attorney said what she said about - these people are doing it right.

We've already been through this, David. The "IRS attorney" story is a fake.

I sanitized them myself and checked for consent before uploading the images so you will just have to believe me or not.

Yeah, that's what I thought. We will "just have to believe you or not"??? That's your answer? Boy, I gotta try that line out in court with a judge some time.

No wonder Wserra is cringing at your infantile behavior! He actually thinks that Quatloos has a reputation that can influence readers, LOL!!

Yes, and obviously you also believe Quatloos has a reputation that can influence readers. That's part of the reason you spend so much time here. "LOL".

[Pottapaug1938]

Like I already told you, that is the reason you are so upset about it. Redeeming lawful money is different. Nobody else is doing this. That is why the IRS attorney said what she said about - these people are doing it right.

So we are supposed to take, as authoritative, the statement of what an IRS attorney -- or one who claims to be such -- said at a party, rather than anything that anyone from the IRS says in court? What an idea! Next time I go to a party, I will let it be known that Zooey Deschanel flies into Boston, twice a month, for a secret tryst with me. Heck, if they believe what an IRS attorney says at a party, they'll accept the word of a retired attorney with 14 years in the financial services business.

The refunds I have seen come in were well contemplated, like the example from NY I am not allowed to link or show here. Also the court documents where the court clerk also reinstated the suitor's driver license.

So I suggest you follow Wserra's suggestion and Google "Redeemed Lawful Money" and see the examples I have posted. I sanitized them myself and checked for consent before uploading the images so you will just have to believe me or not.

Regards,

David Merrill.

"Not", David. As far as I am concerned, especially since thread was started, you have admitted that your fantasies have no factual legal basis, through your continued inability to show us the appellate court cases that will shut each and every one of us up for good. You could do so much for your redemption fantasy if you could just cite that one appellate court case which proves that it works; but you hate the fact that you can't come up with such a citation like a nudist hates barbed-wire fences, and whenever challenged yet again to prove that your fantasies are legally valid, you only retreat further into fantasyland. Thanks for proving us right, David.

[David Merrill]

I am the Refund Nazi!

No Refunds for you!!

The rest of the world though, they get refunds.

[Dr. Caligari]

David,
If the use of private credit is a prerequisite to the imposition of the income tax:
1. Why do the sections of the Internal Revenue Code listing the people on whom the income tax is imposed never mention the use of private credit?
2. Why do the Supreme Court and lower court cases listing the elements the Government must prove in a criminal tax evasion case never mention the use of private credit?
3. Why does the DOJ never allege in a criminal indictment for income tax evasion that the defendant used private credit?
4. Why does the DOJ never introduce evidence in a criminal tax evasion case that the defendant used private credit?
5. Why do court decisions upholding income tax assessments never mention that the taxpayer used private credit?
6. Why does the IRS never allege in a Notice of Deficiency that the taxpayer used private credit?
7. Why does the IRS never introduce evidence in a Tax Court trial that the taxpayer used private credit?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7;

Because Title 12 is for banks and is outside the scope of Title 26.

If that were true, an indictment under Title 26 would have to allege facts showing that the defendant was subject to Title 26 rather than Title 12. But no income tax evasion indictment has ever included such language.

Moreover, it's simply not true. Banks all pay income taxes under Title 26. Look at any bank's annual report.

[JamesVincent]

... like a nudist hates barbed-wire fences,

VERY BAD VISUAL IMAGE.

[David Merrill]

David,
If the use of private credit is a prerequisite to the imposition of the income tax:
1. Why do the sections of the Internal Revenue Code listing the people on whom the income tax is imposed never mention the use of private credit?
2. Why do the Supreme Court and lower court cases listing the elements the Government must prove in a criminal tax evasion case never mention the use of private credit?
3. Why does the DOJ never allege in a criminal indictment for income tax evasion that the defendant used private credit?
4. Why does the DOJ never introduce evidence in a criminal tax evasion case that the defendant used private credit?
5. Why do court decisions upholding income tax assessments never mention that the taxpayer used private credit?
6. Why does the IRS never allege in a Notice of Deficiency that the taxpayer used private credit?
7. Why does the IRS never introduce evidence in a Tax Court trial that the taxpayer used private credit?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7;

Because Title 12 is for banks and is outside the scope of Title 26.

If that were true, an indictment under Title 26 would have to allege facts showing that the defendant was subject to Title 26 rather than Title 12. But no income tax evasion indictment has ever included such language.

Moreover, it's simply not true. Banks all pay income taxes under Title 26. Look at any bank's annual report.

The banks deal in private credit from the Fed. Read the first sentence of Title 12 USC §411. In 1933 FDR opened that banking operation up to the general public in order to save the Fed from its expiring charter of operations.

In any indictment I am sure that the defendant has been signing all sorts of papers without redeeming lawful money. It is redeeming lawful money that avoids contract with the Fed.

Your logic is skewed by your unacceptance that Congress had to supply a remedy to begin with:


They shall be redeemed in lawful money by demand...


The Congress used the pronoun intentionally. They are the people who redeem lawful money. They are the mandatory exception found in Title 26 USC §508.

(c) Exceptions

(1) Mandatory exceptions

Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to—
(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, or..

They are the Redeemed. Atonement. That is my point about getting out from the oath-mongering; getting out from that pile of guilt called the national debt.



Regards,

David Merrill.