Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul

It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.

And here's the part Ron Paul never mentions:

Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974). Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder. The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur. 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, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable. If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.

It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, bankers have over extended, making banks quite illiquid. Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit

Hello OSS!

I always cash checks and for any transaction I want a record for, I use postal money orders (and I get the postal clerk to initial their receipt that the money order was paid for with 'lawful money redeemed per 12-USC 411). I write that on the receipt and they have no problem initialing it.

I find that most of them know what lawful money is since they deal with the money orders and stamps (which have always been lawful money of the united States).

Thanks for the information you posted!

Its good to be the king! Its getting easier to spot the good guys like you. The responsibilities of freedom start with lawful money.

Bumping this for the weekend crowd who have been ranting on anti-income tax threads.

The vast majority of those diatribes against the INCOME TAX posters and OPS will be wise to wake up to the fact that without restricted endorsements, they are inDEED, acting as Federal Reseve AGENTS just for carrying Federal Reserve notes in their pockets.

These authorized Federal Reserve agents are, in fact, ranting and in some cases, threatening violence as a solution against themselves!!

C R A Z Y!

Thanks! I was referred here from Pete's website.

[link to www.losthorizons.com]

However my account there is still inactive. I do not think that Pete is ready to accept the shortfalls in his process.

A couple posts below the link here we find a great link:

[link to savingtosuitorsclub.net]

I will keep that thread updated occasionally when the IRS agents get new updates and memorandums about criteria for issuing frivolous fines.


Regards,

David Merrill.

I little tidbit I ran across that I thought some my enjoy. Some of it is old news but it spells out how the use of private credit obligates us to paying taxes, and also gives us a clear way to end the fed ourselves. Thanks rken/sk

Convincing Congress to Abolish the Fed
Freedom League, Sept/Oct 1984

When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion. To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.

However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters. Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own." This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

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.

Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980). If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the bankers. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy. This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.

Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974). Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder. The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur. 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, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable. If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.

It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, bankers have over extended, making banks quite illiquid. Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit. When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the banking system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115). The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it. Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316. According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution. We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government. The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government is founded upon private law and funded by private credit. What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to bankers via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution. The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution. Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 Am.Rep. 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV. Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund. It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution. The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy. The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed. Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country. [Reprinted from `Freedom League', Sept/Oct 1984]

The above linked from

[link to www.silverbearcafe.com]

Thats the same stuff I put in last week, very good.

I LOVE THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry ossbogos, asleep at the switch. But all the same good info. Thanks for posting it. Much appreciated. sk

Check out this thread: Thread: CNBC Admits We're All Slaves To ROTHSCHILD CENTRAL BANKERS GLOBAL GOVERNMENT (Page 3)

They're looking for someone to blame besides themselves. You can lead a horse to water....

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Eurodollars are time deposits denominated in U.S. dollars at banks outside the United States, and thus are not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve. Consequently, such deposits are subject to much less regulation than similar deposits within the U.S., allowing for higher margins. The term was originally coined for U.S. dollars in European banks, but it expanded over the years to its present definition—a U.S. dollar-denominated deposit in Tokyo or Beijing would be likewise deemed a Eurodollar deposit. There is no connection with the euro currency or the eurozone.

Note that it is U S dollars.

The county south of where I am is funding a courthouse restoration by writing notes on future tax revenues. So I am going to write some future earnings notes and see if the bank will take them. Maybe I could pay the property tax that way.

for the fight

Bumping for all the pinned tax drama!

It is a good feeling not to be afraid of their pens and paper any more...

Taxpayers need mental health care. Its another voluntary benefit offer. This is my doctor:

LOLOL!!

weekend bump

Why do I have a feeling we're only hearing about this now, because it won't be much use in a few years?

After finding this thread and having my mind blown, I spent the week doing research to try and independently verify this.
Once I was satisfied this looked legit I took my folder of evidence over to my parents house to attempt the
re-education.

I was prepared, as I knew the decades and decades of fear mongering propaganda meant the second I mentioned taxes they'd shut down and not want to hear anything.

Sure enough, firt words out of my moms mouth were "You don't fight the IRS!!!" With an extreme look of worry.

I told her she was right, nobody has ever won fighting the IRS, which is why you play by their rules, then they can't touch you.

So, I laid everything out for them, complete with documentation to back it up. When I get to the kicker, the part about redemming my father interupts me.

He recalled having an old CPA friend of his attempt to convince him to do this 'trick' way back in 1981. He assumed it was just some evasion scam and wrote it off, as I'm sure 95% of everyone who has been told by someone 'in the know' over the years has as well.

So, after blowing their minds with the info I had gathered my dad went to FB and looked up his old pal to ask him some follow up questions.

The guy was there and responded that he indeed redeemed lawful money starting in 1979 and kept records extensively at city hall etc.
He claimed no taxes for over a decade and half...
Before the IRS came a knocking.
He responded with the proof that he'd only used redeemed money and was then horrofied as they whipped out one legal response after another, mostly frivolous but enough to have his head spinning and his wife leaving him.

He got out of prison 2 years ago...

They ended up getting him on multiple counts of tax evasion, according to him, via his insurance and SS.

Moral of the story is, if you attempt to take on the Hydra, vigiliance won't be enough in the end. When the house cheats, you truly have no legal recourse.

Do this at your own peril. So sad that in order to be an upstanding citizen, you have to jump through so many hoops, deal with ridicule from the sheeple and outright refusal from the banks, constantly. All with the thought that one day, some day, they'll come a knocking.

Many people do the right thing but don't have the ability to deal with the liewers when confronted. Without knowing exactly how he responded it would seem they tripped him up. Why did he still use a SS? I hear people say they couldn't get a drivers license without giving a SS#. I just told them I don't use one. No problem. I'm actually starting to think I've been protected by an old college friend who had to go to work for them. If you're trying to scare people I think you need more details. No link, you stink.

AC Your account is an interesting STORY but without some sort of evidence, it is just that a story. I known many who pay no taxes due to redeeming lawful money and have had no problems with the IRS. Your statement about his SS# and insurance tripping him up is highly unlikely as they are a horse of a different color, in other words the two are not related legally.

Having or not having a SS in an of itself does not make one taxable or untaxable. The SS# is merely a tracking number used by the IRS and is not related directly to the social security trust/contract. sk

Some info on the SS#:

At the birth of the Social Security Number (SSN), grave concerns about such a number becoming identificatory in nature predominated. Consequently, extraordinary care was taken in an effort to ensure against any potential for that kind of misuse arising.
In order to manage the individuated accounts, it was necessary for the government, the Social Security Administration, to receive individuated contributions from beneficiaries and their employers. This was an exchange of information between government and business unheard of in a nation of personal liberties and freedoms, and was only known of in fascist and totalitarianist regimes of the time. This was, understandably, unpalatable and a source of great revulsion over the program.
In order to mitigate the fascist implications and the identificatory potentiality of the Social Security Number, the law authorizing the exchange of information between the Social Security Administration and the employers was crafted very narrowly. First, the records of the Social Security Administration itself were essentially sealed, even against other government agencies. Then, employers were ONLY authorized to disclose the SSN itself to the Social Security Administration, in accompaniment to the payment of the individuated contribution. And, in return, the Social Security Administration was ONLY authorized to disclose whether or not the employer-reported number was a valid Social Security Account Number. NO OTHER INFORMATION COULD BE EXCHANGED between the government (Social Security Administration) and employers. No name. No date of birth. No gender. Nothing else. The transmission of information and funds, then, was little different from making a deposit into a numbered bank account - only the number and the funds were necessary.
This narrowly limited scope of exchange between employers and the Social Security Administration remains the rule of law to this day.

[link to idhistory.ncidpolicy.org]

"Social Security Number Related Records" are sealed confidential by federal law [42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(viii)].
Do you need to hear that again?
Sealed confidential.
ANY disclosure of any part of any such records is the same federal felony as disclosure of income tax information filed with the IRS [26 U.S.C. § 7213], punishable by 5 years in federal prison for each such disclosure.
There are NO "routine use" loopholes, no "preexisting use" loopholes, not even an exception that allows disclosure with 'permission' of the person to whom the record belongs.
Sealed confidential.
AND, get this: the record is a "Social Security Number Related Record" merely for any SOLICITATION of a Social Security Number. That is, the person may exercise the right to prohibit the soliciting person or organization from obtaining or accessing a SSN, but the record is still a "Social Security Number Related Record", and thereby it is still sealed confidential.
Please understand this: any person who asks for your Social Security Number is a felon if they then disclose any part of the record about you to any other party, even so much as your name, even to acknowledge the existence of your record. Such records simply cannot be disclosed in any part to any party at any time, period.
This statute has one, and only one, loophole which, as of 2011 is almost never applicable any more: a law, meaning any federal, state or local law, must be applicable to the keeper or keeping of the "Social Security Number Related Record" that was enacted after October 10th, 1990. or the record does not gain a confidential seal.
For example, a state might have decided to pass a law after 1990 mandating that a SSN must be solicited for creation of a birth record for a newborn child. Thus, all such birth records would be utterly sealed, available only to the child described by the record, to whom it belongs.

[link to idlaw.ncidpolicy.org]

Your dad's friend should be able to give us the Federal Case number that sent him to prison, since it is public record.

We have many suitors who have access to the Federal Record, so just give us a name and we can research your claim for ourselves.

By the way, if he was not demanding lawful money with each transaction he undertook, then he was not protected.

We can back up your claim in just a few minutes of research, so let us do it.

While I am waiting for proof of claim via a case number from the AC, I am going to rant about something.

Nearly every time I speak to the things in this thread, I always get similar 'arguments' from nay sayers.

1. The ALL CAPS name. There are several cases where defendants in cases have argued the ALL CAPS name is not them and therefore the case should be thrown out.

As I have pointed out in this thread, the time to point out that truth is before the acceptance of the ALL CAPS name has already happend. The Government has 'ruled' there is no difference between an ALL CAPS person name and the living man or woman. Well, if that is true, then demand they change it on and for the record. David tells me the legalize term for this is "abatement for misnomer". I call it recording the FACTS and creating a record.

Example:

"On and for the record, the COURT is trying to record that I AM XXXALL CAPS NAMEXXXX, according to written and accepted rules of spelling, MY true name is spelled "Upper Case X, lower case xxxx, Upper case X, lower case xxxx. I will accept no other spelling of my true name on or in any FORM."

Similar things are not the same things, and ALL CAPS names are written that way for a reason. I may not know what that reason is, BUT THEY DO and I will not accept it as being me. Again, if it does not mean anything, they should have no issue spelling it according the rules of spelling we all learned in grade school, RIGHT?

Also, if the ALL CAPS name is not you, then why are you interfering with the CASE anyway? Because they have convinced you to agree it is YOU and now you are there to argue it is not. Let the record you create stand as you stand your ground and stop arguing, its NOT YOUR CASE, only YOUR PUBLIC RECORD. Only after they have forced you to be there under armed threats of violence should not be there. By the way, a letter is not armed force, just so you know.

Never once have I had a man or woman tell me how to spell their name or stop me from spelling it with all CAPITOL letters as a police officer. Start doing it and see what happens, I promise you, it makes a difference when you tell the truth.

Remember, everything you say will be used against you. Therefore, everything you do not say (or correct) will be used against you also.
2. The DATE OF BIRTH. No man or woman can tell me what today is and prove it, therefore, for any man or woman to tell me what 'date' or place I was born, I will call them a liar to their face, on and for the record.

There is a REASON all 'affidavits' sworn (falsely) by police officers start out with "on or about the X day of MONTH, year, blah, blah blah..."

Because it is not provable, so do not agree to it, otherwise, you are a liar as well.

3. NEVER expect them to "agree" with you on any of this, its not their job. Create your record, tell them the truth and the FACTS and take your record of those facts to the District court, open your case with redeemed lawful money and record your judgement there. They have no standing on the land because they are not living the law of the land.

Not legal advise, if you do not overstand something, pray about it and study it until you do and your eyes will be opened.

Good day all.

It appears as if AC 441 was just doing a drive by.

Bump for the morning crowd.

Gotta bump for the passport thread...

maybe someone will actually learn something.