David Merril documentary - 12 USC 411

[<SLV>]

***************************

[Ardent Listener]

What you are doing could become a pass-time around here. :D I haven't gone out trolling for any big fish like that, but I'm the P.O.A. for my younger brother and I like to hound his creditors who refuse to send me statements that his payments are being credited to his account. It's great to give them calls as they sure call like to call others. They think I'm nuts of course.

I didn't mean to hijack your thread, but I want you to know I'm waiting to hear more from you concerning your great adventure.

[Ardent Listener]

Just think, there may be those among us who are working at gutting the beast from its inside out. :D

[David Merrill]

First, your post that brought me here:

Originally Posted by

The video was really good, but one thing I was confused on: Is there a difference between "regular" FRNs and "non-negotiable" FRNs? 1) Also, in order to do this would I need to cash the checks (at the bank on which they were drawn) and take that cash (regular FRNs) to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank and exchange it for "public" notes? Or do the local banks have to give me public notes instead of FRNs if I demand them? (I would assume this would require a several day waiting period while they order them from the Fed.) 2)

Also, would local businesses accept these public notes? Yes. refer to 1)

I am in the process of eliminating all participation with banks (except for cashing checks at the place of origin). I'm still irked that I have to be finger-printed to cash a check drawn on the bank (someone recommended a little Elmers glue on the index finger ;). 3)

Has anyone gone to the Federal Reserve to demand $100 public notes? 4)

PS - Sorry to hijack this thread. I've moved the discussion here: http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=148416

As one vulture said to another, "Carry on!"

Thank you! I have moved this there too.

1) Not in appearance. You will have to show, in good faith that you redeemed lawful money instead of private credit later if confronted about a frivolous tax return. Keep copies of your paychecks with the non-endorsement verbiage.

2) You touch on this twice. The simplest explanation is when you are cashing your paycheck with your employers bank. It gets more complicated for deposits, e-banking etc. You might change the verbiage above your Signature Card or direct deposit authorizing signature etc. but you are correct to get out of the industry. Consider FRNs the only extant stock certificate for the Fed and since all banks are required to hold stock in the Fed to be banks, having FRNs makes you a de facto banker with fiduciary responsibility to the Fed.

3) Change your thinking about this. What did your parents name you? (First and Middle) This is your name and the legal or full name is a trust established by society. Notice the signature in the video - True Name dba First Middle Last. You have no obligations in your true name; in fact it is in your true name you have God-given unalienable rights. The legal fictions have been usurped as a benefit of society through US citizenship. So enjoy and embrace your true name and thumbprint in conjunction as positive ID. Be glad you do not have to use a number or birth certificate in the trust's name.

4) This is a very good question.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_2.jpg

The only thing in the IRS arsenal is the presumption you are demanding gold and silver coin. And I saw your inquiries about Fed banks above...

Remember what I said about FRNs are stock certificates in the Fed? You are a bank and you can look at the corner bank just like you if you want. Or who you used to be, a banker with the Fed, before you began redeeming the national debt one paycheck at a time.

See the attachment.

The only thing that makes the Fed distinct from other corporations is that ownership of stock is not for profit*, but to distinguish you as a bank - according to numerous opinions of the Supreme Court. So any bank on any corner around is a Fed bank.

I hope to get back here soon. Gotta go!


Regards,

David Merrill.



* Duh!!! Can you imagine anyone holding onto cash in the hopes the dollars will go up in value?

[The Great Ag]

Hey, SLV:

Keep us posted on what the Fed says. As David has pointed out, USNs are really FRNs in disguise.

The girl was correct, the best the fed can do is give you FRNs that have been converted to USNs by POOF magic. The redeemed FRNs will be FRNs that have been converted to USNs.

With reference to what would happen if someone were to go into a fed bank and demand redemption of 100 FRN, I suspect the fed would give other $100 FRNs back, POOF magic. Although, I am finally getting my head around this, I would trust David's answer over mine at this time.

Thank you for starting this thread!

The Great Ag

[The Great Ag]

Originally Posted by

So, the only difference between a Federal Reserve Note and a United States Note is how I endorse the check I'm cashing? Even though the note says "Federal Reserve Note" I can choose to accept it as something else?

Exactly, except the "something else" is a USN (United States note). This is the only thing a FRN can be redeemed to.

Man, we really live in a circus if that is the case.

You said it, brother!"

I was hoping I could redeem it in Silver Eagles at face value! Afterall, the ammendment removed the possibility of gold redemption, but silver is still "Lawful Money" according to the Constitution, right?

A lot of people think that FRNs should be redeemed in lawful money (gold and silver), but that is not the case as gold and silver have been removed from circulation as that is "public money" and therefore NOT taxable.

USNs, while not in circulation, were never extinguished. In other words, they still exist, even if they are in imaginary form. From the US Treas website.

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.

Note, they have only stopped issuing them, they did not extinguish USNs. USNs still exist, even in paper form, although collectors usually pay more than face value for them.

The Great Ag

[GoldWampum]

Yes there are people interested in this information and the outcome of your quest SLV.

David, or another who knows (Ag maybe)

So my question is this. IF I use this verbiage on a check, and am able to redeem in USN, have I accomplished my purpose of not having debt money and therefore not tied to the system through that transaction?

What about same scenario except they hand me frn's if I want money back?

Please do continue guys.

Thanks.

[David Merrill]

With reference to what would happen if someone were to go into a fed bank and demand redemption of 100 FRN, I suspect the fed would give other $100 FRNs back, POOF magic. Although, I am finally getting my head around this, I would trust David's answer over mine at this time.

This took off so fast, and on the same day I think I exhonorated the Browns and a whole slew of others. I am just saying that because I was playing chess with a fellow who said the AG has issued a cease and desist order on the federales. Nothing known yet - but I sent this post to a Michael Avery:

http://www.averyassociateslaw.com

Who may or may not be the same Michael Avery who was helping out the Browns...

You might want to check that the liens are filed properly by NH law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/vol7.html#fedln

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...-B/454-B-2.htm

Oops! The IRS misfiled the federal tax lien against the Browns!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html

Do you suppose that is what it means when they say Under state law? You see Scoop; there are people around here who believe that if the IRS agent chooses this to the US district court venue, they do not have to abide by the state stipulations for process...

You will probably agree that this pretty much lets the Browns off the hook.

Regards,

David Merrill.

It may take me a little to catch up with these extremely interesting posts!!

Think of the quandary about trading FRNs for FRNs this way;

If you walk into a Fed bank with $100 FRNs, it is presumed that you endorsed them because you are trying to off them for US notes in the form of FRNs. Therefore there is absolutely no point in taking up anybody's time admitting you have the unlawful money FRNs. - Unless you are willing to testify against yourself that you acquired them dishonestly.

I wonder if there is a tax liability on stolen FRNs?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by

David,

Do you have a link, or other source information, for the document that is at the heart of your video? I believe you said "Freedom League" in 1984, but I haven't been able to chase anything up on that. I think it would be a good article to give to Jim in the Denver Fed.

SLV

Okay!!

Now I had a moment to read through the posts above. is quite intrepid with these folks. That is good and I admire that research style. I have had the opportunity to work with "suitors" - courts of competent jurisdiction exclusive to the people (Article III). So there are some other experiences like this.

For the current question. I asked a reference librarian at the federal repository in the video to find me Freedom League - or any variation, zippo. So I do not know if that is an organization or a magazine... Therefore the important citations; well I checked into them thoroughly.

I spoke with one expert who does not believe in the metaphysics of an imaginary currency specie. At least he did not until I showed him that Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is still on the books. Also, through exploration, the definition, or closest definition for lawful money was repealed - not amended - in 1994; apparently because of a patriot trying to redeem gold and silver coin:

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+Code94+16006+0++%28%29% 20%20AND%20%28%2812%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND %20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28152%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20

And so I resorted to a NGO definition that is fairly agreeable and probably derived from the US Code above, now repealed:

http://www.investorwords.com/2733/lawful_money.html

I have spent years tolerating insults from attorneys in order to sharpen tactical remedy and apply it for others. They can get pretty venomous but I really owe this definition, from Congress to a Bronx tort attorney named Wesley Marc SERRA.

http://www.iwfbsnewyork.com/jsp2650291.jsp

I have attached the cases and one must keep in mind that in Rickman, the only way that the Supreme Court is not in error is if the bond (Government bond) behind the elastic money (Federal Reserve Act verbiage, not mine) was met by Rickman's bonding himself as the chattel.

Originally Posted by US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

That paragraph in Rickman stand upon Ware. In Ware we find:

Originally Posted by US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

So because the US Code definition has been repealed, and Congress is the only body by the Constitution able to define money in the US, the best way is to listen to the Supreme Court's interpretation to Congress' definition like we have done here. We see that FRNs are redeemable in lawful money while US notes shall be lawful money.

We are in a state of emergency. We have been since March 28, 1861. This initiates the ability to issue fiat currency like US notes, which are still in circulation. At least they have never been taken out of circulation - like with Juliard, right after the War of Rebellion.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_juliard.jpg

[US notes] ...shall be reissued and kept in circulation...

Which is really the primary point in the fluff I added to the 1984 article. The fiat currency began in the Territory of Colorado at the onset of the emergency. Without the emergency, fiat currency is illegal. That is why there was no fiat currency between 1789 and 1861. (I am still waiting to be corrected on that assumption.)

Especially in a form called GoldisMoney one finds it a bit disturbing that there is no honoring the gold and silver coin Clause. Well that is for the states and Congress gets to define the federal currency anyway. So leave that conditioning behind.

By prodding a Treasury agent from the Criminal Investigation Division - much like with , I was able to derive the only thing in the IRS arsenal - to presume that your demand for lawful money is in gold and silver coin!

I am continuing this post directly...

[David Merrill]

First I will tell you about an Internet judge, I believe he is a real banker/judge in real life anyway, named Judge Roy Bean. He got into it with me and was quite upset with the non-endorsement verbiage so he wrote a blog article named Bank of America's "Higher Standards" and tried convincing people on the website that they could get arrested without any recourse for using the rubber stamp.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/asset-...tive-blog.html

Well that is fond memories. Moving on...

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf

This is a memorandum to IRS agents that by the way boosts up the frivolous filing penalty 10X about a year after people have been using the non-endorsement verbiage - coincidence?

Notice items 11 and 12 are the closest thing to this lawful money argument:

(11) Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable income when paid to a taxpayer because they are not gold or silver and may not be redeemed for gold or silver.

(12) In a transaction using gold and silver coins, the value of the coins is excluded from income or the amount realized in the transaction is the face value of the coins and not their fair market value for purposes of determining taxable income.

However in conclusion I want to quote the beginning of the memorandum's conclusion.

Returns or submissions that contain positions not listed above, which on their face have no basis for validity in existing law, or which have been deemed frivolous in a published opinion of the United States Tax Court or other court of competent jurisdiction, may be determined to reflect a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws and thereby subject to the $5,000 penalty.

Therefore understand this metaphysic is by nature a process of elimination. I have been prodding and poking for some time now, an intelligence nexus in the center of courts of competent jurisdiction as sensory nodes. That in other words is there are a lot of people doing this, and they tell me about their experiences much as <> does here in the above posts.

One such suitor tells me he is a state employee and still got two years returned withholdings simply on the basis of bad faith - he turned in this affidavit of truth as he began using the verbiage on his paychecks.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_affidavit_of_public_money.jpg

Law and equity were blended together in America's court system in 1938. The only thing that flies in equity folks, is bad faith.

If I had only known I could have been redeeming lawful money, if only someone in good faith had told me I had a choice, I would have redeemed lawful money from my very first dime of a paycheck.

Therefore understand where we are going with this:

Get your certified copy of the Code from my clerk at (719) 520-6200. Just take my word for it. You want to operate like a clerk of court with certified copies of documentation. Even if you never use it - just start behaving judiciously. Order Reception #207015932 for about $2.25.

After you begin redeeming lawful money, public money like stated above is not taxable, from whatever inception date (nunc pro tunc?), then you are not accruing any obligation with the Fed. So your taxable income is nil. However you may not wish to confront your boss and then you have a Withholding sum of funds set aside on the presumption you have a tax liability every April 15 so you will file, reporting no tax liability in order to get the Withholdings back.

I suggest you send a certified copy of Title 12 U.S.C. §411 to alert the IRS agent to turn your 1040 form over to a trained attorney. The agent will probably assess a fine of $5K on items 11 and 12 of the memorandum.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Great Ag]

Originally Posted by GoldWampum

Yes there are people interested in this information and the outcome of your quest SLV.

David, or another who knows (Ag maybe)

So my question is this. IF I use this verbiage on a check, and am able to redeem in USN, have I accomplished my purpose of not having debt money and therefore not tied to the system through that transaction?

What about same scenario except they hand me frn's if I want money back?

Please do continue guys.

Thanks.

Hey Goldwampum:

Read my thread here and David's here. This is a good place to start. Hopefully this will answer some of your questions. Also, I have posted a video by David below. It is 30 minutes long and I highly recommend it. It helped to put the last pieces of the puzzle in place for me.

When it comes to withdrawing FRNs, you must post verbiage on the withdrawal form. David suggests, "Redeeming lawful money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. §411." I have come up with "Redeemed for United States notes pursuant to 12 U.S.C 411." Not sure if one is better than the other. I am still working on clearer language. The point is to show that what you are attempting to do.

Originally Posted by

I need YOUR help! I am new to this subject (today), so I don't have a lot of resources. Can you please post links to DEFINITIVE legal analysis of the implications of participation in the Federal Reserve Banking system? Please try to post links that are non-inflamatory... we don't want to offend our friend in the Fed!

I have to thank David for these case cites; they are posted below in word docs. Read David's thread that I linked to above. That will be a great start, also this thread by BigJon.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

[FONT=Century Gothic]Who may or may not be the same Michael Avery who was helping out the Browns...

The Browns are unfortunately screwed. The lien may be improper. I am not sure as I do not have the documentation. From what I understand, the Browns stopped filing returns after filing them for a number of years. Title 26 allows the irs to create a return in the absence of a return. The irs then sent several registered letters to the Browns which they never refuted. In essence the Browns received a "bill/debt" and did nothing to refute or rebut the bill. By operation of law, their silent, tacit acquiesence makes them liable for that debt. By the time they got to court they were dead ducks! I do not think anything the could have said would have mitigated the result. Also, I believe they claimed Subchapter N of section 681 of Title 26 as a defense. Any defense regarding taxes based upon ANY section in Title 26 will lose. Title 26 only pertains to taxpayers. By using Title 26 you are stating for all to see that you are a taxpayer. Title 26 can only mitigate the amount owed, not relieve your burden. Sorry Mr. and Mrs. Brown.

Think of the quandary about trading FRNs for FRNs this way;

What way, I am confused?

I wonder if there is a tax liability on stolen FRNs?

I don't think so. A good attorney could get a thief off easily by stating nothing of value was stolen! Only gov't IOUs to the fed. Intrinsically they have no value, and since they have no value, then my client cannot be charged with theft. There are other crimes associated with robbing a bank that the thief could be charged with, but theft would not be one of them.

The Great Ag

[The Great Ag]

2) That it could still be theoretically possible to redeem FRNs for any US coin because they are issued by the Treasury, and although the FED is the custodian, the coins are not a Federal Reserve debt instrument, but a Treasury debt instrument (get nickels!).

There are many who believe that coins are public money, so by exchanging FRNs for coins you are using public money. The idea is the US Treasury via the 3 federal mints "mint" the coins and they are not debt instruments like FRNs.

I am going to play devils advocate becuase, I disagree. The dollar coin in and of itself is not a debt instrument, but where did the money come from to mint it? From Title 31 Money and Finance, section 5111b

(b) The Department of the Treasury has a coinage metal fund and a coinage profit fund. The Secretary may use the coinage metal fund to buy metal to mint coins. The Secretary shall credit the coinage profit fund with the amount by which the nominal value of the coins minted from the metal exceeds the cost of the metal. The Secretary shall charge the coinage profit fund with waste incurred in minting coins and the cost of distributing the coins, including the cost of coin bags and pallets. The Secretary shall deposit in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts excess amounts in the coinage profit fund.

My question is, what type of "money" was used to create the funds? Since I cannot find any evidence to the contrary, the "monies" needed come from the same source as FRNs, collateral given to the fed who inturns grants loans to the US gov't. It is these loans that the gov't uses as funding for it's projects, including minting coins.

If FRNs are spent to "mint" coins are they still not a FRN just fractionalized and in metal rather than paper. What would be the difference between a metal nickel and a .05 FRN? My thinking is there is no difference, except the metal has intrinsic value.

The Great Ag

[David Merrill]

I zeroed in on:

By operation of law, their silent, tacit acquiesence makes them liable for that debt.

I have been squabbling with attorneys about tax liens arising as a matter of law. The Place for filing in the Code starts Under state law. What that means is the tax lien arises under state law. If the state law was not adhered to - also in the posted Code for NH, then no tax lien ever arose.

My friend simply mentioned over chess about Internet yarn that the AG had called a halt to the federal aggression. Time will tell. I sent that post to several sources that might get it to people who might be able to use it wisely. I hope they do. I am mentioning under timestamp of several internet chatrooms for the sake of credit later for getting the Browns off the hook, should it make any difference. It occurred to me coming back from chess that Mike Avery might be taking credit for my tactical approach...


It doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things but if the Browns are exhonorated as of yesterday, then I would like to think my strategem was what did it.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. This post makes my day. Thanks. I will savor it slowly...

Originally Posted by The Great Ag

There are many who believe that coins are public money, so by exchanging FRNs for coins you are using public money. The idea is the US Treasury via the 3 federal mints "mint" the coins and they are not debt instruments like FRNs.

I am going to play devils advocate becuase, I disagree. The dollar coin in and of itself is not a debt instrument, but where did the money come from to mint it? From Title 31 Money and Finance, section 5111b

My question is, what type of "money" was used to create the funds? Since I cannot find any evidence to the contrary, the "monies" needed come from the same source as FRNs, collateral given to the fed who inturns grants loans to the US gov't. It is these loans that the gov't uses as funding for it's projects, including minting coins.

If FRNs are spent to "mint" coins are they still not a FRN just fractionalized and in metal rather than paper. What would be the difference between a metal nickel and a .05 FRN? My thinking is there is no difference, except the metal has intrinsic value.

The Great Ag

[The Great Ag]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I have been squabbling with attorneys about tax liens arising as a matter of law. The Place for filing in the Code starts Under state law.

I agree with you that tax liens start with the state, and the feds must follow state law. If the fed did not file correctly, the lien may be illegal. Even so, that does not allieviate the debt owed by the Browns to the gov't.

Fundamentally I agree with the Browns. Their approach to their problem is what lead them to the place they are, which is holed up in their house surrounded by feds. I do not think this is what they wanted. Too bad, they had other options.

My opinion on this matter is for them to make a deal with the irs, cough up some dough, maybe even do a public act of contrition. Afterall, this is what the gov't wants the sheep to pay taxes. Any sheep who gets uppity will be dealt with by turning them into kooks, even if the kooks are correct. Who will believe a kook?

It doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things but if the Browns are exhonorated as of yesterday, then I would like to think my strategem was what did it.

I hope your work helps them, because they need it!

P.S. This post makes my day. Thanks. I will savor it slowly...

[/QUOTE]

Glad you enjoyed it. Here is my other thought regarding coinage. If coinage was "lawful money" then when a person walked into a fed bank, or any bank for that matter, as you have shown that all banks are technically fed banks, and demanded the FRN be redeemed in accordance with the law, the fed bank could deliver the equivalent in coins.

Say 10 FRN could be redeemed by 10 $1 coins, or 1000 lincoln cents, or 20 half-dollars. . .etc.

To me this is prima facie evidence that coinage IS NOT lawful money.

The Great Ag

PS Where is Carver? I would enjoy his input.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by

I just called Officer Murfin back (because he invited me to do so if I needed to), and he told me that he had misunderstood me. This time he tranferred me to Lisa in the Denver Federal Reserve Branch. Lisa said, "What are 'Federal Reserve Notes', because all of our currency says that on it." (DUH!) I said that was exactly what I wanted to redeem for "Lawful Money" as the 12 USC 411 requires. She said, "I don't know what we could do other than give you new ones for the ones you give us!" She also said, "I've worked here 28 years, and this is the first time I've ever heard this." Then, all of the sudden, she said, "I know exactly who you need to talk to. We have a 'Consumer Affairs' department upstairs. They are at lunch right now, but why don't I take your name and number, and I'll have them give you a call." (I was getting passed off .) I said, "Well, I would rather talk to someone in your legal department," but she said, "We don't have a legal department here, but it is at the main bank. If the Consumer Affairs department can't answer your question I'm sure they will refer you to the legal department."

We'll see. If I don't hear back in 2 hours I'm going to call them again and ask for the Consumer Affairs department.

...more to come...

This caught my eye. Conditioning. The administrators administer the policies to the stockholder banks (FRNs are stock certificates for the Fed) much more smoothly when taught to treat truthtellers like troublemakers. I am not one to talk since I utilize the conditioned to expose conditioning all the time*.

However I propose one can avoid the prodding in this matter with a simple overview of the legislative history of Title 12 U.S.C. §411. It was enacted in 1913 to accompany the Fed furnishing elastic currency - see attachment. [Note to Admin; Most images and photos on my disk are 960x720 or 228 Kbytes. If you could expand the maximum size of .jpg attachment files to accomodate, it would save me a lot of time showing graphics.] Therefore consider - They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand... - considerate lawful remedy to counterfeiting. After all elastic currency is unlawful unless you knowingly pledge the bond yourself - private credit with the Federal Reserve.

We find logically that Title 12 U.S.C. §411 was amended in 1934 to accomodate the great gold seizure of the Bankers' Holiday. The removal of gold and silver.

And like I have shown you, the definition including gold and silver coin was hanging around until 1994, when apparently SLV discovered it and was utilizing it to coerce conditioning out of Fed officials. Ergo Congress did not amend the definition like with §411, they abolished it!

Thanks again to Wesley Marc for leading me to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Congress' definition of lawful money that had to be extracted from two different cases. In Rickman supported by Ware, we not only find that FRNs are redeemable in lawful money while US notes shall be lawful money - ergo paychecks can be redeemed in lawful money in avoidance of elastic currency - to avoid joining in criminal syndicalism; the Supreme Court deemed that Gary Rickman, the man was capable of pledging the Government bond behind his participation in fractionalizing FRNs (counterfeiting) - posting his own supersedeas bond (HJR 192) - and therefore for all intent and purposes had indeed received his paychecks in lawful money.

If one chooses non-endorsement however, one is choosing to back the FRNs received - the US notes in the form of FRNs - backed directly by the obligations of the US - non-taxable public money. Much the same as Governor Gilpin in the video paving the way for US notes back in the 1860s.

This confirms it:

She said, "So when the bank gave you these bills, did they tell you that they were non-negotiable?" I said "No", and she said, "Then why do you want to get rid of them?"

This lady understands at least that non-negotiable means unable to exchange for higher currency. Ergo - to smooth things over with the bank tellers use the verbiage that works... attached.


Regards.

David Merrill.



*

The Browns are unfortunately screwed. The lien may be improper. I am not sure as I do not have the documentation. From what I understand, the Browns stopped filing returns after filing them for a number of years. Title 26 allows the irs to create a return in the absence of a return. The irs then sent several registered letters to the Browns which they never refuted. In essence the Browns received a "bill/debt" and did nothing to refute or rebut the bill. By operation of law, their silent, tacit acquiesence makes them liable for that debt.

By conditioning them to the policies of the Bank and Fund - and by you resorting to the cage of what you were taught to believe.

Use the other side of the two-edged sword; by blending law and equity within that forum, draw upon the bad faith, the conditioning. Every equity banker - arbiter/magistrate sitting en banc debating the equity of the Fed and your (Brown's) agreement about private credit has an inherent obligation to decide whether or not the Brown's alleged obligation, which as you say arose from a contract proposition arose as a matter of law, as you also say, out of Good Faith.

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg

and also

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/succes...ir-coupon.html

[David Merrill]

The Browns are unfortunately screwed. The lien may be improper. I am not sure as I do not have the documentation. From what I understand, the Browns stopped filing returns after filing them for a number of years. Title 26 allows the irs to create a return in the absence of a return. The irs then sent several registered letters to the Browns which they never refuted. In essence the Browns received a "bill/debt" and did nothing to refute or rebut the bill. By operation of law, their silent, tacit acquiesence makes them liable for that debt.

By conditioning them to the policies of the Bank and Fund - and by you resorting to the cage of what you were taught to believe.

I hope that SLV did not take that insulting enough to drop the subject.

There is absolutely no doubt that the federal tax lien was in the heart of the indictment and conviction process of the Browns. And if it did not exist in law, then it must have existed in equity - by the allowance of the Browns. - As you say.

Do you think if the Browns had been informed, and had informed their defense attorney that the NFTLs were misfiled, things would have led here today? That is bad faith, not to be informed of the choice to use lawful money and avoid the tax liability. As with the choice to allow unlawful filing practices to work against you? To prejudice the jury and the verdict?

That was my point. And that is why I formed it in an insult. To get SLV and the Readers to think. Not to be insulting.

If the forum, since 1938 indeed blends law and equity, and it was equity that convicted the Browns; then why would a good faith, bad faith argument be irrelevant in any circumstances?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[hystckndle]

Hello DM and SLV and Great Ag,
( and the Carver if out there )
Haystackneedle here.
Just wanted to say that I have been following this thread and many of your ( DM's ) others on another forum regarding this subject.
I am happy to see this subject again at GIM. Barnacle posted some things long ago that first got me into the study mode.
I have a stamp and will begin using it this very week.
I am using the verbage that DM has posted above.
I am most thankfull for the many writings of DM as this is a wonderful subject to me.
My method of procedure is as follows....(and subject to change as I learn more !!)
I will be depositing checks written to my business, an LLC, I set up 1st of April.
I will in turn write to myself a "paycheck" from this business account.
I will W-4 myself and follow the "rules" as best as I can.
I will take the "payroll" check ( written by me, LLC, and to myself ) to the bank it is drawn on and cash it for FRN's WITH endorsement on the back of the check AS PER the stamp. I am also considering the usage signature with "John H." dba " JOHN HENRY DOE " .
I am working on the next steps, considering the usage of money orders only from here on or redepositing cash.....I dunno yet....
I have had some recent quarrels with Amsouth bank recently taken over by Regions which have me in a bit of a *&^&&% this week which have slowed down the process....but they have only emboldened my resolve.
I intend to continue to file a 1040....but I want to establish the fact that I am over a period of time asking for public money.
I will be asking for a full refund of appropriate amounts during the filing of the 1040 using the affadavit of truth posted elsewhere and the date of July 1 2007 as my start point.
There are many deposits back and forth from / to my account this year NOT using the stamp, but I am going to go forth with this endeavor.
Regards,
Haystackneedle

[The Great Ag]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

By conditioning them to the policies of the Bank and Fund - and by you resorting to the cage of what you were taught to believe.

I hope that SLV did not take that insulting enough to drop the subject.

There is absolutely no doubt that the federal tax lien was in the heart of the indictment and conviction process of the Browns. And if it did not exist in law, then it must have existed in equity - by the allowance of the Browns. - As you say.

Do you think if the Browns had been informed, and had informed their defense attorney that the NFTLs were misfiled, things would have led here today? That is bad faith, not to be informed of the choice to use lawful money and avoid the tax liability. As with the choice to allow unlawful filing practices to work against you? To prejudice the jury and the verdict?

That was my point. And that is why I formed it in an insult. To get SLV and the Readers to think. Not to be insulting.

If the forum, since 1938 indeed blends law and equity, and it was equity that convicted the Browns; then why would a good faith, bad faith argument be irrelevant in any circumstances?



Regards,

David Merrill.

I have not had the time to write a proper response, but will do so to keep this thread active. Hopefully tonight, if not tomorrow.

Hey, Haystackneedle, congrats

The Great Ag

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by

I'm not offended. I feel sorry for the Brown's because the system is so complicated it is hard to know if you are right or wrong!

I found the text of the 1984 "Freedom League" article and sent it to Jim at the Denver Fed. I'll follow up with an E-mail on Monday to see if he has any idea. He has already said that he thought coins would qualify as "Lawful Money", so I was thinking about working out a deal with him where I go down and redeem my FRNs for nickels (maybe just one bulk bag). I'll take my video camera and document the exchange if he'll do it.

You missed the point entirely. If you have FRNs then you have already endorsed private credit for them.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Great Ag]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

By conditioning them to the policies of the Bank and Fund - and by you resorting to the cage of what you were taught to believe.


There is absolutely no doubt that the federal tax lien was in the heart of the indictment and conviction process of the Browns. And if it did not exist in law, then it must have existed in equity - by the allowance of the Browns. - As you say.

Do you think if the Browns had been informed, and had informed their defense attorney that the NFTLs were misfiled, things would have led here today? That is bad faith, not to be informed of the choice to use lawful money and avoid the tax liability. As with the choice to allow unlawful filing practices to work against you? To prejudice the jury and the verdict?
David Merrill.

The way I understand the irs to work, as it relates to the Brown's situation, the irs filed a return on the Brown's behalf, since the Brown's, who presumably had been filing them for some time, then stopped. That irs filed return becomes a presentment against the Browns, just like my company sending in a 1099misc to the irs. The irs then sent their presentment to the Browns, who never responded in a timely manner. By not responding, tacit/silent acquiesence they agreed to the presentment.*

When the court date arrives, I am assuming the irs was the plaintiff, their case against the Browns was not whether taxes were owed, but how much was owed.

The Browns, if I recall rightly, used as a defense that they were not liable for taxes dues to Subchapter N of section 861 of Title 26. Their defense was inadequate, as Title 26 pertains ONLY to taxpayers. By using a section of Title 26 for a defense, the Browns are saying they are taxpayers. At this point, their fate was sealed. I have not followed the court case nor any of the denied appeals, so my data may be inaccurate.

When the Browns tried to appeal, I suspect a higher court did deny the appeal because of the Browns lack of respone to the irs presentments, and their inadequate defense. To me this makes sense why the appeal was denied. As I stated above, I have not followed this case closely.



The irs, as I see it, serves 3 basic functions:
1. Collect taxes for the controllers of the US
2. Remove FRNs from the monetary system as an inflationary brake.
3. Scare the "bejeebers" out of all US citizens so they will continue to "voluntarily" pay taxes.

There are many corollaries that will fall under those 3 categories, and there are probably more basic functions the irs serves but I am not aware of them.

All the irs wants is for the Browns to pay their taxes, even if it is for a lesser amount. Since the Browns were unwilling to pay the amount owed as determined by judge and jury, the irs chose to file a NFTL. From what you have stated, it seems the lien was misfiled. Not a surprise there. The irs often uses intimidation to force compliance. I am not aware of New Hampshire's law regarding misfiling of tax liens. With the misfiling, can the irs file properly? Or by their mistake lost the opportunity file another claim? Either way, I do not see how the misfiling discharges the "debt" owed.

Fundamentally I agree with the Browns. I think if they had responded timely to the irs' presentments, they may have had a chance to win in court. By their in-action and inadequate defense their case was a no-winner.

In regards to the cage you wrote about. Most certainly there is a cage the gov't presumes us to be born into. Unless each person states so otherwise, the gov't presumptions stand. A person must state so prior to an appearance in court. Because of the 14th Amendment, all persons born or naturalized in the US are US citizens, or a member of a corporate body politic, and therefore subject (in the feudal sense) to their lord, the US gov't. This is the cage. A person does not have to change their status to access public law as contrasted to private law, such as Title 26, although it is much easier. The Browns, as I can see, did not, by any of their actions, guarantee their rights to public law.

The Great Ag
*For example, I send to you, David Merrill a billing statement that says for services rendered $4,000.00. Please pay by July 30, 2007. Send all remittances to The Great Ag 123 main street, anytown USA. If you do not reply back to me stating that you DO NOT owe these monies, then after July 30, I could file a complaint against you in a competent court. I would win as long as I could show that I had renedered services to you and you had failed to pay.

[The Great Ag]

Hey, SLV;

I'll follow up with an E-mail on Monday to see if he has any idea. He has already said that he thought coins would qualify as "Lawful Money"

Please keep us updated with your email response. I do not believe coins to be "lawful money" as the funds to mint them come from private money. I see coins as fractionalized metallic FRNs. I have been unable to find any data to prove otherwise. My research is NOT conclusive NOR exhaustive.

Now if I just understood what the funny stamp was doing to protect my rights...

As David has shown in this thread, FRNs are not lawful money http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=145389, credit is not taxable. By non-endorsing your paychecks with the phrase, “Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for Federal Reserve notes of face value,” a person is correcting the error on the front of the paycheck. What is stated in plain language, Federal Reserve notes were credited into the account and that "dollars" were not deposited. Federal Reserve notes, by definition, are credit, an obligation the US gov’t must repay to the fed bank. In essence, when you spend a FRN, you are spending credit via a loan to the federal gov’t from the fed bank. If you do not claim, under some form of protest, that your dollars are actually credit, then you are liable for federal income tax. That is our monetary system. CREDIT IS NOT TAXABLE.

Why you may ask? If you have a mortgage, car loan or personal loan, did you claim those monies as income? Ofcourse not! It is a loan and not income. A loan is nothing more than an extension of credit. If you do not claim a loan as income, why would you claim earning FRNs as income? Can you see by non-endorsing your paycheck, you are showing that you received credit from the fed bank via a loan to the US gov’t and not "dollars". To claim credit, you need to write or stamp the non-endorsement on the back of each paycheck.

If the gov’t charged tax on loans, on top of the interest, people would not take out loans, rather they would save money until they could purchase the item. Here's the catch, In our current monetary system, if NO ONE borrowed money, then their would be NO money supply! All that exists is credit, and credit is NOT taxable, plain and simple.

The Great Ag

[hystckndle]

Hello SLV,
Please keep us posted on how it goes with your new acquaintance at the FED.
Ag,
Your assesment of the Brown situation is one that is close to my thinking.
I agree with the fundamentals, hey most of us do don't we ?, but not with their method of procedure.
Just saying "no" is certainly not good enough other than for getting a LOT of attention.
I have not followed the story closely after the initial coverage, it riles me up.
Seems to me that this is where the matrix snares many.
The procedure is key.
The system is not UNconstitution as much as it is NONconstitutional.
Interesting it is.
To argue ANY amount is acceptance of some amount.
Th code does say that they will file for you.
The usage of FRN's in itself ( or not ) is establishing a precedent.
I see the tax as a sort of usage fee of private credit.
I see your analogy of current coined money also.
Second tier up from coined gold and silver on the inverted pyramid.
Seems they are ( planning ) legging out of physical on the way to electronic credits.
All coins gone would be good for the system , no ?
Bank of America is hot with that "keep the change" promotion.
Gotta go,
Regards,
haystackneedle

[hystckndle]

SLV,
AHHHH !!!
It slipped my mind, but I read ALL of your posts about your experiences if that was you ?!!
Yes, that would be a problem for them if exposed.
Seems to me that "public money" is still effectively that which is coined albeit it has been "clipped" so to speak.
Ag has added a new twist.
I will look at this more closely.
I remember for years wondering why was it that the "generous" tax folks gave you instantly a 1000 deduction ...
I have read elsewhere recently that the reason for this was that this was the alloted amount that one used during the course of a year as change payments, vending machines, telephones, meters, parking , tips etc etc....
And therefore this amount ( public money ) was NOT taxable.
It helped me a lot with understanding the public money / private credit issue at hand....true or not.
Regards,
Haystackneedle

[The Great Ag]

Originally Posted by

Back last year when I was "recycling" 100 tons of pennies/month I ran into an issue with a major bank (Fed member). My contact said that "You didn't hear it from me, but the big players are very concerned about the PR concerns of being the bank that is providing coins to your business."

Very interesting, SLV. I do not see what the concerns would be. I am probably missing something. Can you help me?

Originally Posted by hystckndle

I remember for years wondering why was it that the "generous" tax folks gave you instantly a 1000 deduction ...
I have read elsewhere recently that the reason for this was that this was the alloted amount that one used during the course of a year as change payments, vending machines, telephones, meters, parking , tips etc etc....
And therefore this amount ( public money ) was NOT taxable.

Hmm, if I get time I will look into this $1000 tax deduction for use of coins. Tax payers are granted a one time deduction of $6500 off the top. This $1000 "public money" deduction would be part of that, no?

If that were true, then my ideas concerning coins would be wrong. Everything I am digging up suggests the opposite. I may still be wrong, but I have been unable to unearth contradictory evidence that is more powerful.

Here is more prima facie evidence that coins ARE NOT public money, and it came from dictionaries.

From Webster’s New World Dictionary 3rd, College Ed.
Dollar: The basic monetary unit of the U.S, equal to 100 cents; symbol $.
Cent: A monetary unit of the U.S, equal to 1/100th of a dollar, penny.

From Black’s Legal Dictionary, 5th Ed. and looked for the definitions and found the same answers.

Dollar: The monetary unit employed in the United States of the value of one hundred cents, or of any combination of coins totaling 100 cents.
Cent: A coin of the United States, the least in value of those now minted. It is the hundredth part of a dollar.

To me this reinforces the idea that coins are fractionalized FRNs. The so called "dollar" is equal to 100 cents and the cent is 1/100th of a "dollar." It's a circular argument that never made sense to me until now, if you assume coins are fractionalized FRNs and therefore NOT public money.

The Great Ag

[The Great Ag]

Originally Posted by

So, is a Federal Reserve Note a "dollar"? (We all know that it isn't, but there might be some legal documet which claims otherwise.)

None that I can find. In fact, there is NO legal definition in US code for "dollar." In contrast there is for FRNs.

From Blacks Legal Dictionary 5th Ed. again:

Federal Reserve note: Form of currency (notice it is a form and not the real thing) issued by Federal Reserve Banks in the likeness of noninterest bearing promissory note payable to bearer on demand. The federal reserve note (e.g. one, five, ten, etc. dollar bill) is the most widely used paper currency. Such have replace silver and gold certificates which were backed by silver and gold. Such reserve notes are direct obligations of the United States.

Obligation: A generic word. . .having many, wide, and varied meanings. That which constitutes a legal or moral duty and which renders a person liable to coercion and punishment for neglecting it. An obligation or debt may exist by reason of an express contract. A formal and binding agreement or acknowledgment of a liability to pay a certain sum or do a certain thing.

By defintion a FRN is not a "Dollar." Just because a FRN has the word "dollar" imprinted on it no more makes it a "dollar" than me wearing a Bush mask makes me the President! US code, sorry I do not have the citation, requires all monies in the US to be denominated in "dollars."

This is just lip service, as far as I can tell. They are playing games so we do not figure out the truth.

THe Great Ag

[azxcvbnm321]

The FRN is what it says, a note, or obligation to "pay". It represents US Govt. debt, and each FRN note issued is treated as a liability on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. What's interesting is that the FED has to "back" the FRNs it issues with assets. Those assets are usually US Govt. bonds, which are also debt. The FED can buy US Govt. bonds directly from the treasury, when it issues the same amount of FRNs, to "pay" for the bonds, the process is called monetizing the debt as US Govt. borrowings are directly translated into currency.

So our currency is nothing more than US Govt. debt.

[hystckndle]

Ag,
I am interested in your dollar fractionalization hypothesis.
I "see" your way...and I "see" my way...
To me, our present coins, "clipped" as they may be,
are the survivors, so to speak, of the original fractional dollar units that exisited before all the shenanigans began / got out of control.
I understand that they may be minted at the mint that is funded by the fractionalization process...this is unfortunate and I think for me a cloudy area.
Buying and selling Gold Eagles is a "non" taxable event no ?
And Silver Eagles as well ?
Seems to me that buying and selling Washinton quarters still is as well.
And Lincoln cents and so on and so forth.
The dollar unit is the sum total of the smaller ones.
Note: I will use the stamp for the first time tomorrow.
Do I expect earth shattering success ?....no, not really...
but I am going to try this item we have been discussing here as it appears to me that all of us are deep within the confines of the 14th amendment quagmire and this seems to be the best available option for me to start with at the moment until I begin some of the other steps.
Regards,
Haystackneedle

[hystckndle]

Originally Posted by azxcvbnm321

The FRN is what it says, a note, or obligation to "pay". It represents US Govt. debt, and each FRN note issued is treated as a liability on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. What's interesting is that the FED has to "back" the FRNs it issues with assets. Those assets are usually US Govt. bonds, which are also debt. The FED can buy US Govt. bonds directly from the treasury, when it issues the same amount of FRNs, to "pay" for the bonds, the process is called monetizing the debt as US Govt. borrowings are directly translated into currency.
So our currency is nothing more than US Govt. debt.

Yes, nothing more than a promissory note...each and every one.
With the catch that the interest due on each and every one is currently due to the private banking system and not to the people. If the government can issue a bond, they surely can also issue a dollar.

[The Great Ag]

Originally Posted by hystckndle

Ag,
I am interested in your dollar fractionalization hypothesis.
I "see" your way...and I "see" my way...
To me, our present coins, "clipped" as they may be,
are the survivors, so to speak, of the original fractional dollar units that exisited. . .

But back then the "dollar" had a legal definition. Today, no such thing exists.

I understand that they may be minted at the mint that is funded by the fractionalization process...this is unfortunate and I think for me a cloudy area.

What would clear it up for me is where does the funding come from for the programs? Does the US Treasury print T-bills to pay for the coins, or are they FRNs? The difference is crucial, as I see it. Payment in FRNs represents fractionalized metallic FRNs, but T-bills, also a debt instrument, are not from a "private" bank. If the latter is the case, then it could be argued that coins are a "form" of "lawful money."

Unfortunately, I cannot answer my question. . .for now.

Buying and selling Gold Eagles is a "non" taxable event no ?
And Silver Eagles as well ?
Seems to me that buying and selling Washinton quarters still is as well.
And Lincoln cents and so on and so forth.

They are ALL taxable events. You are spending FRNs in the form of "dollars", and that is the qualifier for a taxable event,as I see it (Keep in mind I am still paying taxes as of today). Even though the coins are "legal tender" only an idiot would spend a gold or silver dollar for face value. It can be argued that spending a gold or silver coin for face value (you are still an idiot) would NOT be a taxable event. Would you want to do that? There may be cases when it may be prudent (legal issues come to mind).

Note: I will use the stamp for the first time tomorrow.
Do I expect earth shattering success ?....no, not really...
but I am going to try this item we have been discussing here as it appears to me that all of us are deep within the confines of the 14th amendment quagmire and this seems to be the best available option for me to start with at the moment until I begin some of the other steps.
Regards,
Haystackneedle

Good luck tomorros. I have never had a problem with the verbiage. I have been writing the verbiage on the check. Also, I credit them in my bank, not the bank of origin. That may make a difference. The cashiers at my bank are clueless. They ask me why I do it, and I say, "I am correcting the error on the front of the check." They respond, "Which error is that?" "The part that says I receive dollars." After that they go through their motions. They know I collect coins, so they probably figure it's "one of those things."

The Great Ag

[azxcvbnm321]

From what I understand, the FED could collect interest on the US Treasury Bonds it holds, but it never actually does. All the FED's "profits" come from lending money to its own member banks, the profits are then redistributed among the same banks in proportion to the "shares" owned. Therefore the FED can be said to help the public by not charging interest, though this help is minimal given the size of the national debt and the FED's meager holdings.